If it sounds too good to be true, it is — yet again
Proposition 17 is full of fuzzy promises, and voters have good reason to be confused and concerned. Ultimately, those concerns should translate into a no vote.
As with Proposition 16, which is bankrolled by PG&E, Proposition 17 is almost entirely funded by one special interest — Mercury Insurance Co. — under the pretense of benefiting consumers.
It doesn’t. Not in the long run.
Proposition 17 would tweak existing law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their insurance coverage for at least five years. Right now, insurance companies are prohibited from offering that “continuous coverage” discount if drivers switch companies.
Proponents contend that the discount would promote competition and save good drivers up to $250 a year. So, what’s not to like?
Plenty. Here’s the problem. In California, one person’s discount is most likely going to end up being another person’s surcharge.
As a result, Proposition 17 will only make it more difficult and more expensive for uninsured drivers — including those who have allowed their coverage to lapse for 90 days due to unemployment, college, stateside military service or a number of other reasons — to obtain coverage.
That means that whatever short-term benefit drivers may gain by this measure would be wiped out by the long-term risk and increased costs of accidents involving uninsured motorists. Sonoma County has enough of those out on the streets as it is.
The state should be doing more to help uninsured drivers obtain coverage, not laying more traps to ensure they stay away.
This is why so many consumer organizations across the state, including Consumers Union and Consumer Watchdog, are opposed to Proposition 17. The California Community College trustees also recently came out in opposition, noting the measure’s “disproportionate impact” on low-income Californians, including many community college students.
Mercury Insurance, the third largest carrier in the state, argues that the company is only looking out for the best interests of drivers. Color us skeptical.
What’s lost in this discussion is that the primary factors that determine insurance rates are driver safety, the number of miles driven per year and years of driving experience. “Continuous coverage” is just one of 16 optional rating factors that insurance companies can use to reward and lure customers.
If insurance companies really want to reward good drivers, they have the tools in hand to do so.
The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 17.
