Editorial, SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL
The measures on the June 8 primary ballot for California are mostly an obscure bunch — perhaps none more so than Proposition 17, which has been pitched as a benefit for drivers who want to buy vehicle insurance.
But the measure is primarily funded by Mercury Insurance, along with a few business groups. Proponents say it will change burdensome insurance regulations put in place by voters in 1988 through Proposition 103 to reform insurance-industry practices in California.
The measure would allow insurance companies to offer new customers who were switching from another insurer a “continuous coverage” discount that is currently prohibited by Proposition 103.
Mercury and the other backers of 17 say the change would benefit the 80 percent of drivers who have kept up their insurance, but simply want to change insurers and can’t take the discount with them, without getting hit with a surcharge of up to $250.
But what Mercury and other advocates aren’t telling voters is that 17 would allow insurance companies to raise rates on the drivers who, for whatever reason, allow their policies to lapse.
And who might be included in this group? It could be you if, say, you were ill for a long period and did not pay your premiums. Or perhaps you lose a job and can’t make your monthly payments and your insurance is canceled — but now you’re working again and need to purchase auto insurance.
Proposition 17 would end up costing you money.
Mercury Insurance says these fears are unfounded, that because other insurers would be vying for your business, companies wouldn’t jack up rates.
Maybe. But drivers are under legal obligation to carry insurance in California and people who have been unable to afford insurance would have no affordability protection under state law if this measure passed.
That’s why almost all credible consumer organizations are opposing Proposition 17. It’s also why former state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi is against the measure. The measure, if passed, would offer negligible benefits to Californians shopping for a new carrier, while adding significant costs to people who can hardly afford insurance.
Proposition 17 exemplifies the problems with California’s initiative process, which is unduly favorable to deep-pocketed special interests.
Vote no on Proposition 17.
Tags: big corporations, consumer, deceptive, Editorial, Mercury, NewsStory, Prop 17, voters
