I was not sure what to make of Prop. 17. But once I read their website, I had to agree with this ballot measure.
Here is a summary of this measure, from their campaign website:
THE PROBLEM:
Drivers Are Not Eligible for Their “Continuous Coverage” Discount If They Change Insurers
Under current law, drivers who have maintained auto insurance with the same insurance company are eligible for a continuous coverage discount. However, a flaw in law prohibits drivers from taking this continuous coverage discount with them if they switch insurers.
THE SOLUTION:
Proposition 17 – The Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act
Prop. 17 ends that penalty and allows drivers to keep their continuous coverage discount even if they change insurers.
Prop. 17 means more competition, more choice and lower rates for California consumers so that drivers can shop around for the lowest auto insurance rates without being punished if they want to change insurers. Vote YES ON 17 on June 8, 2010 Primary Election ballot! Join John & Ken and Vote YES on 17!
Endorsed by:
Consumers First
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
California Senior Advocates League
California Black Chamber of Commerce
Small Business Action Committee
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Taxpayer Protection Committee
California Small Business
Association
Are you serious? You were convinced by reading the Yes on 17 website? Did you go here at all? http://www.stopprop17.org/ It’s as big a ripoff as Prop 16, and I really didn’t think anyone on this blog would fall for it.
It is completely funded by Mercury Insurance. And I thought it was already considered a laughing matter that they want us to believe they’re spending millions and millions to save US money. No, what they are trying to do is enable themselves to charge you up to a thousand a year extra if you go without insurance for a short time for any reason at all – like, for a month you’re without a car or don’t need to drive anywhere. And there are no exceptions for military stationed around the country far from their cars for months at a time.
If you’re gonna just copy and paste off the Mercury website, I’ll do the same here from the opposition. And if those dillwads John and Ken are backing it, I’ll bet you Mercury advertises on their lameass show.
Proposition 17 would allow insurance companies to raise premiums on millions of good drivers in California. That’s why Prop 17 is sponsored and fully funded by insurance companies. By making insurance companies less accountable, Prop 17 will make auto insurance more expensive in California.
Groups opposing Prop 17 include: Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, VoteVets.org, California Nurses Association, California Federation of Teachers, Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Federation of California, and the California Alliance of Retired Americans. (who the hell are those phony astroturf groups listed among the backers anyway?)
The California Department of Insurance and the Attorney General have concluded that Prop 17 will allow insurance companies to raise premiums on drivers who, for virtually any reason, did not have insurance coverage at some point in the past five years.
Prop 17 will hurt good drivers, families already struggling with a tough economy, soldiers, seniors and students. Please vote NO on Prop 17.
Prop 17 Myths Exposed from Consumer Watchdog on Vimeo.
Sure, Art. Mercury Insurance has your best interests in mind and is bankrolling this as a measure to give consumers a break, And the Santa Ana School district is the best managed district in the county. Miguel Pulido is a nice guy who just owns a muffler shop.
Quimby and Vern,
Mercury will be able to get more customers by being able to give them a discount for having been insured. Makes sense to me.
The Register also endorsed this measure.
I don’t think this is about charging more, but rather about letting you switch insurance companies without being penalized.
Art my friend,
It was late. Your fingers were moving. But your critical faculties were turned off.
I know you hate to admit mistakes. But I’d take this post down. Mercury can PAY to advertise on our blog. What’s a thousand or so compared to the 13 million they’ve already sunk into this?
Remember, Friends Don’t Let Friend Vote For 16 Or 17.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/04/friends-dont-let-friends-vote-for-prop-16-17-part-two/
While allowing discounts for continuous coverage to be transfered to another insurance company. The prop allows as a trade off several fees to be deregulated that are currently regulated.
In states where this has been done so of the fees have exceeded $ 500.00 for various items each.
While good drivers that keep thier coverage current and have no tickets will see a small benifit, everyone else will see thier rates increase.
Mercury would not be putting this much money up for something that would not make them more money.
Simple choice vote no.
Jim. Follow the money and read the story behind the story.
Thanks. I have already voted NO
Jim and Larry,
Here is what the O.C. Register had to say about Prop. 17:
Yes on Prop. 17: Partial fix of bigger problem
The Register 22 years ago vigorously opposed Proposition 103, which created a regulatory system for the auto insurance industry similar to the regulation of public utilities. That initiative also forced insurance companies to reduce premiums 20 percent, but prevented insurers from granting motorists discounts when switching companies for having kept uninterrupted coverage.
Mercury Insurance Co. is Prop. 17’s prime backer, seeking voter approval to grant such premium discounts. Self-described “consumer” advocates say the discounts disproportionately will increase costs for drivers denied them.
Perhaps, but private companies selling to private individuals should determine for themselves what discounts to offer and to what buyers. The idea that government must bless these private transactions is offensive, and corrupts supply and demand. Moreover, consumers may well benefit from new competition by paying less.
Prop. 17 would permit motorists insured five years with any company to transfer that “loyalty” factor to a new insurer. Current law doesn’t. California insurers and motorists stand to recoup freedoms lost in 1988.
Vote “yes” on Prop. 17.
Is this really Art? Art Pedroza? Or is someone using your name?
Copying and pasting Mercury’s Yes site, and now copying and pasting a REGISTER EDITORIAL?
As though either of those are authoritative?
Art. Are you now agreeing with the Register? Even my broken clock is right twice a day.
The problem is that the electorate is often lured into decison making by costly & effective spin.
While this is not a key issue for me, I have a story in the works that addresses the other partisan races
Even my broken clock is right twice a day.
I don’t think that’s the expression you meant to use, Brother Larry.
It’s true that a broken clock is right twice a day.
And it’s true that the Register is a broken clock.
But I think you’d agree this is NOT one of the times this broken clock is right!
Brother Vern. You do know that I not only recommended a NO vote on Prop 17 I put my money where my mouth is and voted accordingly. For the record. I also cast NO Votes on 14, 15 and 16
Vern,
The Register’s ed-board has a Libertarian outlook that I share.
The Register is the shill type of “libertarian,” – always just looking out for the interests of the biggest corporations. Like Mercury Insurance.
Wow! I’m totally amazed at the poor judgment you show endorsing the lying insurance corporation! NO WAY will I vote for their hands to feel around any
deeper into my pockets! I thought you were more thoughtful of the public interest, but I see you are easily distracted by bright, shiny objects dangled in front of you. Mercury gets enough money from us poor suckers! What next? You want to boost the poor little Pacific Gas and Electric shop?