The old saying, “Give them an inch and they will take a mile,” is perhaps a fair. What does auto insurance coverage have to do with terrorists in Libya?
According to statements made this week by Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group in California, everything.
“They are spitting in the eyes of foreign service officers and other heroes,”
said a Consumer Watchdog spokesperson regarding California’s Proposition 33 up for vote this year. In short: Two parties are struggling about a car insurance law in California and to prove their point one party now invokes terrorist attacks in Libya. CarInsuranceCalculator.info wraps up and tells you what you and California drivers need to know to make your own opinion.
Two parties are struggling heavily about an auto insurance law in CA - now one party even invokes terrorist attacks in Libya to prove their point.
Proposition 33 Fact Sheet
Official Source:
Official Voter Information Guide
Quick Summary
Pros
- Creates competition between insurers for customers, hence lowers premiums for insured drivers and the possibility to get better deals
- Freedom for consumers to chose their insurance carrier without worrying about premiums going up
- Rewards responsible drivers who abide the law
Cons
The History
Proposition 33 (or Prop 33 for short) overturns a law that had passed in 1988 in which auto insurers were barred from surcharging (or refusing to sell insurance to) Californians who were previously without insurance. Prop 33 (PDF) allows insurance companies to surcharge Californians who do not maintain continuous liability insurance coverage and discounts the car insurance for Californians who do maintain continuous coverage. Additionally, Prop 33 allows Californians that are shopping around for insurance rates to take the continuous insurance discount with them from company to company as long as there is no lapse in coverage between policies.
The Consumer Watchdog and Prop 33 opponents say that it makes people that have been forced to cancel auto insurance coverage or that have experienced some kind of lapse in coverage, like people with lower incomes and military members, and government employees working overseas, ‘bulls eye’ targets for costly auto insurance premiums since they face the circumstances that often result in lapses more often than the average policyholder does.
Proponents say that Prop 33 just brings California in alignment with the rest of the country. Pretty much every state other than California surcharges those who have a lapse in coverage for any reason. Sometimes an underwriter can get an exception for active military in some states and with some companies though.
The Dispute
CW further provided fuel to the fire (follow the whole campaign here) when they wrote a letter to George Joseph, a supporter and contributor hoping to help pass Prop 33, stating that the auto insurance bill unfairly penalizes members of the military and foreign service employees, and asked that ‘deceptive’ and ‘disrespectful’ radio advertising in support of Prop 33 sponsored by Johnson be removed immediately out of respect for military officers who put their lives in danger overseas. The “disrespectful” campaign CW referred to says that Prop 33 protects veterans and military families saving them money by keeping certain discounts on car insurance, thus saving them money. CW disagrees and says that this claim is misleading.
The Ad Campaign
The letter from CW to Johnson further read:
“Your radio advertisement claims Prop 33 is about “supporting our heroes.” But under Prop 33, good drivers who have stopped driving for legitimate reasons – like serving abroad in our foreign service – would be hit with large surcharges if they decided to drive again and buy insurance in California. For political reasons, you exempted from Prop 33’s large rate increases a small segment of those who stop driving for legitimate reasons, active duty military officers. That certainly does not mean you are helping soldiers keep a discount.”
To further their point that the radio ad wasn’t true and that Prop 33 is wrong, CW founded an argument upon a recent event.
This is where Libya came into the picture. CW says the attack by terrorists in Libya on the US Consulate which took the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Officer Sean Smith, and two security guards, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, was the perfect example of how Proposition 33 would negatively affect military service men and women and foreign services employees who for whatever reason are unable to maintain continuous auto insurance coverage, such as if they’re ill, injured, or unable to make a payment on their insurance for whatever reason—such as if they’re injured in a terrorist attack overseas or in war. Such a bill could also penalize family members of these men and women who face trying times when the military member or foreign employees’ relatives have to deal with tragedies like those in Libya. Lapses could be brought on for a number of reasons, and according to CW, the things that often result in coverage lapses are faced regularly by military members and foreign service employees.
Both Sides Of the Story
Prop 33 supporters say that it provides discounts for people simply following the law, just like in every other state. Joseph has stated in the past that Prop 33 would encourage competition between insurance companies and is consumer friendly. As long as people follow the law to remain insured, the discount benefits them.
There are provisions in the measure to excuse lapses in these situations:
- Overseas or domestic active military duty
- Unemployed during the time of lapse
- People who have been uninsured for less than 18 months
CW insists that there will be far fewer discounts for continuous coverage than there would be in surcharges for uninsured people. Some believe these ‘modest’ discounts are at the expense of drivers who haven’t been previously insured, and that could possibly include what some have been calling ‘deadbeats’ as related to Prop 33—aka those who are driving illegally by not carrying insurance. However, there’s the possibility that it could reach into the pockets of people who simply choose not to drive at all or those who become unable to drive, like if they become ill.
Prop 33 is doing all it can to protect people they believe will be prime targets for expensive insurance premiums and unfair treatment for something someone may not have had control over. This is even for the so-called “deadbeats” as long as they don’t go longer than 18 months without coverage. Regardless of this though, actions of Consumer Watchdog are being critiqued carefully by all kinds of people, and now a new question has been raised—is it right for Consumer Watchdog to use the death of US members abroad as an opportunity to enhance their agenda? It’s not as though this hasn’t been done before, but whether it’s right or wrong to do, it’s for certain that Consumer Watchdog did figure out a way to provoke thoughts about Prop 33.
