California Conservative

This Makes the Case for Poizner for Insurance Commissioner

Blogger’s Note: Poizner was endorsed by the CRA, the most Conservative Statewide Organization in California, and Conservative Organizations do exist in this state, do not forget.

Here’s the ball game, you have a self-made Billionaire businessman ruinning against a racist career politician for Insurance Commissioner. I use an editorial I am attaching to make the case for why career politicians should never be Insurance Commissioner.

Steve Poizner has signed both sides of a paycheck, John Garamendhi has lived off of the taxpayers most of his adult life in office as has Cruz BustaMEChA. (this highlights Cruz’ membership in a racist organization that has as their desire the RE-Conquista of the territory we took from Mexco after they attacked us in 1848.) We call Bustamonte either BustaMEChA or “the Chalupa”. (That Racist Organization is known as MEChA… google it and if you are white, make sure you are sitting down when you look at their website…)

This editorial is about Garamendhi’s latest idiotic Insurance Regulation Idea… People who live in the real world don’t think of stuff like this. For those of you that read this blog who live in and North of Kern County with the exception of the Bay Area… you should be keenly aware as our rates will get hammered if this Bombastically Idiotic regulation gets adopted.

At least Garamendhi has a brain, he knows why he hates the Insurance Industry… Cruz BustaMEChA on the other hand is just looking for another government job. The “Chalupa” as insurance commissioner would make the below story would only be the tip of the iceberg.

—–

Garamendi insurance plan invites cynicism

San Dieto UNION-TRIBUNE Editorial

February 16, 2006

It sure sounds fair. That’s the initial appeal of Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi’s plan to revamp auto insurance rules to make premiums more dependent on driving records and how much one drives than on ZIP codes.

“This regulation is simply a requirement that insurers base rates primarily on how people drive, and not where they live,” the veteran Democrat said at the Dec. 22 unveiling of his proposal, which he hopes to implement this summer.

But the more one looks at what Garamendi wants, the less it looks like a noble public servant pursuing “basic fairness” and the more it seems crassly political.

Consider some of the many strong counterarguments against his plan. Here are three:

Accidents are hardly the only factor in setting insurance rates. Auto thefts and vandalism are hugely costly. This is why ZIP codes are crucial to insurers’ formulas. Why should drivers in low-crime areas be forced to subsidize those in high-crime areas?

Driving records aren’t nearly as reliable in predicting risk as one might think. The ease with which motorists can erase accidents and violations from their driving records by going to worthless “traffic schools” reduces the salience of those records. Many drivers also don’t report fender-benders.

All mileage is not equal. Accidents are much more likely in cities than rural areas. Is a 10-block trip in Los Angeles less risky than a 10-mile drive in Imperial County?

In a phone interview, Garamendi stuck to his guns. He said the idea that ZIP codes offer great insight into driver risk is nonsense. He said the reason insurers object to his proposal is because of their concerns about maintaining their “marketing strategies,” not because they want to use
rational formulas to calculate risk.

And Garamendi said that beyond arguments on the merits of the changes, he was obligated to pursue new rules to conform with Proposition 103, the 1988 auto-insurance initiative.

We are unpersuaded. The present rules have been upheld by the courts, and insurers – especially Mercury executive George Joseph – make a strong case the current system does a good job of judging risk.

Besides that, we are far more inclined to trust the private sector to know how to run a business than a government bureaucrat, even an elected one. That is especially true when the bureaucrat is running for lieutenant governor. (Editor’s note: There’s the rub…)

It is hardly cynical to note the drivers who would most benefit from Garamendi’s plan are in heavily Democratic areas – big cities and working-class suburbs. The drivers who would be hit the hardest are in generally Republican areas – rural counties and affluent suburbs.

So Garamendi wants to take money from Republicans and give it to Democrats, and in an election year in which he’s seeking the Democratic nomination for a new, high-profile office. If this is a coincidence, it’s one that is remarkably beneficial to Garamendi.

Here’s hoping this point and all the insurers’ counterarguments are hammered home at the hearing on the new rules to be held on Feb. 24 in San Francisco. What John Garamendi bills as smart reform looks far more like political opportunism.

Expect nothing different from the Chalupa…

Cross-posted by Aaron F. Park

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of CaliforniaConservative.org

This entry was posted on Friday, March 10th, 2006 at 12:39 am and is filed under Activism, Author: Aaron Park, California, Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.