l****r
发帖数: 97 | 1 没觉得这个有什么不好啊，可看板上有不少人是要反对的。
有什么trap在这个prop里面吗？觉的通过了以后换保险公司要容易了吧。 | f*******n
发帖数: 12623 | 2 Prop 33就是重复2010年打败的Prop 17。Prop 33的结果是如果你如果有一段时间没有
车（所以没有保险），他们可以涨你的保险费，就算你有驾照了很多年而且有最好的驾
驶纪录。因为现在，如果你停止开车一段时间，再去买保险，就和平时换保险公司一样
，只看你的驾龄和驾驶纪录。但是如果他们可以区分换保险公司的人和没有保险的人，
那你停止开车后再去买保险，他们就可以涨你的保险费。 | a******o
发帖数: 16625 | 3 我觉得不能给保险公司任何新的理由涨保险了。ticket已经很烦了。 | l****r
发帖数: 97 | 4 谢谢回答。 可你这个答复跟官方的反对意见差不多哈。没有直接反驳正方的理由。现
在保险公司是对长期在自己家的给discount，那么对新人只是没有discount，并不是涨
价啊。
现在的办法是保护既得利益的保险公司，让人很难换保险公司，对想进加州的保险公司
设置门槛吧。
好像这个提案是一个保险公司力推，其他的反对吧。
【在 f*******n 的大作中提到】
: Prop 33就是重复2010年打败的Prop 17。Prop 33的结果是如果你如果有一段时间没有
: 车（所以没有保险），他们可以涨你的保险费，就算你有驾照了很多年而且有最好的驾
: 驶纪录。因为现在，如果你停止开车一段时间，再去买保险，就和平时换保险公司一样
: ，只看你的驾龄和驾驶纪录。但是如果他们可以区分换保险公司的人和没有保险的人，
: 那你停止开车后再去买保险，他们就可以涨你的保险费。
| c*********o
发帖数: 471 | 5 Mecury Insurance pushed for this.
1.5 * rating.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/insurance/mercury.html
From Mecury news:
Two years ago, billionaire George Joseph, chairman of Mercury Insurance,
spent $16 million of the company's money on Proposition 17, a direct attack
on California's strong insurance rights laws. At the time, we called it the
worst abuse of California's initiative process on the 2010 ballot, which was
saying something, since it was competing with PG&E's $46 million assault on
its potential competitors.
Like an irritating mosquito, Joseph and his millions are back again this
year with Proposition 33, essentially a new version of the law voters
rejected two years ago.
California voters should vote no on Proposition 33 on Nov. 6 in such large
numbers that Joseph never tries to dupe Golden State residents
again.
Joseph isn't lacking for chutzpah. Two years ago, the California Department
of Insurance said Mercury Insurance had overcharged and discriminated
against California customers for 15 years, and Mercury Insurance was fined $
500,000 for other violations before 2010. But Joseph, whose company sought
an $89 million rate hike last December, wants you to believe that he is
spending millions on Proposition 33 to save consumers money on their auto
insurance.
What he really wants is to score a direct hit on Proposition 103, the 1988
initiative that forced auto insurance companies to justify rate increases
before imposing them. That proposition significantly lowered rates, saving
Californians hundreds of millions of dollars.
Advertisement
Californians should prepare to hear a lot of ads in the coming weeks
claiming that Proposition 33 will allow insurance companies to give a "
continuous coverage" discount to new customers who, for whatever reason,
want to switch from one insurer to another. But Proposition 33 would
actually allow insurance companies to substantially increase rates for
drivers whose insurance has lapsed for 90 days or more. That practice was
outlawed by the 1988 initiative, with good reason.
Since California requires car owners to have insurance coverage, insurers
would have drivers whose insurance lapsed over a barrel if the law changes.
Proponents of Proposition 33 say that won't happen because competition
between insurers would be too fierce. But before Proposition 103 was passed,
there were all kinds of examples of insurers gouging drivers in this manner.
It's too bad it's so easy for wealthy individuals and corporations to abuse
the state's initiative process. But voting this turkey down once should have
been enough. Let's hope a landslide vote this time around does the trick. | l*****s
发帖数: 623 | 6 某天听电视里一个comment说，如果通过了，discount是可以给，不是必须给，但停一
段时间再买保险肯定会有surcharge。 | z******a
发帖数: 5381 | 7 这个貌似不合理阿。 如果我老有事回国半年
没理由继续买保险啊？那回来立刻涨价？或者强迫我继续买半年，这不是等同强奸么？
从来没有保险的年轻人，年龄，驾龄上面已经有足够的价格区分了。再来这个，我老看
来纯粹是保险公司太嘿所致
【在 l*****s 的大作中提到】
: 某天听电视里一个comment说，如果通过了，discount是可以给，不是必须给，但停一
: 段时间再买保险肯定会有surcharge。
| M*********r
发帖数: 130 | 8 这新法案对持续投保的人有更多的discount吗？ 还是也和现在一样，没差别？
如果对持续保险的人没好处，对不持续投保的人还要增收， 那我怎么看也是个NO的法
案吧。 |
|
