Here's an absolute gem that has appeared out of thin air in tonight's Assembly-Senate budget agreement:
Most auto insurers set their rates by a number of factors, one of which is geography. Typically, insurers use zip codes to do this.
As we all know, if you are Leon Young's constituent, you are more likely to get your car stolen or broken into than if you are, say, Jen Shilling's constituent. Accordingly, Leon's constituents have to pay more to obtain the same level of insurance as Jen's constituents because vehicles there are at greater risk of theft or damage.
What this proposal does is consider all of Wisconsin one geographic zone. Which means auto insurers would no longer be allowed to consider geography when establishing premiums.
Similarly, insurers consider how long a driver has been insured because it gives them a reliable data on a driver's safety history. By refusing to allow insurers to consider this information, Democrats are trying to financially protect existing drivers who have chosen to drive without insurance but will now be required to carry it.
What's the point of this? Well, it appears as though the Legislative Black Caucus (featuring Pedro Colón) finally figured out that its constituents, more than any others, were going to take it in the behind as a result of Democratic efforts to mandate 100 (individual)/300 (combined) levels of liability coverage for all drivers.
Assuming Milwaukee to be like many other big cities, a fair number of the LBC's constituents are either not carrying insurance to begin with or are carrying the minimum 25/50 levels that insurers offer. So instead of making their constituents bear the financial consequence of their decisions, the LBC would like to spread the cost of that risk over everyone else in the state.
That means if you're a constituent of Jen Shilling, or Ann Hraychuck, or Mark Radcliffe, or Captain Air Guitar, your auto insurance premiums are going up. Not just because you might have to buy more insurance, but because Democratic legislators want you to subsidize a bunch of drivers in unsafe neighborhoods who don't have auto insurance right now.
In terms of evaluating the likelihood of property damage, geography is the single largest determinant of risk - and Democrats don't want to let insurers use it. So if you live in La Crosse, or Black River Falls, or Platteville, or Fort Atkinson, your legislators are about to ask you to suck it up so Lena Taylor's uninsured constituent can ride a little bit cheaper. How does that make you feel?
Conference Committee: Modify provisions in the substitute amendment relating to motor vehicle insurance policies and insurer practices to: (a) limit "stacking" of motor vehicle policies (combining coverage limits for multiple vehicles to determine the limit of insurance coverage available for bodily injury or death suffered by a person in any one accident) to three vehicles owned by the insured; (b) prohibit an insurer from placing an insured in a high-risk category because the insured previously had no motor vehicle insurance; and (c) prohibit an insurer from assessing risk based on where a vehicle is registered. Specify that these provisions would take effect on the first day of the fifth month beginning after the bill's publication, and first apply to motor vehicle insurance policies issued or renewed on that date.Let's focus on B and C to see what a total giveaway this is to the Legislative Black Caucus (featuring Pedro Colón).
Most auto insurers set their rates by a number of factors, one of which is geography. Typically, insurers use zip codes to do this.
As we all know, if you are Leon Young's constituent, you are more likely to get your car stolen or broken into than if you are, say, Jen Shilling's constituent. Accordingly, Leon's constituents have to pay more to obtain the same level of insurance as Jen's constituents because vehicles there are at greater risk of theft or damage.
What this proposal does is consider all of Wisconsin one geographic zone. Which means auto insurers would no longer be allowed to consider geography when establishing premiums.
Similarly, insurers consider how long a driver has been insured because it gives them a reliable data on a driver's safety history. By refusing to allow insurers to consider this information, Democrats are trying to financially protect existing drivers who have chosen to drive without insurance but will now be required to carry it.
What's the point of this? Well, it appears as though the Legislative Black Caucus (featuring Pedro Colón) finally figured out that its constituents, more than any others, were going to take it in the behind as a result of Democratic efforts to mandate 100 (individual)/300 (combined) levels of liability coverage for all drivers.
Assuming Milwaukee to be like many other big cities, a fair number of the LBC's constituents are either not carrying insurance to begin with or are carrying the minimum 25/50 levels that insurers offer. So instead of making their constituents bear the financial consequence of their decisions, the LBC would like to spread the cost of that risk over everyone else in the state.
That means if you're a constituent of Jen Shilling, or Ann Hraychuck, or Mark Radcliffe, or Captain Air Guitar, your auto insurance premiums are going up. Not just because you might have to buy more insurance, but because Democratic legislators want you to subsidize a bunch of drivers in unsafe neighborhoods who don't have auto insurance right now.
In terms of evaluating the likelihood of property damage, geography is the single largest determinant of risk - and Democrats don't want to let insurers use it. So if you live in La Crosse, or Black River Falls, or Platteville, or Fort Atkinson, your legislators are about to ask you to suck it up so Lena Taylor's uninsured constituent can ride a little bit cheaper. How does that make you feel?
7 comments:
Once again, Dems show why they never last in the majority for long anymore.
All they'd have to do is govern reasonably competently and the GOP, as it's currently constituted, would never get more than 35% of the vote.
But noooo....
How does it make me feel?
MAD AS HELL!
Interesting....
The insurers can't assess "risk based on where a vehicle is registered." Could they instead assess risk based on where the policy is registered?
Auto insurance gets mailed to one location, but they make sure to ask where the car is registered (which I guess won't be asked anymore) just in case it's different.
Your vehicle isn't exactly the same as your policy. Prohibiting one isn't the same as prohibiting them both. I suppose the main problem with this would be with P.O. Boxes.
The GOP is coming back power? Since you and Owen seem to be the only Republican bloggers left in the state, I guess the ground swell of support isn't quite there yet. And today Owen is now writing about cats... well how long before you are going fishing like the rest of your team? Its nice to see you carrying the auto insurance lobby's water, maybe the Club for Growth can have at the next Tea Party.
Please tell me how it is exactly that I'm carrying water for the auto insurance lobby? I don't have any problem with an insurance mandate. My issue is with a bunch of hack Democrats from Milwaukee County making everyone else subsidize insurance for their constituents.
Perhaps you can tell me how, as a Democrat, you think that's defensible. I'd welcome that too. Look forward to your response.
It's all good, Doyle vetoed it.
Yeah, I just saw that. Gov. Doyle is clearly a smarter politician than legislative leaders, who forced outstate members to swallow that provision in the first place.
Post a Comment