Garramendi is a typical \”D\” with his ignorant comments of how unfair pricing is based upon loss statistics in a specific region. I wonder how much damage this idiot can do as Lt. Gov.? Prior to electing the next \”Harvard Graduate\” as insurance commissioner, should we not require an insurance license exam at the very least? Garramendi has never spoken to tne Actuaries at the DOI?
Typical \”D\”!!!!
If the carriers can offer proof that zip code factors affect the possibility of loss, then why can\’t that factor be used to determine rates? What Garamendi really wants is for the good risks to subsidize the less-than-desirable risks…does he next want to regulate housing prices so that the less desirable zip codes pay the same as the more desirable zip codes? Of course not…that would be unfair, and interfere with the market setting pricing. Well, let insurance companies do the same. If a zip code produces disproportinate losses, then it should be surcharged. If it produces better than expected loss ration, it should be rewarded. Nothing more, and nothing less. Where you live can affect your losses as much, if not more, than your driving experience or miles driven. How Garamendi doesn\’t see that is beyond me, but he is a politician, so that likely explains it all.
Garamendi wants the suburbs to subsidize inner-city rates because that is where he hopes to get the votes to win the Lt. Governor\’s race…and that is where the votes are…do the math!!
Well, with only 5 out of 58 counties passing it by 51.2% yes to 48.8% no, it seems only fitting that more than 60 % of us will pay more for insurance due to an ignorant voting public.
Well it seems to me if that is the way Mr. G feels the companies should be allowed to charge or surcharge a persentage on the comprehensive losses that occur in the areas that are high risk. There should be some balance somewhere or we may see some red lining that should not occur.
You should reread what Garamendi said. Obviously, carriers can prove that zip code is a significant predictor of loss, just as credit scoring is. \”then why can\’t that factor be used to determine rates?\” He\’s not saying it can\’t. What he\’s saying is that the Post Office does not draw zip code boundaries for the accurate determination of insurable risk, and because of that, some people in one section of a zip code pay more than they should, subsidizing other people in the same and other zip codes. He\’s actually asking carriers to be more precise.
\”What Garamendi really wants is for the good risks to subsidize the less-than-desirable risks…\” Perhaps. But he is also responding to consumer frustration, the same frustration that credit scoring causes. Ultimately, the best solution would be for a carrier to target the zip code boundary market with better pricing, and leave adverse selection to the lazy carriers.
I am an independent agent and understand the pool concept. By breaking down the pool concept to zip codes insurance companies can more closely reflect rates in a given area. Without this mechanism, certain people are rewarded for living in a risk area, and other people are penalized for living in a low risk area. This is socialism, pure and simple. No surprise! Garamendi is a socialist.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Garramendi is a typical \”D\” with his ignorant comments of how unfair pricing is based upon loss statistics in a specific region. I wonder how much damage this idiot can do as Lt. Gov.? Prior to electing the next \”Harvard Graduate\” as insurance commissioner, should we not require an insurance license exam at the very least? Garramendi has never spoken to tne Actuaries at the DOI?
Typical \”D\”!!!!
If the carriers can offer proof that zip code factors affect the possibility of loss, then why can\’t that factor be used to determine rates? What Garamendi really wants is for the good risks to subsidize the less-than-desirable risks…does he next want to regulate housing prices so that the less desirable zip codes pay the same as the more desirable zip codes? Of course not…that would be unfair, and interfere with the market setting pricing. Well, let insurance companies do the same. If a zip code produces disproportinate losses, then it should be surcharged. If it produces better than expected loss ration, it should be rewarded. Nothing more, and nothing less. Where you live can affect your losses as much, if not more, than your driving experience or miles driven. How Garamendi doesn\’t see that is beyond me, but he is a politician, so that likely explains it all.
Garamendi wants the suburbs to subsidize inner-city rates because that is where he hopes to get the votes to win the Lt. Governor\’s race…and that is where the votes are…do the math!!
Well, with only 5 out of 58 counties passing it by 51.2% yes to 48.8% no, it seems only fitting that more than 60 % of us will pay more for insurance due to an ignorant voting public.
Well it seems to me if that is the way Mr. G feels the companies should be allowed to charge or surcharge a persentage on the comprehensive losses that occur in the areas that are high risk. There should be some balance somewhere or we may see some red lining that should not occur.
You should reread what Garamendi said. Obviously, carriers can prove that zip code is a significant predictor of loss, just as credit scoring is. \”then why can\’t that factor be used to determine rates?\” He\’s not saying it can\’t. What he\’s saying is that the Post Office does not draw zip code boundaries for the accurate determination of insurable risk, and because of that, some people in one section of a zip code pay more than they should, subsidizing other people in the same and other zip codes. He\’s actually asking carriers to be more precise.
\”What Garamendi really wants is for the good risks to subsidize the less-than-desirable risks…\” Perhaps. But he is also responding to consumer frustration, the same frustration that credit scoring causes. Ultimately, the best solution would be for a carrier to target the zip code boundary market with better pricing, and leave adverse selection to the lazy carriers.
Before I get the emails that I can\’t spell I hit the wrong key okay…..
I am an independent agent and understand the pool concept. By breaking down the pool concept to zip codes insurance companies can more closely reflect rates in a given area. Without this mechanism, certain people are rewarded for living in a risk area, and other people are penalized for living in a low risk area. This is socialism, pure and simple. No surprise! Garamendi is a socialist.