So now the DOI is expanding the Low Cost Auto Program to impoverished counties like Santa Barbara and Ventura? I guess it is for the low income folks living in Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, and Montecito? Seems like the free market could do a better job than micro-managing bureaucrats.
Let\’s see, 30,000 policies sold so far, in counties with over half the states population! Sounds like a great plan to me. I was always led to believe the state minimums are 15/30/5 and this plan offers 10/20/3. If your poor, live in California, and want to drive on our roads we will provide you with sub-standard coverage. Typical Sacramento thinking!
Once again Californians try the grand experiment of enabling people to participate in something they cannot afford. This time its owning and operating an automobile. Why not jail those caught driving without insurance and impound and sell their car? That would also save money on law enforcement,
roads etc. Plus, it helps the social engineering effort to get people out of cars and onto the bus. Lets start with those who have no business driving a car to begin with.
if the state minimum rates are 15/30/5 and the poor are offered 10/20/3 how does that work with our e&o? are we at risk for offering a policy that does not meet state minimums? i will not sell it and if a customer asks i have companies that will issue a policy for less than $400.00 at the state minimum. why do we need this? it is because we have unscrupulous agents(?) who will sell it and then lull the poor, dumb customer into believing he is on their side and the agent will proceed to sell them life insurance policies they do not need, add ons, and mortgage relief. but the beaurecrats do not care-they have done their civic duties. i feel sorry for the public that gets taken in by this scam. the insurance profession has been taken over by crooked politicians who want their cut and a class of agents who look on their clients as meal tickets, not individuals who need our help in protecting them from the lawyers who prey on them.
Dear DOI and Commissioner – Please explain how overpriced and inferior coverage will help the poor, or anyone for that matter. 10/20/3 is just a little above uninsured, so it will really not pay for 100% a very few accidents. This means very little to those who carry insurance, and quite honestly I do not believe it will do anything but keep the poor\’s regitration valid. The real purpose of this policy was needed because somebody thought it would solve our uninsured problem in California. Suspending a vehicles\’s registration midterm if DMV recieves a notification of a vehicle\’s insurance expiring or changing carriers. Mr. Commissioner the reistration law was a dumb answer, and now this is even dumber. I know you inherited the vehicle registration law, but 10/12/3 low cost coverage is not the answer, nor is the registration law passed last year.
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.
Our DOI always says 30,000 policies since its inception in 1999. How many policies are in force today. No one I know will sell this.
So now the DOI is expanding the Low Cost Auto Program to impoverished counties like Santa Barbara and Ventura? I guess it is for the low income folks living in Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, and Montecito? Seems like the free market could do a better job than micro-managing bureaucrats.
Let\’s see, 30,000 policies sold so far, in counties with over half the states population! Sounds like a great plan to me. I was always led to believe the state minimums are 15/30/5 and this plan offers 10/20/3. If your poor, live in California, and want to drive on our roads we will provide you with sub-standard coverage. Typical Sacramento thinking!
Once again Californians try the grand experiment of enabling people to participate in something they cannot afford. This time its owning and operating an automobile. Why not jail those caught driving without insurance and impound and sell their car? That would also save money on law enforcement,
roads etc. Plus, it helps the social engineering effort to get people out of cars and onto the bus. Lets start with those who have no business driving a car to begin with.
if the state minimum rates are 15/30/5 and the poor are offered 10/20/3 how does that work with our e&o? are we at risk for offering a policy that does not meet state minimums? i will not sell it and if a customer asks i have companies that will issue a policy for less than $400.00 at the state minimum. why do we need this? it is because we have unscrupulous agents(?) who will sell it and then lull the poor, dumb customer into believing he is on their side and the agent will proceed to sell them life insurance policies they do not need, add ons, and mortgage relief. but the beaurecrats do not care-they have done their civic duties. i feel sorry for the public that gets taken in by this scam. the insurance profession has been taken over by crooked politicians who want their cut and a class of agents who look on their clients as meal tickets, not individuals who need our help in protecting them from the lawyers who prey on them.
Dear DOI and Commissioner – Please explain how overpriced and inferior coverage will help the poor, or anyone for that matter. 10/20/3 is just a little above uninsured, so it will really not pay for 100% a very few accidents. This means very little to those who carry insurance, and quite honestly I do not believe it will do anything but keep the poor\’s regitration valid. The real purpose of this policy was needed because somebody thought it would solve our uninsured problem in California. Suspending a vehicles\’s registration midterm if DMV recieves a notification of a vehicle\’s insurance expiring or changing carriers. Mr. Commissioner the reistration law was a dumb answer, and now this is even dumber. I know you inherited the vehicle registration law, but 10/12/3 low cost coverage is not the answer, nor is the registration law passed last year.