A few years ago in my area they tried to pass a law that would make it illegal for insurance companies to use credit scores to set rates. It was voted down because the voting public was convinced the law would be a bad one. This is how.
Step One: Play a commercial with a middle class soccer mom walking towards a computer. The mom is saying how she was reading the law. She sits down at the computer and says, "I have questions" At no point during the commercial does she actually say any details of the law just that it concerns her and should concern us.
Step Two: Play a second commercial where you point out that one of the five people signed onto the bill a lobbyist who had nothing to do with writing or pushing the bill merely one who said yeah I sign on as a supporter. Point out how you should hate this lobbyist how this lobbyist sucks. Again say nothing of the bill.
Step Three: Get as many media outlets as you can to misquote the study you use to justify your stance on making poor people pay more money than well off people. They will quote, "Bad credit makes for bad drivers"
Step Four: Have 7 of the ten arguments against the bill in the Voter's Pamphlet be written by people who are listed only by their names and not the fact they sell insurance.
The bill failed of course all while ignoring that the truth of the matter was a study showed that those with bad credit are more likely to use their insurance. What does this mean?
Quite simply if me a person with bad credit has my side view mirror ripped off my car I am more likely to use my insurance to pay to replace it than say a person with plenty of money for whom paying out of pocket to fix it would be cheaper than having their rates go up.
By this justification they are going to charge me more money because I might actually have the audacity to use the insurance that I am legally forced to have.
Don't get me wrong I understand legally requiring people to have insurance but the way the law is insurance companies can then charge me a massive amount of money while only giving back the bare minimum when I need to use it.
The theory behind insurance is that X amount of people put their money into pool Y. Y then helps by having a bigger pool of money to help out person who wouldn't otherwise have the money they need to fix the situation.
People are gambling that they will never need Y but at the same time hoping it will be there.
I understand charging me a fair rate based off of my accident history. I do not agree using unrelated factors to determine this.
Step One: Play a commercial with a middle class soccer mom walking towards a computer. The mom is saying how she was reading the law. She sits down at the computer and says, "I have questions" At no point during the commercial does she actually say any details of the law just that it concerns her and should concern us.
Step Two: Play a second commercial where you point out that one of the five people signed onto the bill a lobbyist who had nothing to do with writing or pushing the bill merely one who said yeah I sign on as a supporter. Point out how you should hate this lobbyist how this lobbyist sucks. Again say nothing of the bill.
Step Three: Get as many media outlets as you can to misquote the study you use to justify your stance on making poor people pay more money than well off people. They will quote, "Bad credit makes for bad drivers"
Step Four: Have 7 of the ten arguments against the bill in the Voter's Pamphlet be written by people who are listed only by their names and not the fact they sell insurance.
The bill failed of course all while ignoring that the truth of the matter was a study showed that those with bad credit are more likely to use their insurance. What does this mean?
Quite simply if me a person with bad credit has my side view mirror ripped off my car I am more likely to use my insurance to pay to replace it than say a person with plenty of money for whom paying out of pocket to fix it would be cheaper than having their rates go up.
By this justification they are going to charge me more money because I might actually have the audacity to use the insurance that I am legally forced to have.
Don't get me wrong I understand legally requiring people to have insurance but the way the law is insurance companies can then charge me a massive amount of money while only giving back the bare minimum when I need to use it.
The theory behind insurance is that X amount of people put their money into pool Y. Y then helps by having a bigger pool of money to help out person who wouldn't otherwise have the money they need to fix the situation.
People are gambling that they will never need Y but at the same time hoping it will be there.
I understand charging me a fair rate based off of my accident history. I do not agree using unrelated factors to determine this.
Comment