Court Ruling on Proposition 103
Hooray for consumers. With the Supreme Court decision upholding most of the provisions of Proposition 103 they now have the opportunity to learn in glowing detail (through hundreds of hearings) the real reasons for skyrocketing rates--ever increasing lawsuits, out of control car thefts, and a growing number of collision claims caused by accidents involving careless drivers, drunk drivers, and drug-using drivers.
As usual, Ralph Nader and company are long on criticism backed up by emotion rather than facts. His criticisms of Insurance Commissioner Roxani Gillespie are a case in point (Part I, May 6). The new standards set out by the Supreme Court state that insurance companies are entitled to a “fair rate of return.” Nader and Harvey Rosenfield, Voter Revolt chairman, insinuate that Gillespie is in the “hip pocket” of the insurance companies because she says she wants to administer just that very principle. I for one think she has done an outstanding job considering the pressure that has been put on her by the Voter Revolt organization and other consumer groups.
What I want to know is on what facts do Nader and his group base their opinions? How does he know that the insurance companies are getting more than a fair rate of return? Is he an insurance industry expert who understands the intricacies of loss ratios, loss reserves, and investment return?
We can use an often quoted phrase in reference to Nader’s criticisms of the insurance industry’s level of profitability--where’s the beef?
BARRY WILLIS
La Mesa
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
