Implementing Car Insurance Reforms

Proposition 103 is not a moral weapon of some kind just because a majority of voters approved it. Your editorial “No More Mr. Nice Guys” (June 25) is yet another in a long line of Times articles that trash the free enterprise system.

The voters had no right to enact Proposition 103 and the state Supreme Court had no right to uphold it. Of course insurance rates are high. So are food prices, theater tickets, new car prices, and health care costs. Yet no one has seriously proposed that we vote to reduce these items.

The Times opposes the right of insurance company officials to defend themselves from a bureaucratic onslaught of state-approved rates and mindless regulations. I applaud the Allstate representatives who bluntly called Proposition 103 what it is--an attempt to be “socially fair” while ignoring economic realities.

I assume that your editorial writer lives in central Los Angeles, drives a sports car, is single, and has a chargeable accident and a few speeding tickets on his record. I say this because those who favored Proposition 103 had the most to gain from its passage.

The individual thus described would receive lower rates, while a married 50-year-old farmer from Bakersfield who drives a Chevy and has a perfect driving record would likely receive higher rates. This is the trade-off. Rates cannot be lowered in a vacuum. That is the major flaw of 103.

Instead of more regulation we need less. The free market will provide the lowest insurance rates if it is allowed to operate without restriction.

There are more than 700 casualty insurance companies in California, with wide fluctuations in prices. Shop around if you want lower rates. Examine your coverage. You likely can cut some coverage here and there and save. Raise your deductibles. Discover your options. And repeal Proposition 103 before it is too late.

TED BROWN

Pasadena