Facebook
X
Pinterest
Copy Link
At first glance, California’s Prop 33 may sound like a good deal, but a deeper look reveals why voters should consider saying NO. Here are the top reasons why this proposition could harm consumers and drivers:
1. Increased Costs for New Drivers
Prop 33 would allow insurance companies to raise rates on uninsured people, regardless of the reason. This means new drivers, or people who let their insurance lapse temporarily due to unemployment, health issues, or financial hardship, would face hefty penalties. It’s not just those who are irresponsible—sometimes life happens, and punishing people with higher premiums is unfair.
2. Unfair to Low-Income Families
Those who can’t afford to maintain continuous insurance coverage, especially low-income families, would bear the brunt of Prop 33. While wealthier drivers can maintain coverage without issue, those who struggle financially could see steep increases in their premiums simply because they had a gap in their insurance coverage.
3. Insurance Company Benefits, Not Consumers
Prop 33 is backed by insurance companies who stand to make millions off its passage. While it’s marketed as giving “loyalty discounts” to consumers who maintain continuous coverage, the real benefit would go to the insurance industry, which could charge higher rates to those without continuous coverage. Essentially, it allows insurance companies to profit at the expense of people who can’t afford consistent insurance.
4. A Step Backwards for Consumer Protection
California already has strong consumer protection laws in place regarding auto insurance, thanks to Prop 103, which passed in 1988. This law limits the reasons an insurer can use to raise your rates, and Prop 33 would weaken these protections. It would open the door to unfair pricing practices that hurt vulnerable drivers.
5. Not Truly About Loyalty
While the proposition’s supporters emphasize rewarding customer loyalty, it doesn’t take into account why someone might not have continuous coverage. If you’ve ever been a student, lost your job, served in the military, or faced medical issues that kept you from driving, you could lose out on these so-called “loyalty” discounts, and pay more.
6. Repeat of a Rejected Proposition
Voters have seen this before. Prop 17 in 2010 was a similar proposition, also backed by insurance companies, and it was rejected. Prop 33 is just another attempt to push through a policy that serves insurers more than consumers. If it wasn’t a good idea in 2010, it’s not a good idea now.
Final Thoughts
Prop 33 may seem like it benefits drivers with continuous insurance, but it unfairly penalizes many others. It allows insurance companies to exploit lapses in coverage, harming people during difficult times. Protect yourself, your family, and vulnerable drivers across California by voting NO on Prop 33.
