102 Billion Reasons Insurance Companies Are Attacking Consumer Watchdog
California's largest health insurance companies are attacking Consumer Watchdog as part of a major campaign to block citizen efforts to reform the industry. That is because 25 years ago Consumer Watchdog's advocates led the successful effort to reform auto, home, and other property-casualty insurance companies. That 1988 ballot initative, Prop 103, has saved California drivers more than $102 billion.
Knowing that health insurance companies will face the same accountability if Proposition 103 applied to their industry, the health insurers that rule the market are on the attack.
To learn more about the current effort to extend Prop 103's accoutability to health insurance companies, visit JustifyRates.org. To learn about the successful 1988 revolt against auto and other insurers, and our ongoing efforts to lower auto and home insurance rates, read below:
California’s property-casualty insurers succumbed to the strongest regulations in the nation after Consumer Watchdog’s founder Harvey Rosenfield led a ballot measure revolt in 1988.
Harvey authored Proposition 103, has which saved California motorists more than $102 billion on their premiums according to a 2013 Consumer Federation of America report.
The main provisions of Proposition 103 made the office of California’s insurance commissioner elected, allowed regulators to stop excessive premiums and forced auto insurance companies to charge people based on their driving history, not their zip code.
Proposition 103, like most successful ballot measures, was a rare confluence of forces that created a perfect storm. California had enacted mandatory auto insurance two years earlier without requiring premiums be affordable. Rates were rising 11 percent per year when voters were presented with a ballot measure to lower their premiums in November 1988.
Harvey Rosenfield and Ralph Nader spent virtually no money and won against a $63.8 million insurance-industry opposition campaign because they spoke through the free media. They boarded a bus that crisscrossed the state to campaign armed with the fairness doctrine, which at the time required television and radio stations to present balanced and equitable coverage of controversial issues of public importance.
The insurance companies spent so much on advertising against the proposition that Harvey and Ralph received free air time to balance them out. One of the reasons Prop 103 prevailed is the insurers spent too much money railing against it, and the public intuitively knew that anything the insurers were backing was the wrong fix. Nader’s simple “103 is the one for me” slogan cut through the phalanx of television advertising.
For two decades California politicians’ allegiance to insurance regulation has defined their success in state politics. We taught the insurance companies and others in the Fortune 100, as well as the politicians who work for them, a lesson through practical steps that muster and focus public opinion to turn the tables on injustice. Our political allies profited more from standing with the public than from pandering to an industry’s checkbooks.
The campaign for California Proposition 103 in 1988 has particular relevance for America now. The “voter revolt” of 1988 was sparked by mandatory auto insurance laws imposed by California’s legislature without any requirement that insurance be affordable for those who had to buy it. The populist ballot measure required insurance companies to seek approval for premium hikes from the state insurance commissioner, a post Proposition 103 made an elected position, before raising premiums. It also rolled back excessive rates and delivered $1.43 billion in refund checks to consumers, ended zip-code-based auto insurance, and subjected the industry to antitrust restrictions.
The two dozen states with ballot-measure processes offer Americans a similar opportunity to rein in private health insurers now that a national discussion of their vices has been aired, and mandatory.
The ballot initiative stands as the shining example of how the initiative process can afford average people the opportunity to take on powerful special interests and prevail.
Consumer Watchdog's ongoing work to hold property-casualty insurers accountable and keep rates low saves Californians hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Visit our rate challenge page for updates about recent and current interventions on behalf of California consumers.
Excerpted from The Progressive's Guide to Raising Hell: How To Win Grassroots Campaigns, Pass Ballot Box Laws And Get The Change We Voted For (Chelsea Green).
Read more about Prop 103 at our Prop 103 Information Page.
1/9/2015News ReleaseCourt Tentatively Upholds Prop 103 Rule Prohibiting Auto Insurance Companies From Making Consumers Pay For “Branding” Advertising Such as Sporting Event Sponsorships and Naming RightsSacramento, CA – In a tentative ruling today, the Sacramento Superior Court rejected an insurance industry attack on... More >
1/21/2015News ReleaseSacramento, CA – The Sacramento Superior Court has rejected an attack by Mercury and other insurance companies on state... More >
1/21/2015News StoryThe Sacramento Superior Court issued a decision rejecting an insurance industry challenge on the California insurance... More >
3/11/2015News StoryGoogle last week launched an auto insurance rate comparison site in California. Mercury Insurance, MetLife and 21st Century... More >
3/12/2015News StoryStockton is among California’s most expensive cities for auto insurance. Motorists living in other San Joaquin County... More >