HomeFeatureGeorge Joseph › California Newspapers Agree - VOTE NO On Prop 33

Feature

California Newspapers Agree - VOTE NO On Prop 33

What do newspapers all over California have in common? They all say No on Prop 33, the deceptive insurance company initiative that will raise rates on good drivers. Click here to send an email to your friends, or use the share buttons above to email and post to Facebook, Twitter and your favorite social network today.

 


Editorial: No on 33- It's just not fair

We have yet to see conclusive evidence that a lack of continuous insurance coverage correlates with being a riskier driver. This makes Proposition 33 fundamentally unfair and impossible to support.

Read More >>

 


No On Propostion 33
- The auto insurance initiative was a bad idea two years ago; it's still a bad idea.

Proposition 33 might help Mercury induce more drivers to switch insurers. But raising the cost of coverage for those without insurance doesn't help anyone on California's roads. Voters should reject Proposition 33.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: Prop 33 is an old jalopy with a new coat of paint

Californians added the initiative to the California Constitution in 1911 as a way for voters to reduce the domination of corporate interests over the political process. Don't let George Joseph hijack that process to advance narrow economic agendas. Voters said no to Mercury in 2010, and should say no again on Proposition 33.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: No on 33

[A] different and self-interested agenda drives this measure: poaching lucrative customers from rivals while encouraging less desirable customers to go elsewhere. Californians have no reason to reward that kind of special-interest scheme, and voters should reject Prop. 33.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: Prop 33 A Bad Idea That Won't Go Away

The bottom line is that California's compelling public-policy interest is to make sure that drivers are insured. Keeping rates affordable advances that goal. Vote no on 33.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: No on Proposition 33 -- One company returns with same self-serving insurance measure voters already rejected in 2010

...Mercury's billionaire boss George Joseph is back -- spending more than $8 million so far in support of of this self-serving measure.

It's a retread of the 2010 ballot proposition [17], and it deserves rejection too.

Read More >>

 

Editorial: No En La Proposición 33

El propietario de la aseguradora Mercury, George Joseph, está empecinado en reformar el marco legal establecido por la Proposición 103, para vender a toda costa más pólizas de seguro. Hace dos años rechazamos la iniciativa 17 y hoy recomendamos un rotundo no a la Proposición 33.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: No on Proposition 33

If Proposition 33 sounds familiar, that’s because it’s very familiar. In June 2010, it was put before the voters as Proposition 17. It failed then and it should fail now.

Read More >>

 


Editorial
: No on 33

What other business gets to set the price it charges me based on whether I bought a similar product or service previously? The grocery doesn't get to charge me more for milk if I didn't buy milk last week. We believe the arguments in favor of Prop. 33 are specious, and should be rejected by voters. We urge a "no" vote on Prop. 33.

Read More >>

 


Editorial
: Vote No on Prop 33 to protect California drivers

California voters should vote no on Proposition 33 on Nov. 6 in such large numbers that Joseph never tries to dupe Golden State residents again.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: Prop 33 is a ballot retread

Didn't Californians already vote down Proposition 33 - the measure to make changes to the state's auto insurance law on the Nov. 6 ballot? Essentially, yes - in June 2010 when voters defeated Proposition 17.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: No on 33: This retread is no bargain

In states where Mercury is allowed to charge more for drivers without continuous coverage, Consumer Watchdog says its rates have increased as much as 100 percent. In California, regulators have accused Mercury of deceptive practices and discrimination. So we remain skeptical of Mercury's true intentions and recommend a no vote on Proposition 33.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: State's drivers don't need Prop 33

Just as they did with Prop. 17 in 2010, voters should say no to this flawed and deceptive measure in November. California already has a well-regulated and competitive auto insurance market. Let's keep it that way.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: No on warmed-over Prop 33

Voters should once again see through Mercury's longstanding attempts to change state insurance law in a way that would not only discourage some motorists from buying auto polices, but would also encourage them to drive without any coverage, which costs the rest of us. Hopefully, another rejection will ensure this measure is sent away for good. Vote no on Prop. 33.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: No on Proposition 33 -- One company returns with same self-serving insurance measure voters already rejected in 2010

Didn't Californians already vote down Proposition 33 -- the measure to make changes to the state's auto insurance law on the Nov. 6 ballot? Essentially, yes -- in June 2010 when voters defeated Proposition 17.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: Proposition 33 is still a bad idea

Should Mercury and other auto insurance companies be allowed to charge higher rates for people who are new to auto insurance, or are reentering the auto insurance market after having dropped coverage? The answer should be a resounding no.

Read More >>

 


No on Proposition 33

This measure was created and funded by Mercury Insurance founder George Joseph, who tried to do the same thing two years ago with Prop. 17, which was soundly rejected by voters.

Read More >>

 


Editorial: Prop 33 benefits insurers more than car owners

In The Star's view, any proposal that would tend to increase the number of uninsured drivers is a bad move. It's a threat to everyone on the road, including conscientious drivers who might enjoy the discount Proposition 33 is dangling in front of voters on Nov. 6. It's a bad deal, even for good drivers.

Read More >>

 


No on 33 - Auto insurance measure a retread

Doubly irritating is when the special interest doesn't take no for an answer, but wastes our time and his money on another attempt. Voters should say no to Proposition 33. And this time Mercury Insurance should get the message.

Read More >>

Chico News & Review Editorial: Throw Away This Lemon

If 33 passes, it will allow him to cherry-pick the customers he wants and raise rates for millions of California motorists, many of whom have perfect driving records. All of California’s major newspapers oppose this measure. So do we. Vote no on Proposition 33.

Read More >>

Stockton Record Editorial: Don't let Prop 33 fool you

A red flag should go up when one person, group or company is the sole sponsor and sole underwriter of a ballot measure. That's what we've got with Proposition 33, a measure on the Nov. 6 ballot that we urge voters to reject.

Read More >>

Sacramento News & Review Editorial: Proposition 33: No

Proposition 33 would allow discrimination against the young and the poor so as to make it easier for drivers to switch insurance companies. Discounts would come at the expense of new drivers (the young) and those who’d let their coverage lapse (the poor).

Read More >>

 

Chico Enterprise-Record Editorial: Proposition 33: No

It sounds good: Drivers who have a history of obtaining auto insurance should get a price break over those that don't. But this measure is a product of the insurance industry, and when an industry tries to modify its regulations we become suspicious. This comes back to our philosophy: When in doubt, vote no..

Read More >>

 

The Desert Sun - Our Voice: Proposition 33 Looks Like An Insurance Marketing Scheme

Like many initiatives, this addresses a phony problem that doesn’t merit statewide attention. It seems more like a marketing scheme than a measure to serve the public good. Call us skeptical, but we find it hard to believe the owner of an insurance company would invest more than $30 million to give customers a break.

Read More >>

 

To read how California's newspapers viewed Prop 17 - Mercury's previous attempt to degregulate themselves in 2010 - click here.