- This topic has 115 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
CAwireman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 19, 2010 at 6:36 PM #553003May 30, 2010 at 9:33 PM #557562
edna_mode
ParticipantThought on prop 17 (continuous insurance discount portability), following the law of unintended consequences:
Mercury Insurance is the biggest sponsor of this prop (like PG&E for prop 16 the energy one). It is really unclear what happens to soldiers who have been deployed, who sell their cars and cancel their insurance because they don’t need it, and then come back. Since a bigger pool of people will qualify for the discount, a smaller pool must logically pick up the difference in premiums. I can’t figure out if that smaller pool will include people who have left the state or the country.
Basically, I’ll only vote yes on a prop if it clears the following hurdles:
1) Do I fully understand what it is offering? (This is where most fail, because they are so badly written)
2) Do I agree it is a good idea?
3) Do I think that this is an effective implementation?No wonder it takes me so long to vote…
May 30, 2010 at 9:33 PM #557661ParticipantThought on prop 17 (continuous insurance discount portability), following the law of unintended consequences:
Mercury Insurance is the biggest sponsor of this prop (like PG&E for prop 16 the energy one). It is really unclear what happens to soldiers who have been deployed, who sell their cars and cancel their insurance because they don’t need it, and then come back. Since a bigger pool of people will qualify for the discount, a smaller pool must logically pick up the difference in premiums. I can’t figure out if that smaller pool will include people who have left the state or the country.
Basically, I’ll only vote yes on a prop if it clears the following hurdles:
1) Do I fully understand what it is offering? (This is where most fail, because they are so badly written)
2) Do I agree it is a good idea?
3) Do I think that this is an effective implementation?No wonder it takes me so long to vote…
May 30, 2010 at 9:33 PM #558148ParticipantThought on prop 17 (continuous insurance discount portability), following the law of unintended consequences:
Mercury Insurance is the biggest sponsor of this prop (like PG&E for prop 16 the energy one). It is really unclear what happens to soldiers who have been deployed, who sell their cars and cancel their insurance because they don’t need it, and then come back. Since a bigger pool of people will qualify for the discount, a smaller pool must logically pick up the difference in premiums. I can’t figure out if that smaller pool will include people who have left the state or the country.
Basically, I’ll only vote yes on a prop if it clears the following hurdles:
1) Do I fully understand what it is offering? (This is where most fail, because they are so badly written)
2) Do I agree it is a good idea?
3) Do I think that this is an effective implementation?No wonder it takes me so long to vote…
May 30, 2010 at 9:33 PM #558247ParticipantThought on prop 17 (continuous insurance discount portability), following the law of unintended consequences:
Mercury Insurance is the biggest sponsor of this prop (like PG&E for prop 16 the energy one). It is really unclear what happens to soldiers who have been deployed, who sell their cars and cancel their insurance because they don’t need it, and then come back. Since a bigger pool of people will qualify for the discount, a smaller pool must logically pick up the difference in premiums. I can’t figure out if that smaller pool will include people who have left the state or the country.
Basically, I’ll only vote yes on a prop if it clears the following hurdles:
1) Do I fully understand what it is offering? (This is where most fail, because they are so badly written)
2) Do I agree it is a good idea?
3) Do I think that this is an effective implementation?No wonder it takes me so long to vote…
May 30, 2010 at 9:33 PM #558532ParticipantThought on prop 17 (continuous insurance discount portability), following the law of unintended consequences:
Mercury Insurance is the biggest sponsor of this prop (like PG&E for prop 16 the energy one). It is really unclear what happens to soldiers who have been deployed, who sell their cars and cancel their insurance because they don’t need it, and then come back. Since a bigger pool of people will qualify for the discount, a smaller pool must logically pick up the difference in premiums. I can’t figure out if that smaller pool will include people who have left the state or the country.
Basically, I’ll only vote yes on a prop if it clears the following hurdles:
1) Do I fully understand what it is offering? (This is where most fail, because they are so badly written)
2) Do I agree it is a good idea?
3) Do I think that this is an effective implementation?No wonder it takes me so long to vote…
May 31, 2010 at 9:21 PM #557735CAwireman
ParticipantA few picks: Meg for Gov
Carly for SenatorWhat do you think of this link for superior court judges? http://www.judgevoterguide.com/
For the props, a good compilation site:
http://californiachoices.org/ballot-measures/endorsementsProp 16 has Pacific Gas and Electric as a major funder…. I’m voting no.
I’m voting yes on Prop 14 and 15.
Voting no on Prod D, strong mayor, because it saves a million dollars during a tight financial time for city and state.
May 31, 2010 at 9:21 PM #557837ParticipantA few picks: Meg for Gov
Carly for SenatorWhat do you think of this link for superior court judges? http://www.judgevoterguide.com/
For the props, a good compilation site:
http://californiachoices.org/ballot-measures/endorsementsProp 16 has Pacific Gas and Electric as a major funder…. I’m voting no.
I’m voting yes on Prop 14 and 15.
Voting no on Prod D, strong mayor, because it saves a million dollars during a tight financial time for city and state.
May 31, 2010 at 9:21 PM #558323ParticipantA few picks: Meg for Gov
Carly for SenatorWhat do you think of this link for superior court judges? http://www.judgevoterguide.com/
For the props, a good compilation site:
http://californiachoices.org/ballot-measures/endorsementsProp 16 has Pacific Gas and Electric as a major funder…. I’m voting no.
I’m voting yes on Prop 14 and 15.
Voting no on Prod D, strong mayor, because it saves a million dollars during a tight financial time for city and state.
May 31, 2010 at 9:21 PM #558425ParticipantA few picks: Meg for Gov
Carly for SenatorWhat do you think of this link for superior court judges? http://www.judgevoterguide.com/
For the props, a good compilation site:
http://californiachoices.org/ballot-measures/endorsementsProp 16 has Pacific Gas and Electric as a major funder…. I’m voting no.
I’m voting yes on Prop 14 and 15.
Voting no on Prod D, strong mayor, because it saves a million dollars during a tight financial time for city and state.
May 31, 2010 at 9:21 PM #558708ParticipantA few picks: Meg for Gov
Carly for SenatorWhat do you think of this link for superior court judges? http://www.judgevoterguide.com/
For the props, a good compilation site:
http://californiachoices.org/ballot-measures/endorsementsProp 16 has Pacific Gas and Electric as a major funder…. I’m voting no.
I’m voting yes on Prop 14 and 15.
Voting no on Prod D, strong mayor, because it saves a million dollars during a tight financial time for city and state.
May 31, 2010 at 9:45 PM #557745enron_by_the_sea
ParticipantMy notable votes by mail.
GOP Ballot:
Gov: Meg (Best Candidate against Jerry Brown)
Sen: Tom Campbell (Best candidate against Boxer)
State props:
13: Yes, because legislator put it on ballot unanimously.
14: It was a close call but voting Yes because we need to rescue primary process from loonies from both sides
15, 16, 17: My system of by default voting NO on props.
County Props
A,B: By default voting NO
City prop.
C: By default vote NO.
D: It was a close call but voting Yes because something needs to change in the city. Maybe this will be worse, but I must try.May 31, 2010 at 9:45 PM #557847ParticipantMy notable votes by mail.
GOP Ballot:
Gov: Meg (Best Candidate against Jerry Brown)
Sen: Tom Campbell (Best candidate against Boxer)
State props:
13: Yes, because legislator put it on ballot unanimously.
14: It was a close call but voting Yes because we need to rescue primary process from loonies from both sides
15, 16, 17: My system of by default voting NO on props.
County Props
A,B: By default voting NO
City prop.
C: By default vote NO.
D: It was a close call but voting Yes because something needs to change in the city. Maybe this will be worse, but I must try.May 31, 2010 at 9:45 PM #558333ParticipantMy notable votes by mail.
GOP Ballot:
Gov: Meg (Best Candidate against Jerry Brown)
Sen: Tom Campbell (Best candidate against Boxer)
State props:
13: Yes, because legislator put it on ballot unanimously.
14: It was a close call but voting Yes because we need to rescue primary process from loonies from both sides
15, 16, 17: My system of by default voting NO on props.
County Props
A,B: By default voting NO
City prop.
C: By default vote NO.
D: It was a close call but voting Yes because something needs to change in the city. Maybe this will be worse, but I must try.May 31, 2010 at 9:45 PM #558435ParticipantMy notable votes by mail.
GOP Ballot:
Gov: Meg (Best Candidate against Jerry Brown)
Sen: Tom Campbell (Best candidate against Boxer)
State props:
13: Yes, because legislator put it on ballot unanimously.
14: It was a close call but voting Yes because we need to rescue primary process from loonies from both sides
15, 16, 17: My system of by default voting NO on props.
County Props
A,B: By default voting NO
City prop.
C: By default vote NO.
D: It was a close call but voting Yes because something needs to change in the city. Maybe this will be worse, but I must try. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.