...this type of thing is exactly why I get a little freaked out by mail in ballots.

I'm guessing there are a few folks out there who are just learning this, have already voted no, and are now kicking themselves.

Oh my God! Really? People who are going to lose money have given money to defeat a ballot measure! News! News! News! Wow! I can read a C&E Report! Give me an investigative gold star!

And the idea that the areas that rates haven't gone up being evidence that they won't go up under M42 -- there's causation and correlation, and those data fall in the latter category. The only reason I can think of that M42 wouldn't cause rates to go up is because the insured pool expands to include more folks, but that would probably only cause the uninsured insurance rate to go down, not the overall one.

Sizemore's still an ass, and M42 still deserves to die.

This debate strikes me as silly. I pay a premium for auto insurance because I'm a young male. What is wrong with other types of high-risk catagories (i.e., irresponsibility in managing credit)causing rate hikes as well? If we're going to support 42, I say all the females out there deserve some auto insurance hikes. :)

FICO scores are one of the best ways to predict so many things in life. It's not how much money you have/make, but how you spend it.

42 is dumb. I hope it fails. Government intruding on pricing policies ftl.

Um, Betsy? You didn't give us a reason why "M42 still deserves to die."

You just acted like kind of a jerk.

I guess I'll go on over and make my troll donation to the yes on 42 campaign. Sounds like they could use it, they seem to have a couple of big funders.

I'm guessing there are a few folks out there who are just learning this, have already voted no, and are now kicking themselves.

Then they are stupid or lazy. The info on this hasn't changed over the past two weeks.

FICO scores are one of the best ways to predict so many things in life. It's not how much money you have/make, but how you spend it.

Most bankruptcies today are the result of extended unemployment or catastrophic illness w/out health care coverage. So you want to pile the bad news on these people by letting them know their car insurance rates just went up because of their bad luck even though they may have a spotless driving record?

FICO scores can predict nothing in this environment.

Somebody with extended unemployment and/or a catastrophic illness is a higher risk catagory... Soooooo duh?

Why shouldn't I benefit for being a young male (with good credit), when other people benefit for being old and/or female?

I could play the same sob story...

Most catastrophic illnesses and/or unemployment strike men, so do you want to pile on the bad news by making them pay more for being men?

/confused

I have little doubt that credit scores do not correlate with insurance risks (home, auto, health etc.) Someone who is likely to take care of their credit is likely to take care of their health, home, and driving habits. Same reason flossing your teeth is one of the best indicators of how long you will live... It's not about the teeth, it's about the choices we make.

The fact that Insurance companies want to spend the time and money to use credit scores is a fairly good indicator that there are correlations. Otherwise why would they throw cash at the credit companies?

And if we're going to be consistent here, what about things like grades? Should we have another imitative next year to stop insurance companies from using grades?

I'm just wondering how far you pro-42 folks want to take this so as to be consistent.

Oops... correction:

"I have little doubt that credit scores do in fact correlate with insurance risks (home, auto, health etc.)"

"Uh, to make an assload more money, perhaps? I'd say the correlation on that is off the charts. Do you REALLY think they're protesting this so they can protect other drivers from higher rates?"

What? That doesn't even make sense! Insurance companies are driven by market forces to compete with each other. Thus a company that can accurately target risks stands to gain over a company that cannot. They're protesting this because they loose an ability that they believe helps them predict insurance risks.

The OP argued that if 42 passes rates WILL NOT go up, and insurance companies will obviously no longer be funneling money to credit companies, so actually they stand to save at least a bit of cash if credit isn't an accurate indicator.

If 42 fails, or if credit IS an accurate indicator things stay exactly as they are, so how do you think they're going to make "an assload" more money?

"And the idea that the areas that rates haven't gone up being evidence that they won't go up under M42 -- there's causation and correlation, and those data fall in the latter category."

I fail to see how this is merely correlation. If, after passing the same measure or a similiar one in a state, insurance rates do not go up, I'd say that's pretty strong causation, isn't it? Even if other "forces" somehow balanced out the higher rates that such a measure might cause, therefore making the net effect be no increase in rates - what's to say that same "force" wouldn't apply here?

Nate,

You are making 2 mistakes:

1) It is irrelevant to my point whether those assertions are true or not, because the point was that they are analogies for other areas that we use to calculate insurance cost (I.E., age/sex)

2) Even if it WERE important that they were true, which it's not, because the burden of proof is on the Pro-42, you're STILL making two critical errors. First, you assume that all insurance is driving insurance, and secondly you assume that your personal experience is explicative of national means.

No I don't have proof but you don't either, so be careful. It is intuitively reasonable to assume that somebody who is going (obviously we can both agree on unfortunately) through tough times is at higher risk for insurance claims. Are you going to force me to dig up a study showing that stress is harmful to your health? /jeesh.

But like I said, it's hardly necessary to be rude because that entire point was only a bunny trail to begin with.

SOK... the timber industry crashed fifteen or so years ago and as a single parent I went to college and since my children's mother was in the joint and of course as a white guy I had no other options than to bollow heavily to support my children... and as a result I have a pretty heavty debt that I have, quite frankly, had trouble managing.

Did I mention I've never wreaked a car. I pay something like three hundred dollars a year for insurance. Damned good insrance.

Mandatory Insurance Laws are Unconstitional.

Pass this, and my insurance rates go up, and I'll stop insuring my truck. I've never been in an accident.

Wake the freak up.

A couple of points:

1) Oregon law already prohibits insurance companies from raising their rates on existing auto policies if one's credit rating takes a dive. So if you fall into a financial bind and can't pay all your bills, your insurance rates won't go up (unless, of course, you don't pay your car insurance). The current law may make it harder for you to shop for cheaper car insurance, but a lot of insurance agents will get creative. If you hadn't had an accident or claim in ten years, there will be an insurance agent in town who will get you a good policy.

2) Measure 42 covers ALL types of insurance. Don't people here carry any kind of insurance other than auto policies? I have to carry liability insurance as a small business owner and that's an area where I want my fairly decent credit rating to count.

By the way, I'm no fan of the insurance industry. I favor single payer universal health insurance just like all the other civilized countries, and I'd like to see no-fault or pay-at-the pump auto insurance.

1) If insurance companies are spending very much money to defeat this measure its because it will cost them money. They are businesses, campaign contributions are an investment and they need to get a financial return on them.

2) I don't understand why the insurance companies would care who pays the premiums as long as they can collect them. Shifting premiums from people with bad credit to people with better credit shouldn't effect their bottom line.

3) The credit companies are an entirely different issue. Obviously this takes away a market for their product.

3) Assuming number three is true, banning the use of credit scores should result in a net decline in the cost of insurance since customers are no longer paying the cost of the credit reports.

What I find very disappointing about this measure is that it undercuts one of the key principles behind any kind of insurance, namely that risk is distributed across the widest possible pool of people. People who come to the argument with the view that "Why should I subsidize the cost of insurance for people with low FICO scores?" are giving in to wedge politics.

This is an appeal to personal selfishness at the cost of making life worse for people who may well have poorer credit due to large medical expenses, divorce, etc. Where does this stop? Do we allow the people who by whatever correlatable circumstance to cherry pick who may be effectively priced out of the market?

This is especially horrible given that auto insurance is a legally mandated insurance. So it's not as if you could legally get by without car insurance if a measure like this prices you out of the smaller risk pool for the sake of trimming some people's premiums.

Do people really think that they are the intended benefactors of a block of M42? No. The credit bureaus and the insurance companies are the ones who will benefit the most. Your rates won't go down. And trust me, the system already rigged against you will find a way to raise your rates.

I'm an unmarried man without any dependents. So what about the measure that divides the pool based on how many children you have? The average family uses more health care than the average single person? But we don't hear families complain about how the insurance costs of the unmarried and childless are subsidizing their expense.

Whatever happened to the civic attitide that one might pay more for one benefit or service here and there but likely be paying less somewhere else and letting it all even out in the wash rather than try to divide us into niche groups to make life better for one camp at the expense of another?

Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports supports Measure 42 and urges your Yes vote. The insurance industry has spent millions to mislead the public about the true impact of Measure 42. They say that drivers with low credit scores are more likely to get into an accident even though there is no evidence to support such a claim.

They say that rates will go up even though experience in other states that have restricted credit scoring indicates otherwise. Don’t be fooled by claims of higher rates. Insurance companies know how to rate policies without credit scoring. They’ve done it for decades and they do it successfully in states that do not allow credit scoring, like California, one of the largest insurance markets in the country.

It’s not fair that consumers with spotless driving records or those who have never even filed a homeowners insurance claim can be penalized with higher premiums just because of their credit score. With credit scoring out of the picture, insurance companies will have to rate consumers on factors that matter. Under Measure 42, the big winners will be experienced, good drivers and responsible homeowners. Bad drivers and the negligent will have to pay their fair share, regardless of credit history.

Insurance companies insist that credit scores are a reliable predictor of future claims and yet they don’t know whether the credit information they are using is accurate. Too many credit reports contain serious errors. This can result in a lower insurance score and higher premiums. Even consumers with good credit may have a lower than expected insurance score because of the peculiar ways insurance companies weigh credit behavior.

Beginning in 2004, Oregon law barred insurers from using credit scores to set premiums or cancel policies for “existing” customers. Measure 42 extends these same protections to new customers, including those who are previously insured but switch carriers, so that all Oregonians enjoy the same rights.

Measure 42 will help make the insurance market more fair for all Oregonians. Vote Yes on 42. Learn more about why Consumers Union supports Measure 42: www.consumersunion.org

Norma Garcia Senior Attorney Consumers Union

Measure 42 failed by a margin of about 65/35%. The only thing I can figure out is that the 65% of the people who voted no must like paying higher insurance rates, and that they bought the 'sky is falling' hooey put out by the insurance companies. The use of credit reports to set insurance rates is just another form of legalized extortion. So whats next? When you get pulled over by the police, will they run a credit report on you to see if you deserve to get a ticket, being arrested, or worse? Think about it. From a person who is tired of being overcharged for insurance. Jim Welsh

Jim, Suggest your legislator introduce the idea and have it debated in open public hearings. It may just be that enough people said "this isn't an important enough issue to give Sizemore another ballot measure victory".

It is time for the legislature to pass laws openly debated rather than everything showing up on the ballot sponsored, yet again, by someone who has done umpteen measures before.

Here's an idea--term limits for initiativemeisters! Maybe anyone whose measure lost last night can't have a measure on the ballot in 2008. Or maybe a certain number of years in a row someone has a measure on the ballot then they have to skip one or two election cycles. Or an idea proposed by someone who won a true citizen initiative (measure qualified because citizens really cared about the issue, once the measure passed all the advocates went back to their daily lives). Here is the idea: Financial organization which gets the signatures to get the measure on the ballot ( paid or otherwise) dies as soon as the measure qualifies and gets a ballot number (like 42). Then the campaign for the ballot measure has to be run by an entirely different financial entity.

Jim, obviously rhetoric like "So whats next? When you get pulled over by the police, will they run a credit report on you to see if you deserve to get a ticket, being arrested, or worse? Think about it. From a person who is tired of being overcharged for insurance."

didn't work.

Election results are fact, not opinion. If you feel that strongly, lobby the legislature to pass this idea.

<hr/>