Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on June 28, 2007, to require auto insurance companies to submit to the state insurance commission complete data on premiums, aggregate claims and payments, risk assessment and premium pricing practices, profits, and much more; and prohibit insurers from raising rates without permission in advance from the commission, subject to public hearings

The vote was 59 in favor, 49 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 274 at House Journal 34)

Click here to view bill details.

...Socialism? I choose my insurance carrier by the lowest premiums.

Don't you know that the state knows all and is smarter than you? Just do what you're told.

Rep. Caswell, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: From the debate on the floor it became obvious that this bill was nothing more than an attempt to lower rates for Detroit citizens. This would result in my citizens getting higher rates or not being able to buy insurance at all if the companies leave the State.”

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: No Vote on HB 4993 This has nothing to do with protecting all the citizens in the state and everything to do with subsidized of auto insurance rates in Detroit, at the expense of the rest of the state. It will allow the state and the Insurance commissioner to meddle in the private market. This all about politics and has nothing to do with good policy.”

Rep. Emmons, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The chair of House Insurance Committee feels that auto insurance rates in Detroit are too high. In an effort to reduce these rates, he feels the state should play a larger role in regulating the market. His bill proposes that both the Attorney General and consumers should be able to challenge insurance companies if they feel rates are too high. The representative feels that this oversight should be mandated under state law. However, I believe it is ironic that the sponsor of HB 4993 is also the sponsor of a previous insurance bill that eliminated Attorney General oversight of rate increases in regulated insurance markets and denied consumers the right to challenge rate increases which would result in higher insurance rates for those who can least afford it. The question becomes one of continuity and consistency. Should the Attorney General have oversight? Should consumers have the ability to challenge rate increases? Should geography be used as a tool to determine insurance rates?”