So much for the greater good, right? People choose not to have coverage or to let it lapse, which is okay because it's their call. This doesn't mean you subsidize their rate on the backs of those whose continuous coverage status warrants a lower cost. California is the only state that denies insured motorists the ability to benefit from the transferring of their coverage to another company. It's time for this to change.
Why don't you acknowledge that you're against change that would provide premium savings to those motorists who continuously obey California's mandatory insurance laws?
You mean is a service man/woman who leaves the country for a year or two so she/he is penalized for not having coverage for those two years? Or, for anyone who moves to NYC for a few years then return to CA who will be penalized for not having insurance? What about the person who remains in Ca but doesn't own a car for a year or two but, has a good driving record. For me I went without insurance for a few months because I didn't have a car. I still had a good driving record but, I got put into sub-standard coverage.