Recently I received my renewed Illinois driver’s license and along with my driver’s license was the request “Tell Us Your Story.” This is in regards to Illinois drivers being blindsided by insurance rate increases.
So, here is my story. My insurance company for many years has been Farmers Insurance. In the last 20 years of driving in Illinois, I have not received any speeding tickets, and I have not had any car accidents. I have a clean driving record, but unfortunately, my insurance rates increase every year.
I am retired and have a once-a-week caregiver. My caregiver drives me for grocery shopping, as I am unable to lift anything heavy, such as a case of bottled water or heavy grocery bags. The caregiver drives me in her personal car.
My automobile is basically used for my immediate needs or possibly a social gathering such as lunch with friends. This limits my driving to the local area, versus long trips.
The cost of a six-month renewal for my auto policy for a 2017 Ford Focus is $789. As a 73-year-old senior citizen, that amount is expensive. I have to pay in monthly installments, and Farmers tacks on an extra $7 a month.
Also, my policy is restricted to insure myself only. If anyone else drives my car and has an accident, Farmers will not pay insurance benefits. There is a clause in my policy that states that if I were to use courtesy valet parking and the person parking my car incurred damage to my car or was responsible for damage to anyone else’s car while parking, Farmers would not pay for any costs.
I think that it is high time for Illinois insurance companies to be held accountable for their accelerating rates, gouging the citizens of Illinois who are poor or seniors or live in the wrong ZIP code.
— Elizabeth M. Fayat, Romeoville, Illinois
Genetic data legislation
The rise of genetic testing has transformed medicine, but it has also raised an important policy question: How should Illinois regulate the use of genetic data in life insurance? Recent proposals, including SB2799, attempt to prohibit insurers from using genetic information in life insurance. While well intentioned, this approach would shift costs to others, reduce fairness and risk putting a voluntary financial protection product out of reach for many Illinois families.
Individuals should feel empowered to make informed decisions about their long-term health. For some, that may include genetic testing to better understand medical risks and guide preventive care. For others, it may mean lifestyle changes such as healthier eating, regular exercise or quitting tobacco. Life insurers consider genetic information as just one factor within a broader holistic assessment that includes health history, family history, lifestyle and proactive health management.
Some argue that because life insurance existed before genetic testing, the industry should simply ignore this information. But before genetic testing, applicants and insurers had access to the same level of knowledge. Maintaining that balance is essential as medical science evolves. Actuarial science evolves alongside it, incorporating new information that improves longevity and treatment outcomes and in some cases makes insurance more affordable for individuals who previously faced higher risk classifications.
Life insurance is built on a long-term promise — that if something happens 10, 20 or even 50 years from now, the policy will deliver the protection a family is counting on. Preserving a level playing field between insurers and applicants is critical to ensuring companies can honor that commitment for all policyholders.
At the same time, consumers deserve clarity and peace of mind about how their genetic information is handled. That is why the Illinois Life & Health Insurance Council supports amending SB2799 to strike the right balance: strong guardrails that protect privacy without undermining fairness, stability or transparency. We support provisions that prohibit insurers from accessing or disclosing genetic information without written consent, canceling a policy based on genetic data or requiring genetic testing as a condition of coverage.
Life insurers pay out more than $10 billion annually in life insurance and annuity benefits to Illinois families. As lawmakers consider SB2799, it is essential that any policy changes preserve the stability of a market that millions of Illinoisans rely on.
— Laura Minzer, President, Illinois Life & Health Insurance Council, Springfield
City’s election process
With the excitement of the primary elections behind us, there’s a too-often overlooked aspect of our election: The process went well! I serve as an election judge in Chicago, sitting at the table checking voters in, and I am impressed with the election process here.
Judges are well trained. There’s a required in-person training session, providing explanations of new rules and upgraded equipment. There’s a detailed handbook — for this primary, it was 115 pages of illustrated guidance about the machines, procedures, responsibilities of judges and the rights of voters.
On Election Day, there’s a dedicated staff at “Election Central” and the phone numbers of dozens of technical assistants of all sorts available to us judges. There are field investigators who drop by early in the day to be sure all the signs are up and the machines are working properly, and several credentialed poll watchers come by during the day, politely checking on things.
I’m impressed by the dedication and resourcefulness of my fellow election judges who are stipulated to include representatives from both the Republican and Democratic parties. There’s no tension between the two parties. Instead, I experience a genuine eagerness to provide voters a pleasant experience casting their ballots. Each voter interacts with three election judges along the way, and when complications arise, as inevitably they do, there’s a cooperative spirit figuring out the options and explaining the choices to the voter.
The safeguards that ensure that the votes are all legitimate are truly impressive — from the registration of the voter to the security of the paper ballet or touchscreen printout, to the electronic summary of votes at the end of the day. Every ballot is accounted for, every seal that secures a machine has a number that’s recorded and checked, and every provisional ballot is fully documented and sent along for adjudication by the election board.
It is an inspiring experience being an election judge. I come away thinking there’s really no way for illicit or fraudulent actions to affect the voting done in the nearly 1,300 precincts in Chicago on Election Day. On the contrary, there are lots of dedicated, kind and hardworking folks seeing to it that the process is fair and that the outcome reflects our collective judgement.
It is truly democracy in action.
— Robert Michael, Chicago
Costly, concerning waste
The election is finally over. My mail person can relax. We received two pounds of large postcards. Eleven from one candidate, two of which attacked her opponent. That leaves nine, all different. Who was paying for this?
This concerned me so much that I voted for her opponent.
— Hugh Spencer, Countryside
We need open primary
With the conclusion of Tuesday’s primary, Illinois almost assuredly selected Juliana Stratton to replace Dick Durbin as one of its two U.S. senators. It is a shame that the once-in-a-decade selection of a new senator took place in a March primary instead of the general election and that the progressive Stratton is to the left of the moderate electorate of Illinois.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Since 2011, California has held single primary ballots that are open to voters of all parties. The top two vote getters advance to the general election in November. If both vote getters are from the same party, they face off again in November.
If Illinois had this type of primary, Stratton and Raja Krishnamoorthi would face off again as the top two vote getters, but this time in front of the much larger general election electorate. This would allow the more moderate voters in Illinois to have a larger voice in selecting our next senator.
— Ron Richards, Elmhurst
Which statistic is worse?
I’m not sure which is worse: 60% to 70% of voters choosing somebody else (because of plurality voting in numerous races) or over 70% of the electorate choosing not to vote (because of indifference or whatever).
— Roger Becker, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
