In response to your editorial calling for no-fault automobile insurance and state regulation of insurance rates as a means of solving the current (and impending) insurance crisis, I would like to offer an opposing view. While I am certain that no-fault insurance would be a vast improvement for the insurance-buying public (and a bane for the legal profession), state regulation would in all probability cancel any rate reduction brought about by no-fault.
Historically, any government interference in the marketplace has resulted in artificially high costs that must be paid by the consumer. Milk price supports, utility (telephone, electricity, etc.) costs and postage are all examples of government regulation that we must pay for. While insurance costs per se are not now regulated, insurance companies are and it is that regulation that has caused a sizeable portion of the current problem.
We can see the mess that state regulation has brought us. Why not try a free market approach? Surely the state with the highest number of automobiles is a market that no insurance company would dare pass up. Competition among insurance companies for the California consumer's business can only result in reduced costs.