Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when I first got USAA 10+ years ago, I had to prove I was either 1-An Officer, 2-MIDN/ROTC/OCS Contracted BDCPer, or I think 3 was E-7 or above.
I know it's way more people than that now.. And I remember being told the reason the rates were so low (when I first joined) is "You are not underwriting the 18 year old E-2 with a new Ninja or Mustang GT"..
Not to sound elitist, but Officers are on average a lot more "Responsible" in their personal life, and I thought the rates reflected this back then.
Why did USAA go this route?
Another factor played into this USAA change. +- 10 years ago there was a senate sub committee (driven by the libs) that was investigating unfair practices in the insurance industry. You know, specific rates for specific zip codes. So the committee ends up learning about this elitist/discriminatory insurance company called USAA that didn't offer coverage to everyone. (GASP! How could that be?) The committee threatened a lawsuit against USAA to force them to offer policies to every American. An nice early peek at the modern US socialist agenda if you will. USAA says no way to the committee and after months of negotiations USAA meets them somewhere in the middle and agrees to offer insurance to enlisted folks as well.
This was simply a Democrat political positioning and bragging rights topic that ended up only hurting officers who worked for the same US Government. There may have been other interests pushing the interest in the topic along but as I recall- it's factually correct.
The good news is that November 2010 will be here in just a couple of months and we can make some small changes to our elected representatives.