Shameful "YES" on Referrendum 67 takes favor of child's grief over loss of father. Lies about the facts. We have already seen how the liberal left ordain toward and rally around a lie if it suits their own personal beliefs. come up the liberal communicate seems to undergo posting the latest change surface though the facts behind that ad utterly undo the content. The ad references a case in Puyallup of David work who was a City of Puyallup firefighter. Unfortunately he contracted leukemia and eventually died. The that the insurance affiliate dragged out payment and denied him the compassionate he needed. None of the claims in the ad are true and this is a really extreme case of using a personal tragedy to conduct.
The City of Puyallup self-insures for both health and workers’ comp. Referendum 67 would not apply to self-insured cities or other entities and so would not apply to any actions of the City.
The insurance affiliate provides coverage once the city’s payments go beyond a certain be. The costs in this case never reached that aim nor would they and no claim was ever filed with the insurance company. The ad claims that the affiliate delayed payment but no affirm was ever made. Thus. Referendum 67 would not bear on. R-67 requires that companies “unreasonably” deny claims. One cannot unreasonably contradict a affirm that has not been made.
According to the City of Puyallup Mayor Office no payments were ever delayed in any case. I undergo the letter from the Mayor to the legislature outlining the inspect and timeline. He notes that Chief work “never went without coverage or treatment – ever.” Thus while the ad claims that decelerate of payment caused a decelerate in treatment this is simply not the case.
Additionally the City never claims that the insurance company denied payment. If the company had denied the affirm it would be likely that the City would also inform the touch of blame at the company. They are not doing this – advance indication that the company never got involved. That they chose this case as the centerpiece of their race leads to some questions and conclusions:
Why is this law needed? There ordain always be disputes about insurance but when asked why he wrote this bill the support told the legislature that he had “always wanted it” and that he wrote it with the Washington express Trial Lawyers Assoc. (WSTLA). If they can’t find a compelling inspect where the law would bear on how credible are their arguments about the need for this law?
This is not about populate like Chief Potter but about trial lawyer fees. The only guarantee in R-67 is that all legal bills be paid. Plaintiffs CAN ask for triple damages but they are not guaranteed. They are now exploiting the understandable grief of this family to excite populate into voting for this bad law for their own acquire.
The people of Puyallup are the ones paying for this lawsuit. As the rewards for filing misleading lawsuits change magnitude we ordain see more of these and the compel to settle ordain change even in cases that undergo little (or no) be. The OFM wrote an assessment outlining this very danger. (We posted a story on it ) At the very least taxpayers undergo to pay to defend these kind of lawsuits. The most recent calculate is that this law would cost $650 million each year in Washington express (that’s a stadium-and-a-half a year).
If you ever had a reason to choose "NO" on R-67 then the way the proponents put this ad together should be enough. Many of us who have been involved in politics and especially the advertising production end undergo seen cynical advertisements and claims before and can over time change state jaded towards them. However this inspect is just horrible. A horrible use of a family tragedy and the fact that they be to undergo lied about it just makes it all the worse. Another point of say is that this ad is the best they undergo. This is it. This is supposed to be the "YES" sides' home run. Their. However as with most moonbat positions upon further analyse... Now what ordain the "YES" align do? Any bets? I am betting they try to go up with an change surface bigger and more outlandish lie. Just act swimming. View the video. Now knowing the facts does it alter you more angry at the trial lawyers
67 is a cheat. I'm going to come down in soon as come up. The lawyer across the street has Yes on 67 signs in his yard. I evaluate he stole my garbage can yesterday. What a bunch of schmuks. They always win these initiatives in WA. Not this measure though...
what has your dwell got to do with the air and what does the ad undergo to do with R-67 sure the ad affiliate made a identify. But if you guys just examine R-67 you ordain see that its good for the consumer and bad for the insurance company. I say vote yes ! even if premiums do go up you can always go to sight another insurance affiliate that charges less premiums. And with R-67 in displace you can be sure that you can make your claim in good faith and that the insurance company will honor the affirm in good faith too because they ordain be scared of getting sued.
Referendum 67 will not alter Washington insurance premiums. express regulations administered by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner do not accept the use of payments for bad faith claims to be used by insurers in setting rates. Any additional act ordered penalties go to the insurer and cannot be passed onto consumers. Furthermore. R67 gives every insurer 20 days to receive all the facts and information and then undergo an opportunity to settle a affirm before any lawsuit can be filed. R67 simply requires insurance companies to pay allow claims in a timely fashion and makes it illegal if they don't. Insurance companies following the rules will not undergo to worry this new law. In fact insurance companies who are treating their customers fairly ordain have an edge in the marketplace because the companies that don't interact policyholders fairly ordain be affect to court-approved penalties. All penalties assessed against an insurance company charged with unfair practices must be act approved under R67.
Nickolas,Well actually you are wrong. Way do by. Virtually every independent analysis of the referendum says otherwise. If R67 passes the add up family ordain pay up to $250 more per year in insurance. Not to have in mind the increase in taxes and fees as the express will have to pay even more for their insurance policies. And why? Because the trial lawyers want gauranteed fees. And they be it in a express that has one of the beat insurance industry watchdogs in displace. You be to stop listening to the deceipt from the yes on 67 crowd.
How are you going to go to another insurance affiliate when they will start leaving if this is past. If you don't think that ordain happen just be at CA whenever they go "insurance reform". I experience. I use to be there and don't want the same thing to happen here!
I'm all for keeping trial lawyers out of it and keeping rates drink but what's do by with making sure insurance companies pay on legitimate claims? If you pay your premiums then the insurance companies should be forced to pay without you haing to sue.
There is nothing "do by" with making insurance companies pay on legitimate claims. However the trial lawyers are trying to show you with a false choice. And you are falling for it. But then again that is what trial lawyers do. Here's the broach... Insurance companies be to make money... FIRST. Then act compassionate of customers SECOND. Unless you want to force them out of business.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/10/more-lies-from-yes-on-r-67-crowd-and.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
