Are you confused about R-67? Sure you are. The insurance industry is spending a stunning $8 million on deceptive ads to make sure that you are confused… because confused voters almost always vote “no.” Those fake ads from that fake “consumer” group featuring fake lawyers and fake families, represents everything that’s wrong with an initiative and referendum process that is fast becoming an exclusive tool for moneyed special interests to buy their way onto the ballot so they can sell their agenda with lies.
But you all know how I feel about ballot measures, so don’t take my word for it, or even that of the “Approve 67” campaign. Watch CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s in-depth report on the scandal at the heart of R-67, and make up your mind for yourself.
Personally, I pay my insurance premiums on time, and I expect my insurance company to pay out my claims accordingly. I’m voting Yes on R-67.
The insurance industry is spending a stunning $8 million on deceptive ads to make sure that you are confused
That tells me all I need to know. I’m voting yes.
Everyone wants their insurer to pay all their claims without question, but not to pay anyone else’s fraudulent claims.
A couple of years back my heath insurance tried to deny payment for a tetanus shot. Nice, huh.
The fake ad with the fake lawyers and fake families aren’t as pathetic as the fake ad with the fake diner and the fake waitress with the fake southern accent.
http://www.reject67.org/ads/diner_3.wmv
Ugh – trial lawyers on one side, insurance companies on the other. As one of the producing class, I get to pay for it, whomever wins.
michael @3,
A few years back I went to a doctor for the first time in god knows how long. I was seeing a shimmering light out of the periphery of one eye, had an unusually large number of floaters, and had experienced two episodes where a jagged wavy line cut through my field of vision, so I went to an ophthalmologist for a thorough evaluation. My retina was fine, and well, I just happened to have an awful lot of floaters (I always have at least few.) As for the jagged line, it was diagnosed as an optical migraine. I guess that’s better than the other kind.
My insurance company refused to pay, insisting that I was not covered for routine eye examines. Three times my doctor resubmitted, saying that she had feared a detaching retina, and three times I was rejected. I was only out less than $200 after the deductible, so I gave up… but I learned my lesson. My whole life I’d payed for full insurance without ever using it, and one of the few times I make a claim they dick me over. I canceled my pricey PPO plan, and took a catastrophic policy with another company. I figure, why pay premiums when my insurance company refuses to pay claims?
delbert @5,
No… insurance companies on one side, consumers on the other.
KING5 News had an interesting little expose last night about how auto insurance companies have adopted what was referred to as the “McKinsey Strategy,” so called because it was designed for the insurance company by consultants McKinsey & Co.
Apparently the McKinsey strategy involves boosting insurance company profits with harball tactics like, among other things, denying claims and making you jump through all sorts of hoops on the hope that you will find it all to be such a pain in the ass that you will give up and they won’t have to pay the claim.
Apparently some Seattle lawyer is suing Allstate for bad-faith denial of claims and is trying to get them to release the McKinsey documents that detail the strategy. Allstate, and others who have adopted this strategy, are of course fighting tooth and nail against release of the documents.
Although the report only talked about auto insurance, if auto insurance companies are finding this such a profitable strategy why would health insurance companies not follow suit? Voting yes on I-67 would certainly send a message that such a strategy is unacceptable in health insurance.
Fuck the insurance companies. Greedy wankers.
Sure, many lawyers have horrible reputations that are deserved. But even lower on the sleaze scale are insurance companies. They make snakes look upstanding.
A far more comprehensive report on the McKinsey Strategy was shown in August on the PBS program NOW under the title Home Insurance 9-1-1.
That link points to extensive information from that program, additional interviews, comments, and even the (lame and disingenuous IMHO) responses from the (despicable IMHO) industry.
Goldy’s right — this is Big Insurance against consumers, not against that GOP boogeyman “trial lawyers”.
I’m curious about how it came to be that voting YES on this measure upholds the law already passed in Olympia while voting NO on it overturns the law. I can’t find the actual text of the referendum on the web, but knowing that the insurance companies got this measure on the ballot, it seems like they’re pushing a referendum that they intended for voters to turn down. Is that correct?
Lee, that’s correct. It’s well known that those who don’t understand what an initiative or referendum is all about tend to vote against it.
The directionality of this referendum question surprised me too. Perhaps someone well-versed in Washington law can explain it. Like you, I come from a land where legislatures actually pass laws.
With all due respect to KING-TV’s “expose” of the McKinsey Strategy, the PBS program NOW reported on it in August, in a segment called Home Insurance 9-1-1. Far more comprehensive than anything a local TV station could do.
That link will get you to transcripts, interviews, commentaries, self-serving “responses” by Big Insurance, and McKinsey’s “non-denial denial”.
Lee @10,
That’s the nature of referendums. They don’t as much repeal a law, but force them to go before voters for approval before they can go into effect. So a “yes” vote always upholds the law.
It is very confusing, and this confusion generally works to the advantage of the folks challenging a law, as people generally vote No if they are confused.
@6…Goldy…
Sorry…your scenario is unaffected by R-67, which doesn’t cover, per the ADMITTEDLY AND SERIOUSLY FLAWED VOTERS’ PAMPHLET, THANK YOU SHERRIL HUFF, “…a health plan offered by a health carrier as defined in the insurance code.”
I guess Group Health, or whoever covers you, will still be able to stick it to you.
The Piper
@12…Goldy…
It’s not confusing for those of us who pay attention.
The Piper
See Constitution, Washington State. Referendum is a check on the Legislature. Any law passed without an emergency clause is subject to potential Referendum.
It is explained fairly well inthe Voter’s Pamphlet which arrived yesterday and I assume y’all have read :)
And, what’s really different, you want the law you vote yes for the Referendum. You want the Initative to become law, you vote yes!
Thanks, Dave.
Within the (nonsensical and ridiculous, IMHO) world of I&R, that explanation makes sense.
Yes, because of course we need numerous checks on the legislature beyond gubernatorial veto and judicial review, and initiative.
I am sure if I lived in Washington in 1860 or 1890 I’d be all over referendum as an essential citizen participation in a remote area devoid fo effective mass communication. Now, maybe not so much.
There is so much irony in Dana Childers’ assertion that the insurance industry just wants Washington’s consumers to decide this issue. Where do these people come from? Does she truly believe the insurance industry is pouring millions of dollars into this campaign out of concern for consumers?
@17…DL…
Maybe more so now…
The Piper
Goldy,
You might want to chat with Heather and Jon from dooce.com and Blurbomat.com. They have been blogging about problems they’ve been having with health and life insurance companies for the last couple of years.
The second claims rep I talked to made sure my $40.00 shot (which I think they have to cover (one of those evil mandates)got taken care of.
@8
Fuck the insurance companies. Greedy wankers.
I say fuck the trial lawyers, too. Greedy bastards!
@12
OK, thanks. So, we’re not voting on the challenge to the law, we’re essentially voting on the law itself. That makes sense.
@14
It’s not confusing for those of us who pay attention.
Good thing you weren’t talking about Iraq here, champ.
$44 Billion dollars in profits. Which is another way of saying that insurance companies fleece the taxpayer.
This is a prime example of why Washington State should be the sole source of automobile insurance for its citizens in the state. You should pay for insurance when you pay for your tabs. This is another example of how Canada has a government that protects and serves their people better than the U.S. does.
This referendum should just be a starting point for insurance reform in Washington State.
The insurance commissioner said it perfectly- any insurance company that treats its own customers fairly has nothing to fear from this, and it won’t cost them a damn dime. Not only will it cost them nothing, it should only hurt the unfair competitors and companies who cheat their insureds. The fear tactics by the insurance industry are laughable. Just treat us fairly, and this will have no affect on them at all.
-Tom
I’m voting yes on R-67, too. I had to sue my own insurance company to get them to pay under my policy. (I was hit by an unlicensed and uninsured driver.) Enough is enough.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled this week that a state law creating penalties for false political advertising is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech. While I agree with the court’s ruling — government should not be in the business of policing what people can or can’t say in political campaigns — it makes the political environment even more difficult because it throws the doors wide open to outright lying in political commercials. And we’re going to see a lot more of that from rightwing candidates and outfits like the insurance companies.
@24…BDM…
Surely you jest!
The government running insurance? Every talked with anyone who’s tried to get help with some aspects of Medicare Part B?
Government run insurance is the pits…Allstate will look like heaven after the state screws you over on your insurance.
Look at CPS in DSHS…There’s an example of government at its efficient best. How many millions of $$$ has the state had to pay out in damages due to the crappy way it DOESN’T take care of children who are wards of the state? It’s a double whammy in that children get abused or even murdered and the taxpayers have to fork over millions and millions in damages due to CPS’s negligence bordering on callous disregard.
That’s government efficiency to me…
The Piper
@24 I’ll settle for enforcement of the licensing and financial responsibility laws.
@29 Of which there is none.
@28
What about competition between a public insurance and a private insurance system? Private insurance is every bit the model of inefficiency as public insurance (I’m in the middle of a 3 month run-around with my health insurance just to get a basic prescription right now – no public health system on earth can top that). The answer should lie in the middle, to have public and private systems competing with each other for customers (with tax rates on the private system determined by the size of the public system).
@27…RR…
I agree with you up to a point. But I would offer as Exhibit A in the political liars club, 45th Legislative District Sen. Eric Oemig, who lied to the people in this district by promising to be a centrist, bi-partisan legislator who would focus on education, health care, and transportation.
Yet before the cab pulled away from the curb on his first day in Olympia, he banged the hard left impeachment drum, which has turned about to be just about his numero uno issue. Forgotten were his campaign promises about representing the moderate 45th District.
And he continues to pander to all but his constituents who are becoming increasingly annoyed at this do-nothing, know-nothing, morally void back-bencher who’s now considered to be an embarrassment to his own party as well as the target of unfavorable editorials from the Seattle Times to, of all publications, The Stranger.
The recent Washington Supreme Court opinion in Rickert v. PDC, while very arguably correct on the law, has legalized – that’s legalized, not legitimized – Oemig’s campaign strategy.
Does the phrase “one term wonder” come to mind?
The Piper
OK, Goldy, we all know you dislike citizens having the right to overturn legislative acts or passing their own laws, but that’s to be expected because you’re from PENNSYLVANIA (a foreign country) and don’t understand, and haven’t been acculturated to, our western populist ways.
Well, you’ll just have to live with it, because the initiative and referendum aren’t going away. You might as well mess with people’s water rights (which they will defend with Winchester rifles, if they’re pushed). Around these parts, most people think the legislature works for us, not the other way around, and want the right to supervise legislators, whom we consider our employees. Your ranting against the initiative and referendum is like a coyote howling into the wind.
The solution to things like the insurance industry’s R-67 ads is not to fuck with direct democracy, which is as western as sagebrush and dust storms, but to call fucking liars what they are: FUCKING LIARS. Voters aren’t as stupid as you think. The majority of them usually know bullshit by its smell. And I don’t think you have to worry about insurance companies winning any popularity contests around here. You might say they’re the Jon Benet Ramsey of grass-roots politics: Slick and polished, but dead meat when the dust settles. I haven’t seen any polls on R-67, but I feel confident the insurance industry has pissed off enough of their customers that we can take this initiative to the bank.
@29
In California, when you renew your license tabs, you have to send in proof of insurance to get the updated tabs. That tends to promote drivers having insurance. At least long enough to get new tabs.
Maybe we should bring back chain gangs and debtors’ prison for people who get in at-fault accidents and don’t have insurance (or enough wealth) to take care of the injured party. A few months of hard labor (first offence) ought to be enough to have them “come to Jesus” on the auto insurance issue.
Having auto insurance is a hell of a lot “cheaper”, in the long run, than doing some hard time!
Insurance companies are the only ones in this fight who profit from not providing any service to you. Their claim of protecting consumers from higher rates is ridiculous.
@32 What you are overlooking is that nowadays impeaching Bush IS the moderate, centrist position — just as fighting Hitler after he began invading other countries and starting wars was the moderate, centrist position in this country two generations ago.
@34 Maybe we should bring back the stocks and lash. Making public examples of a few of them should be sufficient. But I’ll settle for the Dep’t of Licensing and district court judges simply enforcing the laws already on the books.
@37,
“Maybe we should bring back the stocks and lash.”
Now yer talkin’!!!
@33…RR…
Geez…a rabbit who swaggers like The Duke!
At least we agree on the concept of popular sovereignty expressed through the initiative and referendum process, which, as you rightly note in commenting upon the idea of direct democracy, as much a part of us as “sagebrush and duststorms.”
The initiative and referendum processes became a part of state governmental process at the same time as primary and recall election procedures. They were intended by populist and progressive interests at the time to serve as the people’s check against unrestrained government, especially government that pandered to special interests.
Today, the initiative and referendum processes work just fine, except, that is, when the pandering-constantly-to-special-interests legislature sticks an emergency clause on everything precluding a referendum to the people.
You all should know, BTW, that my sources in Olympia – elected DEMOCRATIC sources – tell me that should R-67 pass, it will be modified in several areas by the next legislature, so don’t get your hopes up too high. Then again, disappointment is your constant lot in life.
The Piper
@36…RR…
If it is, where’s the groundswell in Washington to do it? Even Nancy Pelosi thinks the idea has cooties, hence her primary challenge from the ultimate in mainstream thinkers, Cindy Sheehan.
The Piper
Oh yes, lets not have a government run car insurance program. Better to have insurance companies grab $44 billion dollars a year from taxpayers, and then attack them with private investigators and lawyers when they are most vulnerable.
That must be what it means to be a compassionate conservative.
When are you people going to wake up and understand that this was a great country before corporations, and has prospered not because of them, but in spite of them?
Piper Scott,
You call someone a liar, yet your statement is not supported by the facts:
You, apparently, don’t know the definition of a lie.
If Eric Oemig had said, “I will not sponsor a resolution calling for Washington State to petition Congress to impeach the President,” then one could say he lied. But he didn’t.
If Eric had said I will not get involved in holding the Bush Administration accountable for their lies, deception, illegal spying, or incompetence” then you would be correct.
But Eric said no such thing.
If Eric had said, I will only pursue bipartisan legislation (defined as having, say, at least 25% support by each party according to some preliminary poll), then you could say he lied. But he didn’t say any such thing.
The fact is, the impeachment memorial is but one piece of legislation he has sponsored. He was the primary sponsor for 24 and a secondary sponsor of about 125 other pieces of legislation, memorials, and resolutions. Of these, I count that he sponsored or cosponsored about:
So, it looks like he meets your expectations for health and education, and is, perhaps, a little thin on transportation issues. Perhaps you found him too focused on elections and environmental issues? Still, that it is clear that he has worked on more education, health, and transportation topics than Iraq war and impeachment memorials (of which I count only two).
Among his bill sponsorships, he exhibits a range from more liberal to surprisingly conservative—completely compatible with his slightly left-leaning district.
National-issue memorials make up only a tiny chunk of his sponsorships (8 of about 150), so your description of him abandoning the 45 is utter bullshit. Most of his memorials are pretty much in line with both his district and Washington state overall:
A September SurveyUSA poll found 34% of Washingtonians approve of Bush and 63% disapprove, and that in Western Washington OUTSIDE of Seattle the numbers are 36% approve and 61% disapprove. (The latter should be a good proxy for the 45th). Therefore, it is hard to argue that the SJM 8016 is very far from the political center of the State.
Here are some helpful suggestions for you Piper Scott. Before calling someone a liar, (1) learn the definition of a lie, and (2) get your facts straight.
I mean real fact, not some wingnut bullshit that you pull out of your ass because you REALLY REALLY WANT it to be so.
@43…D…
Big deal…He signs on to sponsor a bill; so he can write his name.
But in his campaign material, he pledged to be a bi-partisan centrist focusing on local issues, yet when he gets to Olympia, he skitters off the left side of the table such that he got smacked by his own party leaders in the legislature.
FYI…I LIVE in the 45th, and I remember his campaign material that accused his opponent of extremism in some of the worst examples of LYING campaign material I’ve ever seen. I’ve had elected officials on BOTH sides of the aisle express to me what an embarrassment that clown is down there.
This guy deliberately mislead voters in the 45th by running center than lunging left once elected. There’s no question in my mind that this is the kind of guy he is, and he deliberately covered up and hid his real agenda from the voters.
His most recent disgrace is but another example of him putzing where he doesn’t belong since he’s not attending to the legitimate state business of the people of the 45th.
This bum is my state senator, so I have a dog in this fight.
The Piper
Piper Scott,
So…now it seems you not only do not know what is meant by the term “lie”, but you don’t understand the concept of a political position. Here it is in a nutshell: one’s political position is not defined by one’s most extreme “statement”. Rather it is defined by examining such “statements” in aggregate.
“But in his campaign material, he pledged to be a bi-partisan centrist focusing on local issues…”
And it is clear from his aggregate record that he has met this pledge.
You are making the mistake of focusing on a small number of items that you disagree with, and presuming that this is how all of his positions have fallen.
That’s the problem with you wingnuts…you can’t get past your emotions to objectively evaluate the underlying evidence.
“…yet when he gets to Olympia, he skitters off the left side of the table such that he got smacked by his own party leaders in the legislature.”
But…that single piece of legislation isn’t representative of his record. It is only one extreme piece of his record that you happened to notice.
“FYI…I LIVE in the 45th, and I remember his campaign material that accused his opponent of extremism in some of the worst examples of LYING campaign material I’ve ever seen.”
Given your inability to separate the concepts of shit that makes you mad from the objective concept of lie I’m afraid I can’t place much weight in your claim.
“I’ve had elected officials on BOTH sides of the aisle express to me what an embarrassment that clown is down there.”
That isn’t evidence for your original claim either way!
“This guy deliberately mislead voters in the 45th by running center than lunging left once elected.”
No…you see, that would only be a lie if he told you he would NEVER sponsor left-leaning legislation. Given the facts of his record, your claim is objectively false.
“There’s no question in my mind that this is the kind of guy he is, and he deliberately covered up and hid his real agenda from the voters.”
I agree that there is no question in your mind. Unfortunately, those are your emotions speaking. In the real world, your emotions (or anybodies emotions) don’t establish facts.
“His most recent disgrace is but another example of him putzing where he doesn’t belong since he’s not attending to the legitimate state business of the people of the 45th.”
Once again, his record utterly demolishes your claim, since the great majority of his sponsorships and votes have been entirely legitimate state business, and of concern to the 45th (unless you believe that his sponsorships on 32 education bills, 22 health-related bills, 6 transportation bills, 20 elections bills, and 15 environmental bills (among numerous other) are not relevant to Washington or the 45th.
“This bum is my state senator, so I have a dog in this fight.”
I hate to burst your bubble, but the fact that he is your Senator, doesn’t magically make your unsubstantiated claims true!
Not all democrats commit insurance fraud, but most people who commit insurance fraud are democrats. Take it from me.
Rufus @ 48,
So now you are channeling a dead man?
You must have had a very special relationship with him.
Hehehehe.
That money they’re spending to defeat the law, and to take you to court, is money *you gave them.* That’s why the law is just.
Correcting Piper’s umpteen-and-first error:
Sheehan isn’t “running” as a Democrat, so there’s no primary challenge.
One wonders who will get a smaller percentage of the vote in the 2008 general election — Sheehan against Pelosi or Steve Beren against McDermott.
@48: Not all liars lie casually, but nearly all casual liars are republicans.
Rufus @ 48,
So now you are channeling a dead man?
Since when has death ever stopped a democrat from voting? Come on…. If Queen Chrissy needs a couple thousand dead votes in 2008 I here for her.
Read your insurance policy carefully before making a claim and phrase your claim to cover what it is you want covered in a way that your insurance policy covers it.
I’m not joking.
I was an insurance agaent for years. If you are covered for wind damage, but you have flood damage, blame the flood damage on the wind. They’ll pay immediately.
It’s a game. If you want to get paid, play the game.
@41 Are you referring to that late empty-hat actor who tried to imitate the rolling gait and lilting dialect of Sagebrush Rabbits?
@41 “You all should know, BTW, that my sources in Olympia – elected DEMOCRATIC sources – tell me that should R-67 pass, it will be modified in several areas by the next legislature, so don’t get your hopes up too high.”
And maybe it should be. Have you read it? Actually READ it? Do you understand all the fine print? R-67 is a step in the right direction toward consumer rights, but if the legislature can improve it, then it should.
Rufus @ 53,
Awwwwww…Rufus, you’re STILL a sore loser. That’s simply adorable.
Now go ask the Warden for some cookies and warm milk before you snuggle up in your bunk. And, yeah, you can suck your thumb, too, after lights-out.
@42 The most recent polls I’ve seen indicate a majority of the public thinks Bush should be fired.
Hey Rufus,
I heard you had Mike Webb half-buried face down in his cellar.
That made it easy for you to stop by for a cold one.
Hehehehehehe
@42 (continued) Give it up! Trying to defend Bush, I mean. He’s a serial incompetent, compulsive lair, and an unmitigated disaster for our country and his party. Even the GOP’s career politicians will breathe a collective sign of relief when he’s finally gone. Meanwhile, rats are jumping off the administration ship as fast as they can.
This is book-advance season, and there should be a lot of interesting new books coming out this winter — none of which will make the Tin Ear Chimp look good.
Ha ha ha — this is gonna be good — watching the Shrub’s loyal lackeys reap royalties by dissing him and spilling all the administration’s dark secrets. (snicker)
@46 You just got slapped down, son, and don’t even know it. Quit while you still have a shred of dignity left.
Support the Cancellation of Haiti’s Debt
Over half of the loans Haiti continues to pay were granted to corrupt and brutal dictators like Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier. The Haitian people continue to pay interest on these loans of a clearly odious nature. Call your Representative (202-224-3121) and ask them to support the Haiti debt cancellation resolution (H Res 241), to cancel Haiti’s debt immediately.
Get serious.
Actually, Enoch Root, they’re spending money paid by policyholders all over the country. The money is coming from the national headquarters of Big Insurance.
As I write, 9 of them have contributed $300,000 or (much) more to the humorous-if-it-wasn’t-so-disgusting “Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates”. In descending order by amount, they are:State Farm (Bloomington IL) — $1,608,327.60Farmers Group (Los Angeles CA) — $1,524,325.60Safeco (Seattle WA) — $1,305,105.00Property Casualty Insurers (Des Plaines IL) — $880,000.00St. Paul Travelers (St. Paul MN) — $453,024.00Enumclaw Insurance Group (Enumclaw WA) — $378,246.00Zurich (Schaumberg IL) — $364,308.00Progressive (Mayfield Village OH) — $313,437.00Nationwide (Columbus OH) — $311,322.00Only two of the above are Washington-based. Of the 6 others exceeding $100,000 in contributions, only one (Grange Insurance) is in-state; the others are from Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, and the other Washington. Their list of contributors includes three, count ’em, three individual human beings, who gave a total of $500 (0.006% of the total).
By comparison, the largest single contribution to Approve 67 is $100,000. Yes, it’s by the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association. And there’s been some out-of-state money coming to their side — $51,700, or about 3.6% of their total. But $7700 of that amount came from out-of-state individuals, some of the hundreds of people who’ve written personal checks in support of the referendum.
All in all, there could not be a greater contrast between the deceitful, hugely funded, Big Insurance, corporate campaign against R-67, and the home-grown grassroots effort to do what’s right.
Damn, I keep forgetting that bullet-lists don’t work here … even though they display correctly in preview.
Me too! I’m voting Yes on R-67. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see, that if they paid fairly in the FIRST place they wouldn’t be taken to court.
Funny subject that you bring up today, of all days, Goldy. Haven’t mentioned before that I’m dealing with a hell of a mess at home. Found mold under kitchen sink upstairs a couple of weeks ago. Leached down to create mold in bedroom below. Plumber found TWO leaks, one upstairs & one downstairs and fixed ($1089 incl sales tax) by replacing the entire pipe and joints.
Told me I need to replace EVERY pipe in my house. Not a matter of “if” the rest will shear themselves off at the joint, but “WHEN”. Told me there’s a HUGE out-of-class lawsuit
http://www.abspipes.com/faq.htm l
Yep there is. BUT today I learned that my insurance won’t cover (because it’s not catastrophic and sudden emergency, leak had been going on and my X-ray ability to see inside the walls didn’t work but I SHUDDA KNOWN this was going on all along). Huh?
Pipe settlement today also says they will pay 60% of the pipes (ONLY). They damaged my house and don’t pay for mold or repairing. Think I will be needing my lawyer as soon as I can finish scrubbing w/bleach every item in that room to get out of contractor’s way.
But, the insurance always has the ‘threat’ that if you protest, they can & will cancel you (had a balcony flood 6 yrs ago), so that nobody else would touch you either. I’ve had this high quality insurance since the mid 70’s. Yeah, I’m voting Yes on R-67. Those commercials looks so fake, do they actually THINK common people would buy the bullshit?
@ 68 “I’ve had this high quality insurance since the mid 70’s.”
By that I mean that I’ve never had another company. They cover my auto, life, renter’s, and now Home Owner’s. They probably figure it would save them a buck to pay out the Life Insurance – if the mold/health issues can get to me first.
@47…D…
Listen…The guy claimed to be one thing when he ran for office, he went to Olympia when he was elected to office, then he immediately did his Mr. Hyde thing when he go there.
Stinking up the place by acting like a turd in the political punch bowl with his grandstanding stunts made for chuckles among the Republicans who saw him for the damn fool he was, but infuriated some Democrats because he wasted legislative time on jackass grandstanding.
Just about every editorial about him was highly critical calling him foolish, a grandstander, and more. Even Ken Schram told him to pay attention to the business for which he was elected instead of trying to get his name in the paper on issues that the state legislature neither can nor should involve itself.
He can “me too” himself on “state business” all day long in Olympia, but that proves nothing. What he’s hot to go to do is play the Washington, D.C. political game, not focus exclusively on Washington State business, which is what the people of the 45th elected him to do.
He LIED to the people when he got real specific with things he was going to do once elected yet strangely didn’t mention what now appears to be his real agenda.
And if you don’t think the people in the 45th think he lied, then heigh your fanny out here and chat with some of them…At least the ones who don’t blow a gasket at the mention of his name…or those who have colorful metaphors and choice epithets that they associate with his name such that you’d think he was given them as names at birth.
He LIED to us…
The Piper
@58…RR…
Cite them with links to websites where they might be found. Then find out what specific questions were asked, what methodology was used, what type of statistical sample produced the results, and what SPECIFIC conclusions were drawn.
I once played the role of Elwood P. Dowd and saw a 6′ white pooka, but that didn’t mean anyone else saw him.
Weather’s turning south…time to get out that warm rabbit fur coat.
The Piper
@51…NinS…
Thank you for the correction…
Sheehan versus Pelosi…pulling the Speaker to the left. Much further, they’ll both fall off their flat earth.
Beren v. McDermott…Beren’s running to offer the voters diversity of opinion. With Sheehan/Pelosi, it’s Tweedledum/Tweedlestupid.
The Piper
@55…RR…
That’s the one…He’s reputed to have dined on hare morning, noon and night…
You sure you’re not a jackelope? Perhaps an outsized product of an unnatural act?
The Piper
@68 Turns out those new-fangled plastic pipes ain’t so hot after all … merely another way for builders to cheapen construction while asking higher prices.
@71 http://www.zogby.com/Soundbite.....m?ID=12528
@73 “Perhaps an outsized product of an unnatural act?”
Maybe that explains my Republican past … ?
@74…RR…
Actually, if done right PVC has tremendous advantages and enormous cost savings…savings that get passed along to the consumer.
The Piper
@75…RR…
You have got to be kidding!
The poll question had a big IF in it, and – you’ll hate me all the more for this – the whole think looked slanted to attain a desired result.
There were more definitional questions and…rabbit holes…in that poll question than in a Bill Clinton response to a deposition quesiton.
As evidence it’s inadmissable…
The Piper
@76…RR…
In nearly every filling station, truck stop diner, and shady motel in the Southwest, there’s a mounted jackelope head. Come to think of it, there’s one down at Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe, too.
Kin of yours?
You any relation to Rabbit Maranville? Ask Lee, he’ll probably know…
The Piper
Piper @ 41: “You all should know, BTW, that my sources in Olympia – elected DEMOCRATIC sources – tell me that should R-67 pass, it will be modified in several areas by the next legislature, so don’t get your hopes up too high. Then again, disappointment is your constant lot in life.”
M’lad, my sources, Democratic to be sure, tell me you are full of shit. Why would our legislature tamper with a law that is so proconsumer and passes not only through the legislature with the governor’s signature, but then gets the imprimatur of the state’s voters? Ah, I believe the single malt is screwin’ with your head. By the way, Piper, I play an instrument that has been compared to the devil’s own–the banjo. Have you ever heard a banjo and bagpipe together? Not I, and I’m not sure I’d like to.
@78 Typical wingnut response — if you don’t like the message, attack the messenger. Zogby is a respected pollster. So stow the crap.
Why are you surprised that a majority of Americans think presidents shouldn’t disregard the Constitution and behave in a lawless manner?
And why do you defend such a politician? Doesn’t that make you a traitor to this country’s founding principles and governing laws?
@80…PL…
Four or five-string? I’m a HUGE banjo fan…my late-best friend in jhs, hs and college was a master and played professionally for many years. He was as good as Earl Scruggs, which is saying a lot.
Small pipes, shuttle pipes (I have a set), parlor pipes, which are all fingered like the big pipe, can all be played with other instruments in ensemble settings. The Great Highland Pipe has been played with a didgiridoo (Aussies, of course), a full symphony, and, recorded in multiple tracs, other instruments.
Here’s the deal on R-67…Guarantee to me that no insurance premium will go up as a result, that no lawyer will get a farthing more in fees as a result, that 100% of all proceeds will go exclusively to aggrieved insureds…Can you do that?
The facts of a claim and the provisions of an insurance contract won’t change as a result of R-67. Yet there seems to be this bizarre notion out there that R-67 will somehow perform an act of insurance alchemy and make bogus claims good or alter the provision of a contract causing it to cover what it wouldn’t otherwise.
We have 800+ years of common law since Henry II, a very nice Revised Code of Washington, an insurance commissioner, a plethora of provisions in the WAC, and tons more stuff…Do we need more laws???
The Piper
I am a retired old fart with nothing better to do.
The Piper
I have a cancker sore on my ass.
The Piper
When I was a kid, there were no electric toothbrushes.
The Piper
I can deal with rough toiletpaper.
The Piper
I can make horses out of tubular ballooons.
The Piper
Larry Craig is my role model.
The Piper
I wish I were dead.
The Piper
#74 RR and #77 PS
Actually, the point was that for the 1984-87 approx, they used
defective resin
on those pipes (my house was built 1986). That’s why the odd shearing effect at the joint (like someone not only sawed it straight across, but sanded it too). That’s why the $70million set aside. Plumber said they actually saved about a whopping $1.00 per 20ft length piece. He said the bathroom upstairs2downstairs could easily run about $15,000. I feel ill.
Mom liked you best.
The Piper
@42 The most recent polls I’ve seen indicate a majority of the public thinks Bush should be fired.
That is nothing, according to some polls it looks like as much as 89% of the people think the democrat congress should be fired.
Piper @ 82
5-string, of course. And, if you have a friend as good as Earl Scruggs, I’d like to hear a recording. Ain’t nobody as good as my man, Earl. Did you know that Flatt and Scruggs broke up over the Viet Nam War? Earl thought that the war, after awhile, had become stupid. Lester did not agree. Now, Earl’s son, Randy, is quite tied to the left. I don’t know much about bagpipes, other than I quite listening to someone who can actually play the pipes. From listening, I know that one thing that a 5-string banjo and bagpipes share, along with a didgiridoo for that matter, is a drone tone. Keeps us all anchored, wouldn’t you say?
With regard to your usual anti-lawyer nonsense concerning R67, let me just say that I don’t care if lawyers make a few more bucks because it passes as long as consumers do better at the same time. R-67 actually could result in lawyers making less money because insurers could respond by trying to comply with their fiduciary duty to their policyholders, thereby reducing the need for lawsuits (yeah, that’s going to happen).
Piper Scott @ 70
“Listen…The guy claimed to be one thing when he ran for office, he went to Olympia when he was elected to office, then he immediately did his Mr. Hyde thing when he go there.”
Nope, he did not. You are confusing the analytical concepts of variability with average. Just because he had a few positions that were farther to the left, doesn’t constitute going Hyde. On average, his positions come out a little left of center.
I find it amusing, but not surprising, that you seem incapable of grasping this concept. Truly, this is a case of being blinded by ideology.
“Stinking up the place by acting like a turd in the political punch bowl with his grandstanding stunts made for chuckles among the Republicans who saw him for the damn fool he was, but infuriated some Democrats because he wasted legislative time on jackass grandstanding.”
Irrelevant. This little opinionated rant of yours, does absolutely NOTHING to support your contention that he lied.
“Just about every editorial about him was highly critical calling him foolish, a grandstander, and more. Even Ken Schram told him to pay attention to the business for which he was elected instead of trying to get his name in the paper on issues that the state legislature neither can nor should involve itself.”
Still irrelevant. You made a specific claim that cannot be supported by just a single piece of legislation he was a primary sponsor of. A proper evaluation of your claim entails looking at his record in aggregate. When that is properly done, your claim is entirely unsupported.
“He can “me too” himself on “state business” all day long in Olympia, but that proves nothing. What he’s hot to go to do is play the Washington, D.C. political game, not focus exclusively on Washington State business, which is what the people of the 45th elected him to do.”
Again, your opinion here is contradicted by his ACTUAL aggregate record.
“He LIED to the people when he got real specific with things he was going to do once elected yet strangely didn’t mention what now appears to be his real agenda.”
As I have shown, he has a very strong record doing the things you claim he said he would do!
“And if you don’t think the people in the 45th think he lied, then heigh your fanny out here and chat with some of them…At least the ones who don’t blow a gasket at the mention of his name…or those who have colorful metaphors and choice epithets that they associate with his name such that you’d think he was given them as names at birth.”
Actually, I live almost on the border of the 45 in the 48, and interact with plenty of folks from the 45. I’ve never heard any animosity toward him from friends in the 45. And, you have only shown that you are incapable of a rational assessment of his record. So I’ll have to go with my empirical evidence, while admitting that it is rather incomplete…. (Not that that in any way validates your opinion, since you have shown a strong predilection toward irrationality in this issue—rather, I am just willing to be up front with the limits of the evidence I’ve collected directly).
You chose to call people liars in the face of evidence that strongly suggests you are wrong. I don’t really think you have the personal strength to overcome your ideological biases, analyze the data, and actually make a rational statement on the topic.
I am not surprised you find people insulting him left and right. Your irrationality probably leads you to hear insults when copious compliments are offered!
@93…PL…
Explain this sentance please, “I don’t know much about bagpipes, other than I quite listening to someone who can actually play the pipes.”
The droning sound of a pipe does underpin the melody, which is played on the chanter. In the history of the pipe, the three drones – one bass, two tenor an “octave” above the bass – were added piecemeal over centuries.
What makes the banjo and the pipe similar are the roots each shares in music of the people. Both light music (what pipers call marches, slow airs, dance tunes, etc., as opposed to the Great Music, or Piobaireachd – see, e.g., http://qanda.themacleods.net/qanda/skmqa015.htm) and bluegrass music, which is uniquely suited to the 5-string, have common roots in Scots-Irish people and share similar compositional structure.
Listining to tunes of both genres, you hear how they share a unique call and response, theme and variation, melody and refrain quality. A musical question is asked then answered, re-phrased then answered again.
Anyone who plays a banjo well has my respect and admiration. I wish I had recordings of my friend, but he died a year ago. He used to play professionally in Southern California (Golden Horseshoe at Disneyland – laugh if you will, but paying gigs for pickers in SoCal are few and far between) and on the cruise ship circuit (he was also drop-dead handsome, one of the most charming guys I’ve ever known, and possessed of a strong voice and ability to sing many styles of music). The last several years found him as a C&W DJ in Maine.
If you’re interested in “listening to someone who can actually play the pipes,” may I suggest looking online for the music of Bruce Gandy, Alasdair Gillies, the Lee brothers (they’re in the Surrey, BC area), locally Jori Chisolm, and many others who you’ll find linked to the aforementioned. The PNW, especially B.C., is one of the world’s hotbeds of piping. The Simon Fraser University pipe band is one of the top three or four bands in the world and has been for years. Other good bands are Strathclyde Police, House of Edgar Shotts & Dykehead, Field Marshall Montgomery, and others.
CD’s of pipe music you find in mass merchandise stores are what I call “Fred Meyer Piping.” Produced for the marked that likes to think of itself as appreciating all things “Scotch,” it’s palatable only for the unaware and unknowing. If you want real pipe music, you have to go online (I really like Chris Hamilton’s Tone Czar at http://www.toneczar.com/) or to a Scottish goods specialty shop like Tartan Thistle in Langley on Whidbey Island.
I try never to discuss politics when playing or listening to music. Art is transcendent and crosses all bounds.
The Piper
@94…D…
Here’s the deal…Eric Oemig misrepresented himself to the voters…At law, the misrepresentation of a material fact is tantamount to a lie, ergo he’s a LIAR.
He can tack his name on all the mainstream bills he wants in order to build a “record,” but his real agenda, evidenced through statements and participation in certain activities, belie the image he seeks to cultivate as a moderate.
He’s not a moderate, he’s an extremist and a hard-left activist, and his mouth and actions prove it.
This isn’t to say that he doesn’t have every right to say whatever he wishes or believe whatever he wants. But when he runs for public office, he should lead with his convictions, not hide from them, which is what he did when campaigning in the 45th.
Nutjob that he is, I have a grudging respect for Dennis Kucinich since he sticks his values on his chin and leads with it.
I’ve faced off against him in a community forum, and his response for why he does this stuff contrary to his campaign promises was singularly disingenuous, parsed to the extreme, and made the Prince of Parsers, Cigar Boy Bill Clinton, look like a piker in comparison.
There’s more evidence in favor of calling Oemig a liar than calling Dubya one. You all call him a liar because you don’t believe or like what he says, but you can’t prove intentional mispresentation of a material fact. In the 45th District, the evidence against Oemig is all over the place.
Yes, Eric Oemig is a liar…
The Piper
Piper Scott,
“Here’s the deal…Eric Oemig misrepresented himself to the voters…”
No he didn’t. His actions as a Senator are completely consistent with how he represented himself.
“At law, the misrepresentation of a material fact is tantamount to a lie, ergo he’s a LIAR.”
Let me guess…you aren’t a lawyer. Nothing you have presented looks like “misrepresentation of a material fact,” by which I suspect you mean breach of contract by false pretense or false promises. Again…unless he made specific promises that he would never deal with impeachment, the impeachment memorial is, but, a tiny part of his overall record. And his overall record is completely consistent with how even YOU (in your anger/ideologically altered reality) suggested he represented himself.
“He can tack his name on all the mainstream bills he wants in order to build a “record,” but his real agenda, evidenced through statements and participation in certain activities, belie the image he seeks to cultivate as a moderate.”
What the fuck? So…what you are REALLY saying is that you are going to excise all of the mainstream bills from his ACTUAL RECORD and create your own record for him. And then accuse him of false pretense.
Man…that is RICH Piper Scott. This kind of irrational thinking is why you Wingnuts have so little credibility! Seriously…you can’t “select your facts,” dude. His record is his record even if part of it is rather inconvenient for your “case.”
“He’s not a moderate, he’s an extremist and a hard-left activist, and his mouth and actions prove it.”
Yes…in the theatre of your little mind he sure is…. The problem, of course, is that you chose to ignore the great majority of his actions in his capacity of State Senator.
“This isn’t to say that he doesn’t have every right to say whatever he wishes or believe whatever he wants. But when he runs for public office, he should lead with his convictions, not hide from them, which is what he did when campaigning in the 45th.”
Except that his record is consistent with the priorities that you said he claimed he would have. You just ignore them.
“I’ve faced off against him in a community forum, and his response for why he does this stuff contrary to his campaign promises was singularly disingenuous, parsed to the extreme, and made the Prince of Parsers, Cigar Boy Bill Clinton, look like a piker in comparison.”
Except that…ummmm…Piper…you genuinely ARE a nut-job, as evidenced by your inability to set aside your ideology/emotions and objectively evaluate a record. I suspect what you heard as “parsing to the extreme,” etc. was really you being overcome by cognitive dissonance.
“There’s more evidence in favor of calling Oemig a liar than calling Dubya one. You all call him a liar because you don’t believe or like what he says, but you can’t prove intentional mispresentation of a material fact. In the 45th District, the evidence against Oemig is all over the place.”
You have yet to specify any specific lie. All you’ve done is whine about one piece of legislation he sponsored and claim that the rest of his record is irrelevant because of that. That’s plain crazy! Bush? How about this lie as a clearcut example? Bush on 20 Apr 2004:
But…speaking of Shrub: some people claim Bush was lying and “misrepresentating himself” when he claimed to be a “Compassionate Conservative.” For the legal analogy, in order to prove “false pretense,” one could not simply rely on the falsity of the claim. One would also have to prove that Bush knew the statement was false when he made it. Likewise, an analysis (with integrity) of whether or not he was “lying” by the claim, would require clearly demonstrating that (1) his claim was false, and (2) he knew at the time of making the statement that it was false.
I’m sure there are some people who claim that Bush was lying when he called himself a “Compassionate Conservative”. I doubt he was lying, though. He probably had no idea what he was, and his handlers simply told him to utter the phrase.
“Yes, Eric Oemig is a liar…”
Naaaa…so far, the only thing you have demonstrated is that you are incapable of objectively evaluating the actual evidence (I mean, ALL of the evidence.)
@96
He’s not a moderate, he’s an extremist and a hard-left activist, and his mouth and actions prove it.
Yeah, and I’m Queen Elizabeth.
Hey, Crackpiper, can you please buy a one-way ticket to reality? Everyone here would appreciate it.
fuck the insurance companies. i am SO TIRED of these bullshit commercials on one after another. from the fakey ass families to the pathetic pretend good ole diner. it’s all just sickening. i think i’ve seen one pro 67 ad actually saying what the law really does. that’s one for probably 70 of these commercials.
it’s pretty frustrating to see what kind of misrepresentations and blatant lies they can spew uncontested on a subject that affects us all.
does anybody know: if the insurance industry succeed in this, can the legislature simply pass the law again? they may be able to afford to spend $8million a year [especially if they can continue falsely deny claims each year], but they’d probably give up eventually.
i’m new to this blog, but that piper’s one mouthy ass troll. too bad it’s got so much time on its hands.
@ 99 & 100. EZ
You are right on target. So tiresome and takes up so much cyberspace trolling! I don’t come here for grade school ‘Music Appreciation Week’ myself, just have to keep sifting for the meaningful politics.
Also, agree that those relentless comls are enough already! Don’t they realize that they are just pissing people off? Taking over the TVs when people would rather just be watching their shows (now that we’re finally off the summer programming).
“they may be able to afford to spend $8million a year”
BTW, I bet that $8million would have gone far in paying some of those poor pathetic folk’s claims instead. Don’t think those folks will be voting the other way!
These people (including Dana Childers) are f-ing scum! They’ll do ANYTHING for profit and we need to pass R-67 to send the message that they will be put in their place.
The other thing we need in Washington is a law to outlaw the practice of using credit scores in determining insuance rates. RIght now, the law only forbids and insurer from canceling a policy. So, the way it stands now, poor folks with a FICO of 600 are paying higher premiums and the rich folks are getting the breaks. Since when did paying an indurance premium late have ANY indication that you’re going to have an accident? Answer: it doesn’t and the insurance industry needs to be stopped here. Last time I recall, if you didn’t pay your premium, you weren’t covered, end of story.
YES ON R-67.
On Oct 5th I interviewed Rep Steve Kirby, Trial lawyer Randi Gordon and State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler on this Referendum. Steve Kirby said this is a HUGE problem because insurance companies settle a claim for a 15K car at twelve K knowing you can’t find a “greedy lawyer” to sue for the difference. They pay sixty to seventy percent on a claim knowing we just want to get SOMETHING for our claims. Randy Gordon says that there aren’t going to be a bunch of lawsuits over small amount claims because lawyers like everyone else go where the money is, and it ain’t there.Mike Kreidler got involved because of the lies,BLATANT lies in the ads. As for lawyers, at the end of MR Gordon’s segment I asked “who represents the insurance companies in court?” his answer…..”Lawyers”.
I think…. I KNOW it’s a stretch to call this referendum “gummint-run insurance”. Those who know their ass from a hole in the ground know that ANY business run without SOME kind of regulation get things like, gee I don’t know…ENRON!! Think of it this way. The 1.8 million Allstate gave to this campaign is money that is NOT being used to cover those who lost everything in hurricane Katrina.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....nce08.html
Having had to recently deal with an insurance company over a car repair I have no sympathy for them. They refused my request for repair using OEM (factory) parts on my car. Did you know that they get to use aftermarket parts to repari your car?
Lies and misinformation that are the basis for the ads against R-67 include that the falsehoods that the courts are filled with frivolous lawsuits with the story between the lines that people (note injured persons – not their lawyers) who sue for the harms they have suffered are undeserving(a second bit of misinformation). Frivolous lawsuits when they occur are thrown out immediately by judges. Delay, Deny, Defending claims has proved to be so profitable, that insurance corporations have no incentive to do otherwise until R-67.
Third lie is that it will increase litigation. I read the law and it says that you have to give the insurance company written notice of their bad acts and that it will have 21 days to correct. If it doesn’t want to be sued, then it should pay up. If the claim turns out not to be legitimate, then there are no treble damages and the like, so what are the Insurance companies afraid of?
Fourth Lie is that our insurance rates will go up. I will never forget how they talked our legislature into voting in tort de(re)form in late 1980s so that we could keep our rates low. HAH! Up they went anyway. Public Citizen also has done a study of all 50 states and there is no relationship whatsoever with pro-insurance legislature and premium rates. The fact is that insurance companies are raking in tremendous profits at the costs of their own insureds and then using that ill-gotten money to run a campaign of misinformation so that they can keep the status quo.
Don’t let fear guide you – Vote yes for R-67.
VOTE NO.
There are already laws in place to protect the consumers.
There are PROCESSES to things, people. I just bought a new car. I had to fill out an hour’s worth of paperwork. Yeah, it sucked, but it HAD to be DONE in order for me to WALK OUT THE DOOR with it.
If this is passed, you do realize that this will SKYROCKET premiums through the roof because of all the fraudulant claims that will be put through and paid since people are so antsy and in a hurry.
And that commercial? With the cute little girl talking about how her DAD died of cancer before the insurance company would pay her claim? NEWSFLASH. That’s HEALTH insurance, a completely SEPERATE issue.
Hey Guys,
Just maybe we should, oh I don’t know, let the insurance companies that don’t take care of people just go out of business because people are warned against them? I think that we should vote NO because, I want to go to an insurance company that will at least cover my claim within a reasonable amount of time. If they cannot do that, I will take my business elsewhere. Let’s let the people figure it out, not the government. Also, if the insurance company wants to see if your claim is legit, LET THEM!! I wouldn’t want to be cheated out of money either!
As many of you may know, the Insurance Industry is a Multi-Billion dollar industry (PROFIT). For the longest they have had politicians in there pockets. It is unfortunate but true, many valid claims are delayed or not paid, as frustrated policy holders try there best to get results. Now concerning trial Attorneys and frivolous claims, how many common folk do you think are out there that can come up with the resources to fight these big and powerful insurance companies that always have a team of lawyers at the ready. I’m voting yes!!! It’s time to do whats right…
vote yes. in canada we got WCB. please dont give a way your freedom. VOTE YES.
Hey The Deuce,
what you said of “I want to go to an insurance company that will at least cover my claim within a reasonable amount of time. If they cannot do that, I will take my business elsewhere.” That my friend may be impossible to predict. You wont know if the company is good until you make a claim.
You paid hundreds upon hundreds of money to your insurance company and then you caught an illness and that company refuses to pay. How can you go to another insurance company now that you have the illness ?
I say vote yes ! even if premiums do go up, you can always go to find another insurance company that charges less premiums. And with R-67 in place you can be sure that you can make your claim in good faith and that the insurance company will honor the claim in good faith too, because they will be scared of getting sued.
Diner,
Health insurance isn’t part of this referendum. Also, “you can always go to find another insurance company that charges less premiums”? Good luck. Allstate took that woman to court and it didn’t matter how long they had to be in court as long as there was a chance that they wouldn’t have to pay. Like C.C. says, what do insurance companies want? “PROFIT”!!
10/13/2007 9:13:08 AM
Addiction
Referendum Measure No. 67
I was sort of planning to vote YES – – –
The Bill that was passed by the legislature does bring up some issues that I have long felt should be addressed. I have had my own personal battles with some Insurance Companies that did not want to pay the claims that I submitted. I also feel that I pay more for insurance premiums than is appropriate.
BUT, I feel that this Bill falls somewhat short of the mark:
1) I think that the issues really demand legislation that does address the real life cases like a person who has leukemia and has been unreasonably denied benefits by an insurance company. I think the Bill should be amended to remove the entire concept of: “This section does not apply to a health plan offered by a health carrier”.
2) I think that it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to impose sanctions upon an Insurer who unreasonably denies claims or delays confirmation of coverage, but I do not think that it is appropriate to lift or remove such sanction when the insured dies. I think that if a leukemia patient, with an insurance policy that contains coverage for such an illness, files claim under that policy, then no insurer should be permitted to even think – – “the insured is terminal, and will die before he/she can ever bring a bad faith action: lets just deny the claim”. I think the Bill should be amended after further reconsideration of the constraint “Any first party claimant- – – (may bring an action)”.
3) The allegation that approval of R67 will ultimately increase insurance premium for everyone may be just hype. I am not certain of the truth in the premise that an increase in insurance loss necessarily creates an increase in insurance premium but I think the Bill should have made at least a minimal effort to address that issue:
A. I think that the Bill should extend some incentive to Insurance Companies to refute unjustified and frivolous claims. Some Insurance Companies do regularly and frequently pay frivolous claims simply because the potential cost of defending a bad faith action is much greater that the cost of settlement. The Bill should specifically authorize a court of law to award attorney’s fees and cost to the Insurer as prevailing party in a bad faith action. One step beyond would be to make the insured’s counsel jointly and severely liable along with the plaintiff!
B. Some Insurance Companies regularly pay and settle unjustified and frivolous claims for reasons other than the potential cost of defense. The Insurance Commissioner discourages the practice of using claims settlement as a way of promoting new business. The Bill should authorize and require the Commissioner to monitor any such practices and, if necessary, bring an action in Superior Court to confirm the fact and impose sanctions far beyond the scope of any that are now available.
Is there any polling data on this issue yet? I’m seriously concerned that the “no” camp is pushing out so much misinformation that the average voter is liable to be swayed. You know when the “no” people have enough money to quickly put out a response ad like the one that lies about the firefighter from Puyallup…they are both well-funded and effective.