The latest ad from Approve 67 notes that the state's Insurance Commissioner, Mike Kreidler, said that "insurance premiums will not go up."
But that can only be true if R-67 changes nothing.
If there's more lawsuits, or more out-of-court settlements, then insurance premiums necessarily go up.
If there's higher awards in lawsuits or settlements, then insurance premiums necessarily go up.
If there's more or higher payouts by insurance companies, in order to avoid lawsuits and settlements, then insurance premiums necessarily go up.
Saying that insurance premiums will not go up because of R-67 is the exact same thing as saying that R-67 won't change anything.
But of course, we know that's not true. We know insurance premiums will go up. It's necessarily true. It's an economic fact. Insurance companies won't spend more money, unless it takes more money from policyholders.
There's no doubt that there's problem with our insurance business. But the answer is to introduce more competition and less regulation to lower the costs of health care, rather than making insurance cost more. The only broad effects this will have is to make lawyers richer, make people pay more for insurance, and make less people insured, as they can no longer afford the higher cost.
Posted by pudge at October 21, 2007 03:00 PM | Email ThisAdd more regulation or more onerous requirements and it goes up.
Posted by: swatter on October 22, 2007 10:17 AMI am not saying there's no problems. I am saying that the Approve 67 people lie when they say that fireman's problem was his insurance company; they lie when they say it is not against the law to reject legitimate claims; and they lie when they say rates won't go up.
And I don't like liars, and as I am skeptical of how well this would solve the problems anyway, I certainly won't side with the liars.
Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2007 01:45 PMThere is considerable disagreement over the fireman ad. The family is suing Puyallup and the excess insurer for wrongful death, so the Puyallup mayor's statement should be viewed in that context.
Nobody is pure in this fight. Trial lawyers and insurance companies are both pretty unpopular. But I don't like big insurers coming in here with ten million and calling themselves "Consumers". R-67 is not perfect. But I plan to vote in favor.
Posted by: Wayne on October 22, 2007 03:37 PMThe real and actual solution is to decrease the cost of health care by decreasing regulation and increasing competition. But lack of government control is too scary to many people, and that's the saddest statement I could possibly make about 21st Century America.
And yes, I know about the fireman thing. It's still false, in whatever context: that situation has nothing to do with this law. And even if it did, which it doesn't, it doesn't change their other lies, for which there is not even any rational argument. They say somthing is not illegal that is. They say something won't raise rates that will. They say this won't cost insurers more, when it obviously will. (And even worse than the lawyers lying, our elected insurance commissioner is lying, too.)
I don't care if you don't like insurers. The proponents of a law -- in this case, the trial lawyers -- have the higher burden of proof, and when every single one of their ads is lying or, at best, extremely misleading, then they have failed that burden, miserably.
R-67 does nothing useful that couldn't be done without a handout to lawyers and will cost all of us a lot of money. It does nothing at all to lower the cost of health care, which is the REAL problem we face. If we did that, then all the problems we see with insurance would be far more manageable.
I see only three reasons to vote for R-67: to enrich lawyers; to force more people out of health insurance and onto the public dole; or just because "something" should be done, and you've given up hope at doing something actually good and useful, and you're just grasping at straws.
I'll never be hopeless enough to vote for R-67.
What happened? A traffic accident, that's what. My vehicle was "totalled" by someone insured by Ameriprise, the Costco Insurance.
This should be simple. Either fix my vehicle or replace it with a comparable. After three weeks of "negotiations", they will not give me enough to do either. They hold the WA laws in contempt and lie to me. I am not asking for anything except replace or repair. Fault is not an issue.
The Office of the Insurance Commissioner has told me to file a complaint, which I am. Tomorrow I visit my lawyer. This is so stupid.
Posted by: Seabecker on October 23, 2007 10:53 AMAlso, do you think the delays they are putting you through is worth an increase in your insurance premium? If so, why not just change insurance companies (or policies) to one that costs more, that is less likely to have such delays?
I agree it's stupid. I agree that where the insurance companies do something wrong, they should be held accountable. I don't think this is the way to do it. I don't think this will help anyone who can't already help themselves by paying more for a better policy (since the effect of this law will be to increase our costs for our policies anyway).
Posted by: pudge on October 23, 2007 11:11 AMMy sister had to sue her own insurance company to get them to pay her medical bills after she was hit by an uninsured motorist. She almost went into bankruptcy and almost had a nervous breakdown.
Besides, it is normal for consumer protection laws to allow for reasonable attorney's fee and triple damages. Why should insurance companies get special treatment?
Posted by: fineday on October 23, 2007 02:27 PMAnd how would this law have changed your sister's situation?
And if it would have been different, would it have been worth the higher rates she would have had to pay all along? And if so, why not just pay more for a better insurance policy or company?
Your final question makes no sense to me. Similar to the thing about states. Suing for triple damages "just because" NEVER makes sense to me. Just because it happens in some other examples doesn't make it OK. These types of punitive damages (and even though these are not technically punitive damages, that is what they in effect are) should only be allowed when the company has been shown to violate its contract, to act with malice, and so on. Not for normal disputes.
Insurance is not always cut-and-dried. There can, and are, honest disputes over whether something should be covered, and how much. It is simply unreasonable to say that the insurer should have to pay triple damages over an honest disagreement.
I am not asking you to feel bad for insurance companies, but that doesn't mean we should be unfair to them, either.
I don't know your sister's case. But if the insurance company had strong and valid reasons to believe that the accident wasn't covered ... then they SHOULDN'T pay. That is how it does, and should, work. If they were obligated to pay and did not, then we should tailor the law to be specific to those sorts of situations, rather than a blanket law that says "we can sue for triple damages even if you didn't do anything wrong."
Posted by: pudge on October 23, 2007 02:47 PMI don't know if R-67 would help this. But if an insurance company today fails to settle or to offer a fair settlement, and the settlement is really needed NOW by the claimant, what penalty is there? What currently keeps the Insurance Companies from playing unfairly?
How will R-67 help, or not help?
Posted by: Seabecker on October 23, 2007 04:01 PMI am not saying the current situation is acceptable. I am saying this is the wrong to try to "fix" it: higher rates for everyone, not necessarily better service, and the only one making out are the lawyers.
AllState at first claimed it wasn't 100% their client's fault. I sensed the railroad, so I called my 'independent' agent who had my car insurance people place a call to AllState.
After that, a completely different attitude. I got the car repaired. Unfortunately, I never think I got fair value when all they do is knock out some dents and repaint. That is hardly an "or equal" if you ask me.
Posted by: swatter on October 23, 2007 04:45 PMPudge,
The reason R-67 makes sense is because it is consistent with Washington State's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). A better alternative to R-67 would be to make consumer/retail insurance policies fall within the CPA (where they belong) - this would also provide attorney's fee and triple damages.
Washington's CPA is an expression of the state's willingness to protect consumers from being harmed. R-67 is consistent with that policy.
Also, it matters that other states have R-67 type laws in place. It illustrates that this is not some hair-brained idea made up by our state's legislature.
The reason for the fee shifting and extra damages is obvious. Without fee shifting the bad insurance companies are essentially immune. Plaintiff's cannot afford to sue for the relatively small amounts of these claims.
If premiums go up: (1) it is because insurance companies are being bad and losing R-67 lawsuits; (2) they are forced to pay the real value of the claims - thus forcing them to increase premiums. (Which means their premiums are underpriced in the first place.)
In my sister's case,her insurer, one of the big insurer's, offered her $3K when she had $20K+ of actual medical bills. Even though she paid for PIP she still had to sue her own insurer to get them to pay more than 15% of her bill. A third of her recovery went to her lawyer so she was still screwed over in the end.
Posted by: fineday on October 23, 2007 06:04 PMThe reason R-67 makes sense is because it is consistent with Washington State's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). A better alternative to R-67 would be to make consumer/retail insurance policies fall within the CPA (where they belong) - this would also provide attorney's fee and triple damages.
So why not do that instead?
Also, it matters that other states have R-67 type laws in place.
Not to me, no, it does not. Not in the least bit. I do not care whatsoever what any other state does.
It illustrates that this is not some hair-brained idea made up by our state's legislature.
Not to me, no, it does not. Not in the least bit. I've been in many states that do many stupid things.
For example, many states have journalist shield laws, which make absolutely no sense and by giving journalists rights that other citizens do not have, only serve to protect journalists and elected officials from the public, rather than actually serving the public. That most states have these hair-brained laws does not encourage me when Washington follows suit. It just makes me think we have a bunch of lemmings running the government.
The reason for the fee shifting and extra damages is obvious. Without fee shifting the bad insurance companies are essentially immune. Plaintiff's cannot afford to sue for the relatively small amounts of these claims.
Sure. And WITH the fee shifting, EVERY insurance company gets hit. Which also means EVERY insurance consumer gets hit.
I pay for good insurance companies. When my car got broken into, State Farm paid me everything. They even paid me to install my own car stereo (what it would have cost to have someone else install it). I pay extra to get that level of response and service. And now my rates are going to go up with R-67 along with everyone else's, even though I don't have any problems with my insurance.
If premiums go up: (1) it is because insurance companies are being bad and losing R-67 lawsuits; (2) they are forced to pay the real value of the claims - thus forcing them to increase premiums. (Which means their premiums are underpriced in the first place.)
That ignores the fact that people will file more lawsuits just to try to get extra even when they don't deserve it, and that insurance companies will pay out what they are not required to pay out just to avoid expensive legal action.
Posted by: pudge on October 23, 2007 07:26 PM