I received an email detailing the following information, which I have copied in its entirety.
It's worth reading and discussion at the very least. Thanks for your attention!
SOteric
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Watch our newest TV ad -- "Who," showcasing the wide spectrum of support for R-67 __________________________________________________________________________________________
The good news keeps on coming -- from every corner of the state. In the past few days, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Columbian, and the Tri-City Herald all endorsed our campaign to Approve R-67 and ensure that insurance companies treat Washington consumers fairly.
But with the insurance industry spending more than $10 million to try to deceive voters into rejecting this common-sense ballot measure, we need to do everything we can to cut through their deceptive TV ads and get the truth out about R-67.
So please read some highlights from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Columbian, and Tri-City Herald editorials below -- and then forward this email to every Washington voter you know.
You're on the frontlines of our grassroots campaign to Approve 67 this November -- and we need your help to spread the word.
Sincerely,
Allison Branham
Approve 67 campaign
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Endorsement: A Consumer Tool
October 7, 2007
From the contentious ad war playing out on television screens, the choice put before voters with regards to Referendum 67 (a new law allowing for triple damage payouts in cases where insurers "unreasonably" -- unfairly -- deny claims) seems impossible.
Those supporting R-67, which does not cover health insurance, say it provides consumers with a hammer, a tool with which to pummel misbehaving insurance companies...
...This law, also known as "the insurance fair conduct act," provides clear language for what would constitute breach of fair conduct, that would be a violation of a series of codes pertaining to such things as "misrepresentation of policy provisions," "standards for prompt investigation of claims" and "standards for prompt, fair and equitable settlements applicable to all insurers."
The more we learn about it, the more we favor a yes vote on R-67. If insurance companies behave fairly, and pay out deserving claims, they need not fret over getting dragged to court.
Click here to read the full editorial.
http://ga3.org/ct/l1LsUv11w4z-/seattlepi--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Our View: Yes on Ref. 67
It gives clout to insurance consumers
October 7, 2007
The first thing to remember about Referendum 67 on the upcoming state ballot is that a "Yes" vote is a vote to let a law that the Legislature already has approved and the governor has signed go into effect. The Senate approved it 31-18 in April and the House of Representatives voted for it 59-38.
The Columbian believes the Legislature and governor did the right thing. We recommend a "Yes" vote on Ref. 67.
A "No" vote, which the insurance companies are advocating via an $8 million scare campaign, would kill this consumer-protection measure. Those opponents argue that if it passes there will be a flood of frivolous lawsuits benefitting trial lawyers and forcing insurance companies to settle out of court rather than risk having to pay triple damages, as Ref. 67 would allow. And that, say opponents, would drive up the cost of everyone's insurance rates.
But, think about it. Why would a respectable insurance company that promptly pays legitimate claims have to spend a fortune fighting its own customers? State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who also recommends a "Yes" vote on Ref. 67, says if insurance companies treat their policyholders as they should, "insurance rates won't change. The only companies with something to fear are those who make a practice of acting in bad faith with their own customers." ...
...Last winter, CNN reported after an 18-month national investigation that it found "a carefully developed strategy to make the victims look like they are trying to defraud the insurers. But documents CNN obtained indicate that profit, not fraud, is the reason companies" such as Allstate and State Farm "decided to play hardball in small accidents." If Ref. 67 passes, customers can play hardball, too.
Click here to read the full editorial.
http://ga3.org/ct/l7LsUv11w4zD/thecolumbian--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referendum 67: Yes
October 10, 2007
Referendum 67 is an attempt by insurance companies to toss out reforms approved by state lawmakers earlier this year.
The bill, dubbed the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, cleared the House and Senate with strong majorities, was signed by the governor and has the enthusiastic backing of state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler.
A "yes" vote on R-67 is in favor of keeping the new law. A "no" vote is to reject it.
What the law would do is allow a policyholder to collect triple damages and attorney fees from his insurance company if a court decides that a claim was unreasonably denied. Health plans are exempt.
We're recommending voters approve the measure and allow the new law to take effect...
...Insurers used similar scare stories two years ago about the initiative to cap medical malpractice awards. But after voters rejected the measure, malpractice insurance rates declined,
Kreidler told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
"Auto and homeowner insurance premiums will not go up because of Referendum 67," Kreidler wrote in widely distributed e-mail letter.
"The fact is that if insurance companies treat their own policyholders the way they are required to be treated by law, insurance rates won't change," he continued.
"The only insurance companies with something to fear are those who make a practice of acting in bad faith with their own customers."
If voters approve R-67, it will be largely because of Kreidler's advice. He'll be obligated to monitor the effect on insurance rates and let the public know the results.
The argument is the measure would mean fairer treatment for policyholders without raising rates. If that's not the case, then the law would need revisiting.
We're always reluctant to ask voters to overturn measures approved by the Legislature. At the state level, representative democracy is a system that usually serves the people's interests.
During this year's session in Olympia, attorneys and insurance companies had ample opportunity to make their cases regarding the need for addressing insurance company abuses.
At the end of that process, the Legislature, governor and insurance commissioner supported the new law. It ought be given a chance before voters side with the insurance industry to get rid of it.
The Herald recommends voters approve Referendum 67.
Click here to read the full editorial. http://ga3.org/ct/lpLsUv11w4zK/tricityherald
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Watch our new TV ad | Visit Approve67.org
Paid for by Approve 67
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
