🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4grts8$l4h@crl4.crl.com>, mbstone@crl.com (Michael Stone) wrote:


> : On average, accident victims with medial bills and wage losses exceeding
> : $100,000 recoup just nine percent of their losses from auto insurance.
> : (Source: The RAND Corporation) 
> 
> Gee, maybe we could pass a law that required insurance companies to pay 
> claims within a reaonable time or be penalized!  Prop 200 doesn't 
> impose -any- requirements on insurance companies to lower rates, to pay 
> claims, to do anything!

�Prop. 200 mandates that insurance companies pay within 30 days or get
charged at 24% interest rate on the claim.  Prop. 103 regulation of the
insurance industry insures that rates will go down. 

> : In California, lawyers pocket 20 cents of every premium dollar. (Source:
> : California Department of Insurance) 
> :        
> : Californians are forced to spend more than $2.5 billion a year on auto
> : accident lawyers. (Source: California Department of Insurance) 
> 
> Gee, why do you think people are "forced" to hire lawyers?  If the
> insurance companies paid fair settlements to injured people, who would
> need lawyers? 

�People are generally forced to hire lawyers because they get sued by
someone hoping to win the lawsuit lottery.

> 
> These Props don't limit the amount of $ insurance companies can spend on 
> lawyers, they only limit YOUR right to hire a lawyer and get compensation!

�Under Prop 200 you can still sue your insurance company if you feel you
didn't recieve just compensation.  Your right to hire a lawyer is not
limited.

> 
> Basically, there are 2 kinds of lawyers, lawyers who work for insurance
> companies, and lawyers who work for ordinary people like you and me. 
> Props 200/201/202 don't limit the insurance companies or their lawyers in
> any way!  I mean, if you really hate lawyers that much, why not stick it
> to insurance company lawyers at the same time?  The answer is that Props
> 200/201/202 were written by the insurance companies to screw the rest of
> us. 

�Prop 200 was written by some of the same people who screwed the insurance
industry in 1988 with Prop. 103.  We actually asked for input from some in
the insurance industry when we were writing the Props, they gave it to us,
and we didn't use it because we thought the terms they wanted were way too
anti-consumer.  Consequently, we haven't received a dime from the auto
insurance industry. (Check with the Secratary of State's office for
verification).  Props 201 and 202 have nothing to do with the insurance
industry and everything to do  (in a nutshell) with curbing frivolous
lawsuits and protecting consumers.


> : Car owners would be required to show proof of insurance within 30 days or
> : pay interest at the rate of 24 percent per year. 
> 
> This benefits only the insurance companies, since your health insurance 
> already covers your medical bills and there wouldn't be any more people 
> suffering unreimbursed damage from uninsured motorists (you would get 
> compensated only for actual medical bills whether or not the motorist 
> who hit you had insurance).  What would be the point of keeping 
> mandatory insurance except to create a gravy train for insurance 
> companies?  Why buy this no fault insurance if you have health 
> insurance?

�Under Prop 200 your auto insurance would pay your medical bills first.

> : SEAN GARRETT
> : THE ALLIANCE TO REVITALIZE CALIFORNIA
> 
>   Code name for the insurance copmanies...Hey Sean, why not disclose the 
> names of the biggest contributors to the "Alliance"?

�Check out www.legalreform.org for a list of our biggest supportors.  If
your hoping to see names like State Farm, 20th Century and USAA, you'll be
disapointed.  99% of our money is coming from Silicon Valley and biotech
companies.  99% of our opposition's money in coming from trial lawyers. 
What would you rather have?  A computer and an AIDS vaccine? Or a trial
lawyer?