🚀 go-pugleaf

>My only source is my primary pamphlet

Now you are a source, that's the thing I like about the internet. As a
source, take pride because you are assuming responsibility for the
things you can control. 

> and my main beef with the initiative is that the insurance companies
want it real bad--

This, I think everyone would agree is true and the reason is probably
about money.

>nothing an insurance company really, really wants can be good
>for the rest of us.

This, even the opponents of "no-fault" wouldn't in honesty agree with.
Insurance is an essential part of modern society.

>The "argument against" in the pamphlet says that in other states 
>which had no fault, liability rates went up 40 percent in 4 years 
>compared to 1 percent in 4 years here and that several states
>that had no fault have repealed it.

I'd like to know more about the experience of other states, but going
into more detail about the difficulty of comparing "apples for apples".
California is a very unique state, and, I think, this proposal is
different than any other states expenience with "no-fault" because the
California proposal is for a "pure" no-fault.  There is no threshold of
bodily injury to reach to start to sue.

>Another thing that bothers me is that it really isn't "no fault."
>That is an Orwellian use of the language because fault will be
>determined like before and it will affect your rates like before.
>It should be called "no sue."

Good, good point - "no-sue" is better.  How the name "no-fault" came
about would be good background information. I suppose the insurance
companies probably didn't come up with that name.  Most likely it was
some academic paper done by someone back in the 50's or 60's.

>I think that the vote will come down to this: Which do you hate 
>more?  Insurance companies or uninsured drivers?  The uninsured
>drivers I have known were making under $10,000 a year and could
>not afford to spend 20 percent of their income protecting
>assets they do not have.  When I was making $5 an hour, my dad
>paid my insurance.  Insurance companies I hate.

Don't hate, use reason.  This is an extremely difficult issue.  There
are no easy answers.  Focus on solving the problem together, step by
step. Create light, not darkness.  I need your help, we need your help.
Come back. You are a source now.

>P.S.  I hit and was sued by an uninsured driver who was 
>eventually found to be a fraud.  I am familiar with all of 
>the reasons to hate the uninsured.

The political paradigm is between the insurance companies and the trial
attornies (not between the insured and uninsured).

Regards,

Galen Hunter
http://www.hntr.com/paradigm/