🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4gabfd$bie@cloner3.netcom.com> gvhunter@ix.netcom.com(Galen Hunter
) writes: 

[lots snipped to keep this thing moving...]

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

The commercials are definitely painting Prop 200 as an anti-lawyer
initiative, but the people I have spoken to have said that they
see it as a way to protect themselves from the uninsured.  Also, 
the "Argument in Favor" in the voter pamphlet, while strongly focusing
on the lawyers, says this:

    "Uninsured drivers will no longer be a problem.
    You won't have to pay extra because of them.
    If they don't have insurance, they won't get 
    paid.  Most importantly, uninsured drivers 
    won't be able to sue you, which they can today.

I see a couple of improper assumptions in this paragraph.  First,
there is the assumption that injury claims are primarily made
by the uninsured.  Can this be true?  Second, there is the 
assumption that a lawsuit brought by an uninsured person is
automatically invalid.  

It is also interesting to me that in the "analysis" section of
the pamphlet, it is argued that "no fault" will lower county and
state health care costs.  I do not see how this is possible since
that portion of the population too poor to have car and health
insurance will now not be able to sue for medical costs even 
when they have a legitimate claim.  They will have to turn to the
government or charity.  On the other hand, those who do not have
legitimate claims will be less likely to waste their time getting
treatment they do not need in order to inflate their rewards.