Breaking News

Why The Insurance Coverage Industry Really Wants To Defeat Referendum 67

Karen Koehler, President from the Washington Condition Trial Lawyers Association, lately authored instructions towards the condition bar accusing the insurance coverage industry of utilizing slanderous and reckless television ads against trial lawyers. The insurance coverage industry has spent $ million to defeat Referendum 67, what the law states up for election this November. Referendum 67 is made to pressure insurance providers to deal with their policy owners fairly throughout the claims process. Advocates of Referendum 67 have elevated over $750,000 mostly from trial lawyers.

With support from Democrats and Republicans alike, the Washington condition legislature enacted Referendum 67 into law captured. The insurance coverage industry was unhappy. So a number of out-of-condition insurance providers spent millions to obtain additional than 150,000 signatures to place what the law states up for any election this November. The insurance coverage industry has cleverly known as itself “Consumers Against Greater Insurance Costs.”

The main argument against Referendun 67 would be that the new law increases insurance costs for everybody. However this makes me question. Why would the insurance coverage industry spend $ million to defeat a stride that may conceivably provide them with a reason to boost premiums making much more money from Washington Condition citizens? Would you smell a rat with this particular type of reasoning? I am talking about, are you currently saying that the insurer really likes you saving us consumers just as much money as you possibly can by having to pay lower premiums?

And just what about good ol’ market forces at the office? If insurance providers decide to violate Referendum 67 and for that reason then must improve their rates, will not this offer an incentive with other insurance providers to conform using the law to allow them to maintain their rates low, and therefore gain in share of the market while increasing profits consequently?

Stick to the money. There’s something remarkably suspect a good entire industry spending untold thousands to defeat a stride that is made to safeguard consumers (that’s me and you) from being screwed with that industry. Would be the citizens of the great condition really to think the insurance market is really worried about our pocket books? And saving us just as much money as you possibly can? (yes, I am smirking…)