Study: Washington’s Referendum 67 Could Cost Consumers $650 Million

September 24, 2007

  • September 24, 2007 at 2:14 am
    patriot says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What can I say.. The liberal base is a bunch of creepy hippie types, some even became half baked lawyers.

    Since only a few liberals in this state really own anything, increase insurance cost will be borne by the conservatives in this state.

    Oh, they do own bicycles, smelly clothes and some even own very old Volvos!!!

  • September 24, 2007 at 3:32 am
    what a post says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Stupid is as stupid does. Are there any conservatives that have any saner arguments to make? I mean really! Patriot, your remarks are totally asinine.

  • September 24, 2007 at 3:42 am
    Mary B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes, patriot is one only in his own mind. His posts recently have been extremely pathetic especially when trying to demonize one party over another when (and clearly) this is not a party issue.

    Why is it that Dana (the person quoted in the article) makes so much sense? Too bad, “patriot” can learn some manners and intellect from her.

  • September 24, 2007 at 4:47 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    After 10 years+ of handling claims, I
    am glad to see this type of Referendum.

    The Adjusters are loaded down with too
    many claims these days as the carriers
    are looking to maximize profitably by keeping claim staffing costs at a minimum.

    I know many adjusters who assigned in excess of 225 claims (I know a couple who
    assigned 300 liability/property claims!!)

    I have no maximizing profitable in
    general (and how hugely profitable the
    industry is these days!) but it’s typically the claimants and insureds who are the ones who often times bear the brunt of the effect when claims
    are not paid promptly and equitably
    because of the staffing issue.

    Perhaps, if this referendum passes, maybe
    the carriers/TPA’s will pay more
    attention to the case/claim overload
    issue in order to avoid paying the additional damages) which may in itself enhance our industry’s reputation.

    Thanks

    who pay the price for this as many types of claims are not being paid promptly

    are not

  • September 25, 2007 at 7:58 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Do you live in some la la land? This law is not going to help anyone except the trial liars. They will sue and sue until your premiums go way up in the air and business leaves the state. And they all lived happily ever after if they are lawyers.

  • September 25, 2007 at 11:54 am
    Johnny says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What are the tax payers paying the insurance commissioner to do? What is defined as an “unreasonably denied claim”. If a claim is denied, don’t all claimants think their claim was unreasonably denied? This is just another law to suck money from a private industry. The government should pay for tires on cars because our roads are in “unreasonable” condition.

  • September 25, 2007 at 2:44 am
    PS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So Dana made sense? Dana no doubt works for the insurance industry, the industry that is supporting “Consumers Against Higher Insurance Premiums” or whatever it calls itself. Consider the source.

    One poster makes a good point in asking how “unreasonable denial” is defined. I haven’t read the text of the law so can’t answer, but I do believe that insurers have nothing to fear from this law if they treat their insureds fairly, so as long as they do so, rates shouldn’t rise at all because they already are doing so, right????

  • October 31, 2007 at 12:03 pm
    Gabe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I wonder who paid for this study.. I guarantee it wasn’t a un-biased 3rd party.

  • August 13, 2009 at 4:49 am
    Renee Bouvier says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My healthcare insurance provider, Horizon BC BS of New Jersey, contacted my mother, while I was an inpatient in the hospital, to downgrade my Traditional Plan. Every time I entered the hospital as an inpatient this occurred without my knowledge and without my consent as a 35 year old woman, suffering from SLE. To make a long story short, the representatives of Horizon BC BS of NJ had my mother fill out forms to downgrade my insurance, where the anual premium rose to $29,500 with the apparent blessing of appointed and elected officials in the state of New Jersey. I was then forced onto an HMO with the same provider. When I attempted to use my insurance coverage with this HMO policy, the Horizon BC BS of NJ sent one of their representatives to my house to intimidate me into not seeking medical treatment. I am going to sue my now former insurer for millions upon millions of dollars for damages. If this causes my fellow citizens rates to go up — good! As far as I am concerned, my fellow citizens have been nothing less than collaborators in this health care insurance ponzi scheme. The people in this country are extremely selfish in addition to being extremely complacent. If you don’t want your premiums to become prohibitive, then revamp the system and put all of the miscreants profiteering off of your misfortune and demise in prison. Any healthcare executive with blood on his hands (and any doctors, employed by these healthcare insurance companies, denying treatment to patients) should serve long prison terms in a federal, maximum security facility with hardened criminals.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*