How can a policy holder be against R-67? It is about granting the policy holder the ability to recover his/her litigation costs should the insurance company deny, lowball, or delay a legitimate claim. It's not about premium rate increases, frivolous lawsuits, or giving lawyers a windfall.

It may be true that as a consequence of R67, rates increase; however, they may not. Who knows for sure? Unless anyone can predict the future, then we should vote on accepting or rejecting based on the text of the referendum, not on possible extreme outcomes.

There is no basis for the arguments that "lawyers are out to line their pockets," "it will increase frivolous lawsuits," or "insurance rates will rise." It is likely rates will rise anyway. They are for profit organizations.

It appears the side against R-67 would rather have their claims denied, lowballed, or buried in litigation costs rather than have possible rate increases which may be coming anyway. The insurance companies raise rates all the time. The market sets the rates--ask the cavemen.

I'd rather have the certainty of the ability to afford to sue an insurance company for being unreasonable rather than protect myself against possible rate hikes, wouldn't you?

Anyone could find possible bad outcomes on any proposal. If we only took action on certainty, nothing would get done.

It boils down to this, if you are a policy holder, you would be best served voting for it. If you are a stock holder or some other sort of stakeholder in an insurance company, you might be against it--or sell your stock and vote for it.

However, too many of us are buying into the 10 million dollar propaganda campaign of the insurance industry--these folks (insurance industry) have convinced many people to argue for the side that benefits insurance companies' bottom line at the expenses of policyholder's own rights. How did they do that?

www.MattsonCommunication.com