Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 200


``This initiative eliminates suits against negligent drivers for economic injury as well as suits for pain and suffering. We think that is an unacceptable reversal of consumer rights.'' Harry M. Snyder, Consumers Union, Publisher of Consumer Reports.

Under No-Fault you'll pay more and get less. Insurance companies and their allies didn't tell you these facts:

1. Proposition 200 mentions a $1,000,000 No-Fault policy, but it doesn't promise your rates won't go up. No-Fault. No Guarantee.

2. This No-Fault law eliminates your right to sue a reckless driver who causes the death of your child. No-Fault. No Justice.

3. This No-Fault scheme says auto insurance companies only pay for medical treatment they approve. Your doctor won't have any choice. No-Fault. No Choice.

4. They use the RAND Corporation to support their exaggerated promises on No-Fault insurance. That RAND research is funded by insurance companies. No-Fault. No Facts.

5. They say ``drunk drivers can still be sued''. . . But you won't get anything unless the drunk driver is wealthy. No-Fault. No Accountability.

6. According to a study cited in UCLA Law Review: No-Fault increases drunk driving. No-Fault. No Responsibility.

7. The insurance companies keep their lawyers. But when they don't pay your claim, Proposition 202 makes it hard for you to get a lawyer. No-Fault. No Fair.

Under Proposition 200, the only winners are insurance companies, and the corporations that paid to put it on the ballot . . . you and every other consumer lose.

DR. REGENE MITCHELL
President, Consumer Federation of California

HARVEY ROSENFIELD
Author, Proposition 103



The Internet supports communication, collaboration, information, and commerce. Digital supports the Internet.
Copyright 1996 Digital Equipment Corporation