http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/24/greg-abbott-scott-walker-tour-mexico-texas-border/ Walker coming to Texas.
Deez- I completely get where you are coming from on this. I am very, very anti union for skilled trades, especially in construction and public sectors. However, I have to agree that RTW laws do create an opportunity for free loaders. I also agree that in practice, this isn't much of a problem as there are very, very few actual cases but the RTW laws, as written, are bad. However, I believe that they are a necessary evil to combat laws that protect unions. I truly have no problem if a group of employees have the ability and desire to band together and collectively bargain. It is certainly their right. What I detest is that the votes to continue a union are not secret ballot. I think this flies in the face of everything that America stands for and it is a travesty. I also think that it is a travesty that unions can directly interfere with the business procedures and work flows of businesses that decide to reject the unions. If union voting were secret ballot and peaceful non-disruptive picketing was the only allowable remedy for unions then you would not need RTW laws.
The problem is that RTW laws don't address and aren't intended to address the concerns you have. If you don't like certain labor practices (a position that's certainly arguable and with which I largely agree), the appropriate remedy is to change the law as it applies to those practices, not to screw with them on an unrelated issue. I know insurance carriers frequently engage in bad faith claims handling procedures, and I'd like to see laws to protect policyholders from such practices. (We actually have such laws, but the Texas Supreme Court largely ignores them, but that's beside the point.) However, I wouldn't support taxing insurance carriers harder than other businesses to screw with them just because I think the law is too soft on their claims handling practices. Why not? Because it isn't fair to them and doesn't stop the conduct I disapprove of.
Way off topic, but I'll give you an example. According to the Court, it is impossible to make a claim on an uninsured motorist policy in Texas unless you have a final judgment against your auto insurer. You can file paperwork with your carrier and ask them to pay, but they have no legal duty to pay until you have a judgment, which can take years. Until you have the judgment you are at their mercy. The Texas Insurance Code is loaded with consumer protections geared toward policyholders, but this decision nullifies pretty much all of them.
I'm guessing that the Court agrees that insurance company actually needs to determine that they are legally liable (i.e. a judgment) for the damages before they just write a check. If you wreck your car and just blame an unidentifiable car that fled the scene, and there are questions raised by an adjuster (no paint swapped, no car parts off the other vehicle, no witnesses, etc.) that put your story in doubt, the insurance company is not going to write a check. Almost, all policies state "legally obligated to pay" in their coverage forms, and insurance companies won't pay otherwise. They do pay UM/UIM claims all the time without judgments, however. How is the supreme court ignoring the law?
I'm aware that insurers conduct investigations, and that's perfectly understandable. The law is pretty clear that they have a right to investigate any claim, and they should do that. The dispute is over what duties insurers have when liability is reasonably clear. For example, suppose you're rear ended by an uninsured driver, who doesn't leave the scene and admits fault. Suppose further that the damage to both vehicles is consistent with your version of the facts and that there's a police report assigning all fault to the uninsured driver. Should the carrier be required to pay once those facts are known, or should you have to hire a lawyer, spend a year in litigation, take your carrier to trial, and potentially spend a few more years on appeal before the carrier should be required to pay what they knew they owed you months or even years earlier? Here's how they ignore (or perhaps more appropriately worded "nullify") the law. The Texas Insurance Code requires insurers to pay once liability is "reasonably clear" - not after a final judgment in rendered. In fact, the failure to do so is considered an unfair or deceptive practice under the Code, which means that if they fail to do so, you could hit them with trebled damages and attorney's fees under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Furthermore, they have a prompt payment of claims statute that has statutory deadlines for acknowledging, investigating, and paying a claim and significant penalties if they fail to follow the deadlines. Those duties are extra-contractual, meaning they are separate and apart from the duties the insurer has under the insurance policy or contract. However, they all operate in the context of a claim being filed, but if you can't even properly present a claim until a final judgment is rendered (which isn't what insurance customers or carriers consider necessary to present a claim even if the court thinks so), these provisions are basically useless. Yes, carriers do pay UM/UIM claims without judgments. However, you can't compel them to, which means there's a hell of a lot of jerking around and delaying they can do that the Legislature wanted them not to be able to do.
You are correct about the law. In reality, here's why jerking the insured around is is not going to happen to any material extent; Most insurance companies use the independent agency/broker distribution system (as opposed to the captive agency system). When carriers start jerking the insureds around, they also start impacting the income of the agents/brokers in the distribution system because insureds become unhappy with the agents and brokers (kind of like breaking the thermometer because the room is too hot) and seek alternative sources. Subsequently, those agents start raising hell and, ultimately, quit sending business to the carriers acting like idiots.
Ok I know I should understand this "it is impossible to make a claim on an uninsured motorist policy in Texas unless you have a final judgment against your auto insurer" but if the motorist is uninsured hat policy would you make a claim against?
If you don't think insurance carriers jerk people around, then I'm not sure what to tell you. However, before the law changed on UM/UIM claims, I settled hundreds of them and never had to even file suit. Once the court made its ruling I never settled a single one without litigation. It was like flipping a light switch. They went from offering respectable money to their insureds to offering garbage. They didn't deny the claims entirely because that would actually disadvantage them in litigation for reasons I won't bore you with. Instead, they would offer something nominal. They generally did pay before trial, because they don't want a jury to hear what they do to their insureds. For example, State Farm once made me a pre-litigation offer of $250 on a neck surgery case. They paid $500K on the same case after 14 months of litigation in which no significant additional facts were uncovered or even particularly sought after. However, it made a difference of an insured having to wait years rather than months before their claims were resolved, which is something the Insurance Code was designed to avoid. To me, that's jerking them around.
Horn6721, You make the claim against your own insurance carrier. The purpose of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance is to protect you if you get in an accident with a driver who has no insurance, leaves the scene and is never found, or is underinsured (meaning he has insurance but not enough to pay for the damages he caused). Check your policy. If you don't have UM/UIM, you are playing with fire. It was a few years ago, but I remember hearing that about 20 percent of drivers on the road in Texas are uninsured. And if you're in an area that has a significant number of illegal aliens, I'll bet the numbers are FAR higher. Illegal immigrants can buy auto insurance, but they frequently do not. In addition, many who are insured carry minimum policy limits of $30K per claimant and $60K per occurrence. If you get badly hurt, that's not going to do a lot for you.
MrD thank you for the great advice. I am well covered with my own policy against uninsured. I hope everyone is. I just didn't understand the sentence about making a claim on an uninsured policy, if someone is " uninsured" that seems to me to mean they didn't have a policy. You'd think there would be a way to make sure people have such insurance and that the insurance can't be cancelled after they get their car registered. sorry to aid in derailing the thread but as Mr D points out this is potentially costly for anyone who does not have good coverage against un and under insured.
Making sure everybody has insurance is easy to do but difficult to do in a politically correct manner. I'm pretty sure that cops have access to a database that confirms whether or not a car is insured, so the rap about buying a policy and then not paying the premium or canceling it right after getting the insurance card won't work anymore. However, the penalty for getting caught still isn't tough enough to deter people from driving uninsured. It has to be dramatically tougher, and that's going to disproportionately hit minority communities, triggering the political correctness issues that one would expect. In Deezestan, this is what I'd do. (1) If you're caught driving without insurance, your vehicle is immediately impounded. (2) To recover your vehicle, you must prepay for six months of auto insurance (nonrefundable even if you get rid of your car or cancel your policy). In addition, you must pay that same amount into a state insurance program that steps in and compensates people who are victims of uninsured motorists up to the amount of the legal minimum policy limit. If you don't make the requisite payments within 60 days, your car is auctioned off and sold. (3) Money made off of auctioning uninsured vehicles and nonrefunded premiums are also put into the state insurance program.
I agree. Some companies do jerk claimants around as much as some claimants try to rip off companies. Personal auto insurance is dominated by captive agency insurers (allstate, state farm, etc.) so the problem is probably more prevalent there. The problem is not happening on the commercial lines side. Why doesn't Deezestan go with no-fault insurance? Not having to endure plaintiff's lawyer radio, TV and billboard advertisements would improve the overall quality of life.
I'm talking primarily about personal auto insurance carriers who write the bulk of the UM/UIM policies. To be fair, they aren't all equally bad. Allstate is notorious regardless of the type of claim. It's almost a joke dealing with them at any phase. Progressive is almost as bad. Farmers and State Farm are hit and miss. Believe it or not, the Lizard, Caveman (or whoever is doing GEICO commercials now) actually isn't too bad. Same for Nationwide and USAA. Either way, since the Texas Supreme Court goofed with the UM/UIM law, I've never settled with any of them without litigation. They just don't have much reason not force you to go that route. In fact, if I go back to handling such cases, I'll have a standing rule that we file suit upon sign-up in all UM/UIM cases. If somehow the carrier actually settles with me without doing significant litigation work, I'll cut my fees to the pre-suit rate, but there's no reason to fart around waiting to file. That's just a waste of time. My mind's not completely shut on no-fault, but it's skeptical. The specifics would be key. First, I don't think it's right to alter the victim's rights and remedies to the benefit of the person who caused the wreck, so that issue alone makes me reluctant. Second, any system that diminishes or delays a person's ability to retain counsel while his opponent has counsel (and insurers always have counsel) is per se unfair. That's like telling you to go bat against Roger Clemens (pre-roids), but you get to swing with a pencil instead of a bat. Third, at least in the case of Texas, when claimants make a trade-off with the business lobby in which they lose some of their rights for some other benefit, they have a history of getting hosed. Finally, in most auto accidents, liability is clear, so not having to prove fault just isn't a big help to victims. (Obviously, it is a benefit to the jackass who caused the wreck.) The fight is almost always over damages. I don't see a whole lot of upside for them or reason for them to make any concessions for not having to prove fault.
Some polling out this week: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/04/walker-clinton-lead-in-nh.html
Is it surprising that he Washington outsider would be polling best at this point? Jeb Bush's lineage will work against him in the primaries.
He's probably polling that way due to the Union hate for him causing most Republicans to say if the Unions hate him then he must be ok. Whereas the Bush/Clinton fatigue is probably going to sink both of them.
I'd agree on the Bush/Clinton fatigue. Never underestimate the power of money on our POTUS race and both have decades of worth of relationships with deep pockets.
No doubt. I am interested to see Walker as he deflects all of the coming attacks by the R's in the coming debates. He is the current front runner so lets see what he has in his head to parry the jugheads like Perry et al.
I think Jeb is the Hillary of the GOP in the sense that he is very overrated as a candidate. On the surface, he has upside - can raise obscene amounts of money, has crossover appeal, seems sharp, etc. However, the name is a colossal albatross not just in the primary but in the general election, albeit for different reasons. If the Democrats were able to make the bad parts of the GWB legacy stick to McCain and Romney, it's going to be far easier to make them stick to Jeb. What does he say when he's asked if he agrees with the Iraq War? If he says No, then he's a disloyal brother who pisses off the neocon faction of the GOP. If he says Yes, then he pisses off the majority of the country who thinks the war was a bad idea. That's just the obvious answer, but he'll ultimately have to answer for everything that went wrong during the Bush Administration. It's not fair, but it's reality. I think Walker is a much better candidate than Jeb. He's conservative enough to unify the GOP and motivate its base, but he also knows how to convince Right-leaning moderates to vote for him. He wouldn't be my choice. (Kasich would be for reasons I've already outlined.) However, I think he'd be formidable against HRC. They won't admit it, but I think the candidate the Democrats fear the most is Rand Paul, because they don't have the book on him. The Democrats know how to go after Bush, Walker, and Cruz - call them extremists, play the social issues against them, throw the Bush record at them, etc. Paul doesn't fit into that caricature nearly as well. Unlike HRC, he can be critical of the Iraq War, Wall Street, and the drug war and actually have some credibility. I'm sure they'd come up with ways to combat that, but they'd be untested against that type of candidate. It's questionable how well it would work.
The media will 'ignore' Rand out of legitimacy, just as they did his father even if he were to win some Primaries. Happened with his Dad, well before his self destructive statements regarding foreign policy.
I don't think that will happen for several reasons, all of which surround the issue of electability. First, Rand is a much more mainstream candidate than Ron was. Rand has libertarian leanings, but he deemphasizes the areas in which libertarianism conflicts with the GOP base such as on foreign policy and drug policy. Ron was a vocal non-interventionist. Hell, he bashed the Iraq War as hard as any Democrat. He also talked about drug legalization more than Rand does. Essentially, he focused on the areas where he had disagreement with the GOP and often said goofy things. Rand touches on some of that, but he doesn't hammer it. He emphasizes what usually appeals to GOP primary voters, making him much more philosophically viable than Ron was. Second, Rand has a track record of winning big races, and Ron doesn't. Ron was elected to a gerrymandered Republican congressional district in Texas. He never had to run a big race. Rand ran statewide, won a contested primary, and defeated a fairly strong Democratic opponent in the general election in a state that is GOP leaning but not lopsidedly so. Third, Rand "looks the part" and "sounds the parts" a lot more than Ron does. Even though his supporters were young, Ron is an old man and has looked like an old man for about 20 years. Furthermore, even when young, he was spooky looking. People weren't going to vote for a guy who looks like Ron Paul. He also was a mediocre speaker - frequently stumbled over his words, etc. By contrast, Rand is a decent looking guy and speaks well. He also has a hot and charismatic wife, and yes, that matters in politics. The media ignored Ron, because they knew he was a freak show whose appeal didn't extend very far past a few pot-smoking conspiracy theorists. He wasn't a serious presidential candidate. They've paid attention to Rand as a Senator, and they'll pay attention to him as a presidential candidate.
I could never get over the difference between: "I'm going to abolish the IRS" vs what should have been said such as perhaps: I will work to alter the IRS to be more fair in X way(specifically) and Y way(specifically), etc way, while we work to create a revenue collecting system that meets the needs of a more limited Government in x way(specifically) and Y way(specifically, etc way, bringing about the changes that are right for America, blah, blah, blah. Nope, Ron before and now Ted C were/are saying, if I am President I will abolish the IRS !?! How the hell is he going to do that without support from the House and Senate? It isn't reasonable. It was a deal killer to me. Is Walker, or Rand for that matter, proposing anything like that?
Yes, his wife is hot and charismatic. But even better, she is smart and articulate. Here's a good article about her and why she is an asset to Rand.
You're smarter than the vast majority of voters, which is why you can handle a relatively nuanced policy position like you've described. Your average voter is only going to hear the "blah, blah, blah" in that statement. However, "I'll get rid of the IRS" is catchy (which is why many politicians repeat it) and gets the attention of shallow, low-information voters in Republican primary elections. A politician who promises to get rid of the IRS should be taken about as seriously as politician who promises to guarantee that every man in the United States will live in a $1M home and have a taxpayer-funded Korean chick whose sole job is to massage his feet. Both plans are comparable in their reasonableness and likelihood of occurring. The IRS is nothing more than a scapegoat for a bad tax code that politicians wrote but don't want to take responsibility for. Politicians who bash the IRS are political cowards trying to appeal to stupid people. Despite the rhetoric, we will have a tax collection agency with the power to make your life hell. Why? Because most people don't pay their taxes out of patriotic duty or a sense of benevolence. They pay them out of fear. If the government's collection agency wasn't anything to fear, many people wouldn't pay or at a minimum would blatantly cheat. If a Ted Cruz won the election and had commanding majorities in both houses of Congress, he might eliminate the IRS, but he will replace it with something similar. It might have some feel-good ******** name that sounds less threatening like the "Taxpayer Advocacy and Assistance Agency," but its job will still be to collect your money and to bring a hell of a lot of force on you if you don't turn it over to them.
That is a good article, and I wasn't aware of her background. How a candidate's wife impacts his viability is interesting. If a candidate is a bit "dour" as Paul has been described but she's polished and charming (as Paul's wife seems to be), I think she can really help sometimes just by being candid. She has the credibility to say, "Rand can come across as harsh, but as someone who has been married to him for over 20 years, I can tell you that he's a gentleman." Is that as good as having a candidate who's always smooth? No, but it's a definite asset. I remember people saying that Ann Romney could help out Mitt Romney, because she knew the "real Mitt," which was apparently kinder, more sensitive to others, and more loving than what came across. The problem is that I don't think she was vocal enough and polished enough herself to be a major player in the campaign. However, Kelley Paul might be. Also, to be fair, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio also have pretty good looking wives, but I'm not sure that they have Kelley Paul's political skills. I don't know that Heidi Cruz is very sharp, but that doesn't always translate into political smarts.
