Taxpayer group asks Schwarzenegger to return insurance donation

AP State Wire ^ | October 11, 2005 | JULIET WILLIAMS,

[Amerigomag]

SACRAMENTO (AP) - A government watchdog group is calling on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign to return a $105,000 donation from the insurance industry that came the same day he vetoed a bill the group opposed.

The American Insurance Association donated the money Friday, the same day the governor vetoed SB399, a bill that would have forced insurers to pay medical costs when people who are covered by Medi-Cal are injured in an accident caused by an insured driver. Medi-Cal pays those costs now. The Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights said such payments amount to $225 million a year.

The governor has come under fire in the past for accepting contributions from groups with business before the state, including the pharmaceutical, energy and insurance industries. He has consistently said that political contributions do not influence his decisions. The timing of the latest insurance industry donation, to Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team, was pure coincidence, said Rob Stutzman, a spokesman for the governor's election campaign.

[Amerigomag]

The ghost of Gray Davis is alive and well in the Republican Party. The taxpayer picks up the tab for private enterprise risk and Schwarzenegger gets $105K by "pure coincidence".

[NormsRevenge]

..a $105,000 donation from the insurance industry that came the same day he vetoed a bill the group opposed.

---

Purely coincidence, I'm sure.

I thought we had a recall over much the same kind of behavior not so long ago.

Oh well. I am sure it was just a big mistake or misunderstanding. (I know I'm groping for answers here, but trust me.)

[calcowgirl]

Let him keep the money.

Rescind the veto and pass the bill instead. Taxpayers shouldn't be footing the cost.

[Wiseghy]

Give him a break. The Gov has figured out the reality in CA. When doing battle with unions, who can raise millions by simply mandating higher member dues, you MUST take political contributions in order to raise money to communicate with voters. The MSM here will NOT and DOES NOT support his getting his message out any more. That leaves adverstising media as the only way, and that costs big time $$$.

There is a stuggle going on between unions vs. middle income earners and small business interests.

If he doesn't take any money, the unions win. Simple. In fact, that reality is already playing out in the state as the MSM continues to carry the union message. Only a burst of media ads will even the score prior to an election.

[calcowgirl]

SB 399 was one of the Chamber of Commerce "job killers". I disagree, and I think this veto message is a stretch.


http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes_2005/SB_399_veto.pdf

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 399 without my signature.

This bill would authorize health care providers who treat Medi-Cal patients injured by a third party to claim reasonable charges from the liable third party, rather than the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate. This bill would also extend counties’ current lien rights against judgments to also include settlements, compromises, arbitration awards, mediation settlements, and any other recovery obtained.

Last year, I vetoed a similar bill, Senate Bill 494. I did so because I was concerned that the measure would encourage litigation and fail to keep in check medical charges.

I understand that health care providers should be reasonably compensated for services they provide, but this bill proposes a solution that provides for inflated medical and settlement costs; the impact of which will be borne by consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Amerigomag]

If he doesn't take any money, the unions win

Let's see .... it took $225M to net $100K. The unions have a $10M war chest so that will only cost the taxpayers $23B to fight back.

Yep. That'll work and it makes great economic sense.

[Wiseghy]

Well...the contributions didn't cost the tax payers anything.

As for the bill, it is common for auto insurance to subrogate against a private insurance plan for medical injuries. This bill was extremely punitive in mandating that insurers could not subrogate if the plan was medi-cal, even though the recipient was probably going to get treatment at their regular medi-cal provider anyway, for free, and would simply keep the medical settlement. This could have created a bonanza for medi-cal recipient's looking to get into accidents and file big claims against insured drivers. Everyone in the state would have paid for that fiasco through much higher premiums.It also would have made some afraid to drive through certain neigborhoods. It was a bad bill and would have been vetoed in any case.

[NormsRevenge]

Interesting profile.

[Amerigomag]

Interesting profile.

Also some interesting conjecture:

1) It is common practice in California for the negligent driver's insurer to sue the victim's medical insurance provider ostensibly to help pay for the resultant medical expenses of the victim.
2) A victim, who receives free medical treatment, is entitled to collect reimburesent for actual medical costs that didn't exist.
3) Victims of the actions of negligent drivers aren't entitled to reimbursement for actual damages because it would create a bonanza for victims.
4) The $225M in savings to the taxpayers, plus the untold expenses of the resultant legal blood-fest would be borne by all California residents (assumed through increased insurance rates applicable to all drivers or possibly a state sales tax component to offset the abuses of the legal community that resulted from the legislation)
5) Some California drivers would be fearful to drive through certain neighborhoods because the local residents could somehow cause these drivers to operate in a negligent manner resulting in the unjust enrichment of victims.