I
am a person LIVING with my deficits from my MVA, physically, mentally,
psychologically. I can say that without the resources, benefits and
monies available to me in 2008, I KNOW, my recovery would not have moved
me forward. I will spend my whole life in recovery mode! Doctors,
therapists, adapting etc. As I watch how the insurers want to cut back
the benefits for everything, especially the CAT definition, it sickens
me! 1% of the most injured victims need ALL the support we can get!
How dare you, chose to use the victims to clear up YOUR finances. You
need to clean up your own house before you get to step on your fraud
platform!
TK
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/06/letters-to-the-editor-sept-8
Not slashing benefits
Re “Risky business” (Sept. 1): Alan Shanoff asks why would we reduce insurance benefits for Ontarians who need them most? As I have said, we hope for a new definition of catastrophic impairment to make sure that unnecessary costs related to catastrophic injuries are taken out so that money goes to people who really need it. There’s a huge difference in that statement than to suggest the insurance industry wants to slash benefits.
Ralph Palumbo
Vice-President, Ontario
Insurance Bureau of Canada
(If the IBC wants the money to go to those who need it, then why are they pushing for a new definition of catastrophic impairment which would reduce the number of people who would qualify?)
Re Mr Palumbo's letter to the editor 'Not slashing benefits' on September 8.
The rise in the cost of auto insurance claims in Ontario has more to do with our insurance industry's policy of aggressive defense tactics driving up costs over the last two decades than actual payouts to accident victims. By over-assessing legitimate claimants and by the use of bogus medical reports by for-hire physicians that are harmful to accident victims, insurers have steadily increased the cost of claims and delayed payouts to victims while clogging up our court system. Consumers often have to pay for their own treatment and have years of litigation to get the benefits they paid for. How is "unnecessary costs related to catastrophic injuries are taken out so that money goes to people who really need it" not slashing benefits when it is based on making it more difficult to qualify? How can cutting off rehab benefits at $50,000 for those who are most injured and suggesting that they 'ask' for more if they need it or when they are finally declared catastrophic possibly be in the interests of injured drivers? How is that not slashing? And who are those that need it more? We are paying the premiums, we'd like to know.
Rhona DesRoches, Board Chair, FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform
Source: torontosun.com / http://www.fairassociation.ca/
TK
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/06/letters-to-the-editor-sept-8
Not slashing benefits
Re “Risky business” (Sept. 1): Alan Shanoff asks why would we reduce insurance benefits for Ontarians who need them most? As I have said, we hope for a new definition of catastrophic impairment to make sure that unnecessary costs related to catastrophic injuries are taken out so that money goes to people who really need it. There’s a huge difference in that statement than to suggest the insurance industry wants to slash benefits.
Ralph Palumbo
Vice-President, Ontario
Insurance Bureau of Canada
(If the IBC wants the money to go to those who need it, then why are they pushing for a new definition of catastrophic impairment which would reduce the number of people who would qualify?)
Re Mr Palumbo's letter to the editor 'Not slashing benefits' on September 8.
The rise in the cost of auto insurance claims in Ontario has more to do with our insurance industry's policy of aggressive defense tactics driving up costs over the last two decades than actual payouts to accident victims. By over-assessing legitimate claimants and by the use of bogus medical reports by for-hire physicians that are harmful to accident victims, insurers have steadily increased the cost of claims and delayed payouts to victims while clogging up our court system. Consumers often have to pay for their own treatment and have years of litigation to get the benefits they paid for. How is "unnecessary costs related to catastrophic injuries are taken out so that money goes to people who really need it" not slashing benefits when it is based on making it more difficult to qualify? How can cutting off rehab benefits at $50,000 for those who are most injured and suggesting that they 'ask' for more if they need it or when they are finally declared catastrophic possibly be in the interests of injured drivers? How is that not slashing? And who are those that need it more? We are paying the premiums, we'd like to know.
Rhona DesRoches, Board Chair, FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform
Source: torontosun.com / http://www.fairassociation.ca/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments.
Canadian Insurance News does not endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that we have the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever.