Assembly Bill 746 - Proposal to Prohibit Smoking in All Multi-Family Residential Units (Sacramento: lease, tenant)

[Senno]

I don't need to know their motivations as long as they comply with my cease and desist request, son. I don't care at all why they do what they done, just as long as they do it.

I pretty much already made my logical argument in favor of the bill, showing how health is damaged and the necessity for such legislation.

Not my fault you can't decipher plain english.

See if you can get the message from School House Rock then:

Note the part where the people ask their Congressman to write a bill. See? Stuff becomes enough of an issue and people want the legislation. Works like that here, and it's clearly constitutional having survived challenges.

I'm Just a Bill - YouTube

[AnonymouseX]

Originally Posted by Senno

I don't need to know their motivations as long as they comply with my cease and desist request, son. I don't care at all why they do what they done, just as long as they do it.

Clearly you aren't sending C&D's to people or corporations that can and will smack you down, son.

What do you do in your private world when people swing back at you?

Your argument merely shows smoke harms people. I don't disagree completely. In closed spaces I agree with you.

It doesn't provide a legitimate reason for yet another regulation. Nor does it provide a reason why you would support over regulation.

States that over regulate don't just do so when it helps people.

Notice how Cali is choking the crap out if small business.

It will bite you in the rear in the end. Son...

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You have misread the article. There is no restriction proposed for single detached residences. Only for multi-unit residences. The article said "even if a unit is owner occupied". That might have thrown you into thinking it meant single residence. But it means multiple unit housing even if one of the units is owner occupied.

Oops! My glasses must need to be cleaned. Thanks for clarifying.

[Senno]

I'm an insurance adjuster. I weigh these things out for a living. And if the insured don't want to comply we fight the hell out of it if we can. LoL... Or if there's a third party damaging my insured and we have damages, you better believe I go after 'em. Hiring an attorney as necessary...

I'm quite certain the laws fine, thanks.

Your horse seems hobbled and a bit challenged.

[AnonymouseX]

Originally Posted by Senno

I'm an insurance adjuster. I weigh these things out for a living. And if the insured don't want to comply we fight the hell out of it. LoL... Or if there's a third party damaging my insured and we have damages, you better believe I go after 'em. Hiring an attorney as necessary...

I'm quite certain the laws fine, thanks.

Your horse seems hobbled and a bit challenged.

If you are an insurance adjuster then you should realize you don't NEED the law.

And how's that over regulation working for your industry? Hmmm...

My horse is just fine. You know my argument holds water. ESPECIALLY in California...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=over+regulation+in+california


Or...

https://www.google.com/search?q=over+regulation+killing

[Senno]

Surely you are familiar with common law, torts and the system of civil jurisprudence in the fine state of CA? Oh no you aren't at all.

And if the law reduces claims frequency, so much the better form an underwriting point of view.

Regulation works fine, thanks. Keeps things on the up and up. Don't step a toe over the line or you hear from the man known as Insurance Commissioner and his boys.

All I'm concerned about is claims though, good for job security.

[AnonymouseX]

Originally Posted by Senno

Surely you are familiar with common law, torts and the system of civil jurisprudence in the fine state of CA? Oh no you aren't at all.

And if the law reduces claims frequency, so much the better form an underwriting point of view.

Regulation works fine, thanks. Keeps things on the up and up. Don't step a toe over the line or you hear from the man known as Insurance Commissioner and his boys.

All I'm concerned about is claims though, good for job security.

Assume all you wish. So I take it you are an attorney? Oh no? GTFO...

You have no evidence this law will reduce claims of any sort. If? What a great basis for a law.

I didn't say regulation. We always needed regulation to keep scumbag insurance companies in line. There is a reason people hate you guys. I said "OVER regulation"

I highly doubt increased claims hurt you at all. Since insurance companies pass everything on to the customer anyways. I severely doubt your employer cares one way or another...

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Senno

I'm an insurance adjuster. I weigh these things out for a living. And if the insured don't want to comply we fight the hell out of it if we can. LoL... Or if there's a third party damaging my insured and we have damages, you better believe I go after 'em. Hiring an attorney as necessary...

I'm quite certain the laws fine, thanks.

Your horse seems hobbled and a bit challenged.

I am amused, Senno. As I wrote previous, this poster is an interesting individual. A nurse I believe you said s/he is? Entrusting one's health and life to a nurse who cannot understand data provided, and how the laws of liability work - well, gives pause for thought.

I will leave you to further explanation efforts. Perhaps you can educate the individual on the legal obligation and considerations of "mitigating actions" in tort proceedings. And what happens to individuals and entities who do not undertake to mitigate dangerous circumstances when notified.

[Senno]

Originally Posted by AnonymouseX

Assume all you wish. So I take it you are an attorney? Oh no? GTFO...

You have no evidence this law will reduce claims of any sort. If? What a great basis for a law.

I didn't say regulation. We always needed regulation to keep scumbag insurance companies in line. There is a reason people hate you guys. I said "OVER regulation"

I highly doubt increased claims hurt you at all. Since insurance companies pass everything on to the customer anyways. I severely doubt your employer cares one way or another...

LoL. I'm an insurance adjuster.

Not an attorney.

I'm comfortable with the assertion that if people comply with a law, that will reduce the exposure to harmful smoke which will reduce the claims in the industry. Such as health claims, and third party claims, over time.

Not that hard to figure out that we make laws to control behaviors. If the behavior frequency is reduced, a reasonable deduction is that claims frequency will go down.

Increased claims hurt the bottom line definitely, cause they pay out more in claims, set more money aside in reserves, and have expenses that aren't so easily passed onto the insured in the form of premiums.

Do you just ignore competition within the industry when you arrive at your opinion? If I will insure you for X dollars, and my competitor does for less dollars at Y, you are gonna go Y. But maybe I can't charge less than X, cause my claims costs plus expenses are to high. So I lose out. Customers just ain't gonna buy insurance from selling it higher than they can get elsewhere if they are smart shoppers.

Basic economics, that I learned in 5th grade.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I am amused, Senno. As I wrote previous, this poster is an interesting individual. A nurse I believe you said s/he is? Entrusting one's health and life to a nurse who cannot understand data provided, and how the laws of liability work - well, gives pause for thought.

I will leave you to further explanation efforts. Perhaps you can educate the individual on the legal obligation and considerations of "mitigating actions" in tort proceedings. And what happens to individuals and entities who do not undertake to mitigate dangerous circumstances when notified.

I don't really believe or disbelieve the backstory Anon tells.

[AnonymouseX]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I am amused, Senno. As I wrote previous, this poster is an interesting individual. A nurse I believe you said s/he is? Entrusting one's health and life to a nurse who cannot understand data provided, and how the laws of liability work - well, gives pause for thought.

You assume I don't understand it. Except I haven't demonstrated that at all. In fact, I have yet to hear a valid rebuttal to what I just posted.

Ad hominems just show you have no real argument.

I will leave you to further explanation efforts. Perhaps you can educate the individual on the legal obligation and considerations of "mitigating actions" in tort proceedings. And what happens to individuals and entities who do not undertake to mitigate dangerous circumstances when notified.

When notified... Dangerous circumstances...

Interacting that you use those words.

Notifying a smoker that they should not smoke in a condo for instance nullifies the need for a specific law does it not?

While smoke is dangerous, how would that apply to a compost farm? While noxious smells can adversely affect a minute portion of the population, so does pollen and perfume. Shall I be subject to an order forcing me to remove my trees and not wear cologne because my neighbor has asthma and when I pass them in the hall I trigger it?

Please...

Still over regulation. If your claims are entirely true then why hasn't Cali BANNED smoking completely?