For Kim Holland

[RecycleMichael]

I am voting to re-elect Kim Holland as Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner. I believe she has done a great job and deserves a chance to keep this position.

She has a 25 year history as an agent and has helped make the profession more accountable in our state while increasing continuing education among agents. She has made open competition an important part of her service as commissioner and consistently works with other legislative leaders.

Her opponent seems confused about the issues. His website lists his qualifications and the first one listed is that he is pro-life. He also proudly lists that he is a member of the National Rifle Association. His radio commercials on KRMG only mention that his opponent was a delegate for Obama in 2008. He doesn't talk about insurance much, instead just trying to say he is a conservative.

Here is Kim's website:
http://hollandforoklahoma.com/

Here is his website:
http://www.votefordoak.com/ 

If you do your homework, you will come to the same conclusion as me and vote to re-elect Kim Holland as Oklahoma's Insurance Commissioner.

[Red Arrow]

Being passionately pro-life doesn't seem particularly relevant as a qualification for insurance commissioner to me.  Same with being a member of the NRA.  The rest of his listed qualifications seem relevant even if you may disagree.

[heironymouspasparagus]

He campaigns that way because that is the limited, irrelevant view most Okies take.  And it works.  Proof; Jim Inhofe elected to anything other than sanitation department specialist.

[Red Arrow]

He campaigns that way because that is the limited, irrelevant view most Okies take.  And it works.  Proof; Jim Inhofe any Oklahoma incumbent elected to anything other than sanitation department specialist.

[Conan71]

Doak's ads are annoying:  "Okie Doak"?  Seriously? As well, I'm not sure the insurance commissioner can really "lead" a fight against Obamacare.  Honestly, worker's comp reform is a bigger problem facing Oklahoma businesses today.  I'd rather hear a candidate address real problems instead of spouting topical national campaign talking points.

Problem is with insurance commissioner is there are usually many competing interests who either want tighter regs or looser regs or favorable treatment for a company.  It's made this post ripe for corruption in the past so you need to pick the commissioner carefully.  While I appreciate his inside knowledge of the industry from being an exec and past agent, I also think having industry insiders run the department isn't in the best interest of consumers.

I haven't found a reason to not vote for Kim Holland yet.  I think she's restored a good image to the Insurance Commission.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan,
Is the end of the world nigh??
This is beyond bizarre - we agree on something!!

Everybody sing... Kumbaya!

[RecycleMichael]

People from both ends of the political spectrum agree with one of my political ramblings?

I gotta go buy a lottery ticket.

Or maybe because Kim Holland is by far the better candidate...

[Ihearttacos]

Anyone that lists a qualification as 'pro-life' isn't runing for the right reason

[Conan71]

Anyone that lists a qualification as 'pro-life' isn't runing for the right reason

Sort of like running for county commissioner on a one man/one woman marriage platform. Useless for that job description

[Conan71]

The future Mrs. Conan is an independent insurance agent.  She's very conservative and supporting Kim Holland.  She agrees Commissioner Holland has brought a sense of integrity back to the Insurance Commissioner post.

Often over-looked in the ads is that Kim Holland was against many provisions of Obamacare.  Since Doak made this such an issue in the campaign, I'm puzzled she never campaigned heavily on this.  Even more interesting is apparently much of her views from the insurance side were cited by Senator Coburn in his opposition to the bill.

Certain posts as commissioners of labor, insurance, corporation, and state auditor really don't need to be partisan elections, IMO.  If anything, they've helped spawn all these annoying campaign ads with stances on issues which are largely irrelevant to the nature of the job.

I'm getting to a point now that I'm just about willing to vote for anyone who didn't drink the tainted tea on races like these.

[heironymouspasparagus]

So far;
You won't be dropped from your insurance because some dread disease attacks you.
You won't lose coverage when your illness gets to $1 million (or $500,000 in some cheap-donkey cases).
Your kids can stay on until age 26.

And the next increase in cost to you is - oops, is actually a decrease of $180 billion.

Yeah,...that's something to fight against.

Just went through new insurance sign-up and I'm betting Blue Cross knows exactly, to the penny what the new health care is gonna cost.  My premiums are going up.  As always.  But with the smallest increase in over 25 years!  Much smaller than average.  Absolute dollars AND percentage!

Shows to go you that perhaps all the "propaganda" about how good health care reform is may be closer to truth than all the "propaganda" about how bad health care reform is.  (Neither is absolute, but a trend is developing.)

Better coverage.  Lower incremental increase in cost.  Gee, I can certainly understand why people would be against all that!

[Conan71]

Wait, you state there's $180 billion in savings, yet you just said your premium just increased.  You might want to double check and make sure you didn't drop any level of coverage on your plan if your increase was only marginal this year.  Individual health insurance costs cannot possibly decrease while the risk pool goes up. 

Trust me, between the familial relationship with an agent and a good friend who is an actuary with BCBS, the cost-savings scenario to the consumer is a complete fantasy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Read the whole thing. 

Normal increase, $ 30 to 40 per month- going back many years.
This years increase, $ 17 per month.  Net savings to me out of that $ 180 billion is $ 13 to 23 per month.  I'm liking that a lot.

Reality's a b****, ain't it?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Is BCBS friend also a Murdochian?  (If so, then he has a vested agenda interest.)

But the $180 billion is from the CBO.  The same people both sides use to justify their excesses.

You can also look at the following link.  It shows a real kick-in-the-teeth to the Murdochian Lie Machine about spending, debt, and deficits.  Instead of deficits continuous increases - you remember, like through Bush's 8 years - Obama's first deficit actually ended up being $288 billion less than Georgie's last deficit.  Interesting, don't you think?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Some more "ugly" reality;
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Reasons-Americans-Are-So-atlantic-870082825.html?x=0

Too bad the general electorate doesn't really understand.

Vote them ALL out!

[Conan71]

You might want to double-check your deductibles and coverage limits before you crow too loudly.  Most people seeing lower increases are only doing so because they or their employer are/is opting for higher deductibles and co-pays, and less coverage.

Regardless of my friend's leanings, he's one of those evil people who assesses risk and sets rates.  Do you have a clue what an actuary is?