If that happened the state's Department of Insurance would deny any further increases until the loss ratio Originally Posted by pjorourkeFor someone who doesn't have much faith in government...?
- charlestudor2005
- 03-28-2010, 04:00 PM
- pjorourke
- 03-28-2010, 04:15 PM
For someone who doesn't have much faith in government...? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005Some states do a pretty good job at it, others are horrible. Some states are very insurance company friendly (i.e., will grant increases absent evidence that the increase shouldn't be granted), other states are very hostile towards insurance companies (i.e., wont allow increases even in the face of overwhelming evidence that such is needed.)
Actually, health insurance rates are pretty cut and dried. This is short cycle claims (i.e., <6 months from the date a claim is incurred until it is closed). The bigger issues are usually with P&C companies (the kind of folks TTH usually sues) where they are dealing with very long-tailed claims and there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the amount that will ultimately be paid. In these companies rate increases are largely developed from estimates of incurred claims and there is a lot more room for interpretation of the data.
- atlcomedy
- 03-28-2010, 04:24 PM
Actually, health insurance rates are pretty cut and dried. This is short cycle claims (i.e., <6 months from the date a claim is incurred until it is closed). The bigger issues are usually with P&C companies (the kind of folks TTH usually sues) where they are dealing with very long-tailed claims and there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the amount that will ultimately be paid. In these companies rate increases are largely developed from estimates of incurred claims and there is a lot more room for interpretation of the data. Originally Posted by pjorourkeno shit
P&C is actually insuranceHealth insurance is really "prepaid healthcare"
- charlestudor2005
- 03-28-2010, 04:37 PM
*
[quote=CaptainMidnight;206060]Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
[BTW, just to be on the record, the States' Attorney Generals' lawsuit against the Health Care Reform Law is a frivolous lawsuit, and the lawsuit should be dismissed and the States sanctioned for bringing this frivolous lawsuit.]
Really?
(That's your opinion. It's certainly not shared by everyone.)
These lawsuits may or may not succeed, but I hardly see how they're frivolous. For instance, one key point is that -- while the Constitution allows the regulation of interstate commerce -- it cannot regulate something that's not commerce. How can the government force you to buy something you don't want from a private entity?
I don't know how you can say one of the most regulated industries in the US is not in commerce. Each state has Departments of Insurance that regulates insurance from the charging of premiums to the payment of claims. And it regulates the way the insurance companies conduct business. Most highly rated insurance companies are large, multinational businesses/corporations. I don't think you can say they are outside of the stream of commerce.
I know, I know, you're probably going to say you are talking about the people as individuals. Well, maybe one of the best examples is liability insurance on your vehicles. Every state requires an owner to purchase such insurance from a private company. I believe this power arises under the state's police power to regulate the laws with regard to driving. And the feds could take a similar stance, that this arises under the police powers, but I suspect that the footing for health care will be found under the health and welfare clause of the Constitution and not necessarily the commerce clause. But, we'll wait for the experts to file their briefs...if, of course, the case makes it past motions...which I doubt.
Quote: Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
In either event, sweeping opinions like this don't make you look very good.
Now you, of all people, are accusing someone of posting something that doesn't make him "look very good?"
I must have read your post wrong because to me it seemed that you were taking a swipe at ALL lawyers. But I'll let you tell me...this is the post:
[quote]
[quote=CaptainMidnight;206060]Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
[BTW, just to be on the record, the States' Attorney Generals' lawsuit against the Health Care Reform Law is a frivolous lawsuit, and the lawsuit should be dismissed and the States sanctioned for bringing this frivolous lawsuit.]
Really?
(That's your opinion. It's certainly not shared by everyone.)
These lawsuits may or may not succeed, but I hardly see how they're frivolous. For instance, one key point is that -- while the Constitution allows the regulation of interstate commerce -- it cannot regulate something that's not commerce. How can the government force you to buy something you don't want from a private entity?
I don't know how you can say one of the most regulated industries in the US is not in commerce. Each state has Departments of Insurance that regulates insurance from the charging of premiums to the payment of claims. And it regulates the way the insurance companies conduct business. Most highly rated insurance companies are large, multinational businesses/corporations. I don't think you can say they are outside of the stream of commerce.
I know, I know, you're probably going to say you are talking about the people as individuals. Well, maybe one of the best examples is liability insurance on your vehicles. Every state requires an owner to purchase such insurance from a private company. I believe this power arises under the state's police power to regulate the laws with regard to driving. And the feds could take a similar stance, that this arises under the police powers, but I suspect that the footing for health care will be found under the health and welfare clause of the Constitution and not necessarily the commerce clause. But, we'll wait for the experts to file their briefs...if, of course, the case makes it past motions...which I doubt.
Quote: Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
In either event, sweeping opinions like this don't make you look very good.
Now you, of all people, are accusing someone of posting something that doesn't make him "look very good?"
I must have read your post wrong because to me it seemed that you were taking a swipe at ALL lawyers. But I'll let you tell me...this is the post:
[quote]
First you say that plaintiff's lawyers have lost business (a clear acknowledgement that tort reform IS working). But then you guys point out the "unintended consequence" that the demand for defense lawyers has declined as well...
...and insinuate that that's somehow a bad thing? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
- charlestudor2005
- 03-28-2010, 04:40 PM
- atlcomedy
- 03-28-2010, 04:45 PM
- WTF
- 03-28-2010, 05:14 PM
My post was not directed at you, but at those who may not understand the comparisons of Obama's current situation to those faced by presidents of the past, or may fail to draw the correct conclusions from them.
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
I fully understand Obama situation. All I was saying was that things are lining up similarly. I do not think Obama will have the Iranians fuc him like they did Carter. Had they released the hostages , Carter not Reagan would have been Prez in '80 and reaped his own harvest.
Perception is indeed the reality and the problem I have with Reagan is that his legacy is that he cut taxes and that was what spurred the recovery. Nothing is further from the truth. But I agree with you fella's perception is reality when it comes to votes. We do not have a very smart electorate.
So that being said depending on the preception of the economy that will be the deciding factor in 2012.
- TexTushHog
- 03-28-2010, 08:33 PM
For all you folks who think "tort reform" is working, the evidece shows that health care costs in States with med mal caps is rising at just the same rate as other States. Texas and California, which have the most draconian caps, health care costs are rising at the same rate as States with no caps. If that's not proof that malpractice costs aren't significant, I don't know what is.
But, you over look one of the huge issues with this so called reform. Tens of thousands of deserving Plaintiffs can't get lawyers. And the costs don't go away. They're still there, but they now have to be borne entirely by the victim of the malpractice -- the person least able to shoulder the loss.
And nothing is being done to deal with the real problem -- the epidemic of malpractice that kills 100,000 Americans every year. That's right -- 100,000 deaths from preventable medical errors in the U.S. every year. And that doesn't include those injured, crippled or maimed. It's like the airlines crashed two 737's a day and then asked for caps on their liability because they have such bad pilots that they can't take the lawsuits. Yet that's what the medical industry is doing, and people swallow it hook, line and sinker.
But, you over look one of the huge issues with this so called reform. Tens of thousands of deserving Plaintiffs can't get lawyers. And the costs don't go away. They're still there, but they now have to be borne entirely by the victim of the malpractice -- the person least able to shoulder the loss.
And nothing is being done to deal with the real problem -- the epidemic of malpractice that kills 100,000 Americans every year. That's right -- 100,000 deaths from preventable medical errors in the U.S. every year. And that doesn't include those injured, crippled or maimed. It's like the airlines crashed two 737's a day and then asked for caps on their liability because they have such bad pilots that they can't take the lawsuits. Yet that's what the medical industry is doing, and people swallow it hook, line and sinker.
- Texas Contrarian
- 03-29-2010, 10:57 AM
charlestudor2005: Just a suggestion, if I may.
Before stating that someone posted something that doesn't make him "look very good", why not actually try to understand the issue and the context in which the post was made? That way you can avoid embarrassing yourself. (Although I'm not sure that anyone who attacks other posters with Nazi epithets and swastika images is likely to be very concerned with whether or not he's embarrassing himself!)
The "sweeping" statement that seemed to bother you simply involved my observation that you deemed the decline in demand for the services of defense lawyers an "unintended consequence" of tort reform. When I suggested that that's a good thing, it somehow morphed into an attack on "all" lawyers and a "sweeping statement" that made me "look bad." Amazing.
I think all of us (well, most of us anyway!) would agree that if we are going to get a grip on health care costs, we must reduce the share that's going to lawyers' fees -- for both plaintiffs and defendants. Even many lawyers agree with that! (My Dad, for one.)
Something is not commerce if there's no transaction. In other words, if I do not buy insurance, there has been no commercial transaction of any kind. The question revolves not around whether the government can regulate interstate commerce (we all agree that it can), but whether it can force you to engage in such commerce against your will.
Living is a RIGHT, not a privilege.
See the difference?
You suggested parallels to the Reagan presidency, suggesting that Obama will benefit from a cyclical recovery and cruise to re-election in 2012. That could happen, but things are likely to be very difficult for him if he continues on his present path. As I said earlier, he'd better hope for a 1994-style housecleaning of the sort that saved Bill Clinton's bacon.
As you recall, Clinton quickly moved back to the center and even signed onto what was a center-right agenda in many ways.
If Obama continues pressing a manifestly anti-growth agenda, and succeeds in cramming it through, I think he's cooked in 2012.
After the big (BFD!) health care bill, what's next on the hit parade? Another go at cap-and-trade? More pork-festooned "stimulus" packages?
That's why I submit that comparisons to Jimmy Carter are far more appropriate. Carter spent the first half of his term acting as though he had absolutely no idea what the nation's most critical problems were and how to address them. Obama, so far, is doing the same.
Where does that number come from? The AAJ?
And what about the issue of defensive medicine? How can costs possibly be controlled when doctors feel compelled to paper the files with records of just about every test and procedure known to man in an effort to keep the jackpot-by-jury system from bankrupting them?
Before stating that someone posted something that doesn't make him "look very good", why not actually try to understand the issue and the context in which the post was made? That way you can avoid embarrassing yourself. (Although I'm not sure that anyone who attacks other posters with Nazi epithets and swastika images is likely to be very concerned with whether or not he's embarrassing himself!)
The "sweeping" statement that seemed to bother you simply involved my observation that you deemed the decline in demand for the services of defense lawyers an "unintended consequence" of tort reform. When I suggested that that's a good thing, it somehow morphed into an attack on "all" lawyers and a "sweeping statement" that made me "look bad." Amazing.
I think all of us (well, most of us anyway!) would agree that if we are going to get a grip on health care costs, we must reduce the share that's going to lawyers' fees -- for both plaintiffs and defendants. Even many lawyers agree with that! (My Dad, for one.)
I don't know how you can say one of the most regulated industries in the US is not in commerce. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005That's not what I said!
Something is not commerce if there's no transaction. In other words, if I do not buy insurance, there has been no commercial transaction of any kind. The question revolves not around whether the government can regulate interstate commerce (we all agree that it can), but whether it can force you to engage in such commerce against your will.
I know, I know, you're probably going to say you are talking about the people as individuals. Well, maybe one of the best examples is liability insurance on your vehicles. Every state requires an owner to purchase such insurance from a private company. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005Sorry, that comparison doesn't work for many of us. Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. If I choose to ride in taxis or hire a chauffer, I don't have to buy insurance.
Living is a RIGHT, not a privilege.
See the difference?
I fully understand Obama situation. All I was saying was that things are lining up similarly. Originally Posted by WTFSimilarly to what?
You suggested parallels to the Reagan presidency, suggesting that Obama will benefit from a cyclical recovery and cruise to re-election in 2012. That could happen, but things are likely to be very difficult for him if he continues on his present path. As I said earlier, he'd better hope for a 1994-style housecleaning of the sort that saved Bill Clinton's bacon.
As you recall, Clinton quickly moved back to the center and even signed onto what was a center-right agenda in many ways.
If Obama continues pressing a manifestly anti-growth agenda, and succeeds in cramming it through, I think he's cooked in 2012.
After the big (BFD!) health care bill, what's next on the hit parade? Another go at cap-and-trade? More pork-festooned "stimulus" packages?
That's why I submit that comparisons to Jimmy Carter are far more appropriate. Carter spent the first half of his term acting as though he had absolutely no idea what the nation's most critical problems were and how to address them. Obama, so far, is doing the same.
And nothing is being done to deal with the real problem -- the epidemic of malpractice that kills 100,000 Americans every year. That's right -- 100,000 deaths from preventable medical errors in the U.S. every year. Originally Posted by TexTushHogWhat?!?
Where does that number come from? The AAJ?
Tens of thousands of deserving Plaintiffs can't get lawyers. And the costs don't go away. Originally Posted by TexTushHogHow can tens of thousands of "deserving" plaintiffs not find lawyers? If someone actually has a justifiable claim, aren't there plenty of attorneys eager to take the case on a contingency basis?
And what about the issue of defensive medicine? How can costs possibly be controlled when doctors feel compelled to paper the files with records of just about every test and procedure known to man in an effort to keep the jackpot-by-jury system from bankrupting them?
- Marcus Aurelius
- 03-29-2010, 12:23 PM
charlestudor2005:That's it right there. You know it's happening.
what about the issue of defensive medicine? How can costs possibly be controlled when doctors feel compelled to paper the files with records of just about every test and procedure known to man in an effort to keep the jackpot-by-jury system from bankrupting them? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
- nevergaveitathought
- 03-29-2010, 02:30 PM
My son moved from brentwood,ca. to texas a week or so ago...he has his own software internet business and has been paying for his own health insurance as a single guy
premium went from $276 per month to $108 by virtue of the move.
reasons given to him for the reduction? texas tort reform..and ....texas not mandating coverages for all policies such as invitro fertilization, all manner of other extras required in california he never would use or for which he could never even possibly qualify.
the high cost of insurance was never a factor to the dems and obama.
if it was, buying insurance across state lines would be numero uno in the bill.
no, it is control and coverage and redistribution and requiring all to have certain coverages to pay for the few who want invitro or for a psychologist to confirm to you its your parents fault.
obamacare is a toxic stew with its poison actually designed to stop businesses from fleeing to states such as Texas or other right to work states and states with common sense insurance laws etc.
it is an arrow pointed at the red states to even out the burdens on businesses placed by liberals in their own states so no longer can a business escape the idiocy of the progressives.
premium went from $276 per month to $108 by virtue of the move.
reasons given to him for the reduction? texas tort reform..and ....texas not mandating coverages for all policies such as invitro fertilization, all manner of other extras required in california he never would use or for which he could never even possibly qualify.
the high cost of insurance was never a factor to the dems and obama.
if it was, buying insurance across state lines would be numero uno in the bill.
no, it is control and coverage and redistribution and requiring all to have certain coverages to pay for the few who want invitro or for a psychologist to confirm to you its your parents fault.
obamacare is a toxic stew with its poison actually designed to stop businesses from fleeing to states such as Texas or other right to work states and states with common sense insurance laws etc.
it is an arrow pointed at the red states to even out the burdens on businesses placed by liberals in their own states so no longer can a business escape the idiocy of the progressives.
- DFW5Traveler
- 03-29-2010, 02:55 PM
My son moved from brentwood,ca. to texas a week or so ago...he has his own software internet business and has been paying for his own health insurance as a single guy+1
premium went from $276 per month to $108 by virtue of the move.
reasons given to him for the reduction? texas tort reform..and ....texas not mandating coverages for all policies such as invitro fertilization, all manner of other extras required in california he never would use or for which he could never even possibly qualify.
the high cost of insurance was never a factor to the dems and obama.
if it was, buying insurance across state lines would be numero uno in the bill.
no, it is control and coverage and redistribution and requiring all to have certain coverages to pay for the few who want invitro or for a psychologist to confirm to you its your parents fault.
obamacare is a toxic stew with its poison actually designed to stop businesses from fleeing to states such as Texas or other right to work states and states with common sense insurance laws etc.
it is an arrow pointed at the red states to even out the burdens on businesses placed by liberals in their own states so no longer can a business escape the idiocy of the progressives. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
And the problem with other states that are jacked up is that all of the asshole progressives that have been voting in those states and jacked them up are now moving to TX where they aren't subjected to the forked up laws they voted into existance. Locusts come to mind. All I can say is "welcome to TX, stop voting or go home."
- atlcomedy
- 03-29-2010, 03:23 PM
premium went from $276 per month to $108 by virtue of the move.I'm assuming he's young and healthy, but still I'm wondering what he's getting for $108/month?
. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
I assume it is high deductible, which by the way I'm a fan of, but that still seems low for a real plan that will pay out when you need it.
The plans that get my blood pressure up
because they are, if not criminal, deceptive, are the ones that advertise all over TV this coverage for a couple of $s a day. Not only do they have high marketing/customer acquisition costs, there are so many exculsions & conditions in the fine print there is a good chance you are screwed when you need the help the most. Good people go to bed at night feeling secure they have "health insurance" with no idea what is in store for them.One positive to health reform, is if done well, better access to legit individual plans.
- Marcus Aurelius
- 03-29-2010, 03:36 PM
I pay 5K a year and it seams too much to me.
- charlestudor2005
- 03-29-2010, 05:40 PM
See below.
How can tens of thousands of "deserving" plaintiffs not find lawyers? If someone actually has a justifiable claim, aren't there plenty of attorneys eager to take the case on a contingency basis?
For example, through negligence, a doctor cuts off Becky's left breast when she was due to have the right one cut off. In Texas, she gets (at the most) $25k in damages. Punitives are capped at $25K for a total of $50k. No lawyer takes this case. It equals years of work for a puny (at the most) 33% fee of the total (or a measly $16,500). That leaves Becky with a lousy $33,500 for the doc's negligence. On top of which, she has to deduct the lawyers costs, which would easily be thousands of dollars, especially given the requirements of bringing a med mal case in Texas. So Becky sees practically next to nothing, and there is no motivation for her to bring the case in the first place. Then there's the matter of the breast that was supposed to be removed in the first place. Health care providers are still going to require her to pay for that little service.
And what about the issue of defensive medicine? How can costs possibly be controlled when doctors feel compelled to paper the files with records of just about every test and procedure known to man in an effort to keep the jackpot-by-jury system from bankrupting them?
Under the current system, there is no such thing as jackpot-by-jury. Damages are capped, so the docs never have that much exposure. Unless they are committing malpractice on a regular basis with almost every patient. Oh, and by the way, docs are never in danger of being bankrupted. That's why they pay med mal carriers. Plus they shelter their income into entities so that they (the docs) can't be successfully sued or attached. Defensive medicine? Maybe in some respects, but I think this is a card that is way overplayed. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight