The original statement in the article questions why CJD would oppose something that it concludes would have no impact on insurance claim costs. The author’s support of reforms is based on the idea that reduced claims costs reduces premiums.
The authors statement makes no sense because CJD feels that this brand of tort reform has a negative impact on consumers. Thus, if this kind of so-called tort reform is instituted, in the CJD’s view there will be a negative impact on consumers and no positive impact on insurers or, by extention, on policy holders. As such, what the author should be asking is why WOULDN’T the CJD vehemently oppose this useless idea that would harm consumers?
Do you get it now?
As insurance professionals we should at least be able to make a cogent argument to support our point. This says nothing to the fact that it is a complete phallacy to call damage caps tort reform. They are damage caps, and they don’t reduce premiums… it’s been proven time and time again… see California MICRA for example. ($250K noneconomic caps in the 1970s resulted in 300% net med mal premiums increase)
Tort reform starts with underwriting and involvement in the insured’s business procedures. Damage caps only hurt those that have already been victimized. They are a lazy answer and no solution.
Great to see the trial lawyers twisting, distorting empirical data to suit their needs.
At some point, politicians are going to need to stop coddling and ignoring their former colleagues and start reining the trial lawyers and their abuses in.
Of course, since many legislators are accepting money and campaign contributions from this powerful lobby, we will probably not see any serious attempt at real tort reform in the near future. Too many politicians constantly running for reelection, et al.
I’ve seen a lot data from various sources of late which indicate that were tort reform was established…That there was only a very moderate lowering of medical malpractice rates/premiums.
This being the case…What has happened to all of the money being saved?…
I can only suspect that the carriers are profiting the difference.
If this is in fact the case..I will vote not to have “tort reform”.
There are no immediate miracles. It’s taken years to get us into the mess we’re in, and it will take years for the full effect of tort reform to be felt. Tort reform laws will affect only suits brought after the laws are passed. That leaves a lot of suits already filed but not yet settled that are not covered by the laws, not to mention the flood of suits that are sure to be filed just before the laws go into effect.
The moderate lowering of the rates brings them in line with claim levels. Prior to the reforms, insurers were in the hole so much of the benefit of the reforms just brought the claims level down to where insurers were already pricing. Insurers also need to be cautious as these reforms can be overturned, reversed or ignored in court and they’ll end up paying out as much as before.
Insurers set rates to pay claims and expenses and, as ghastly as it seems, make a profit. They predict future claims based on historical claims and the expected impact of reforms or other trends. If a company predicts too big a benefit from reforms, they’ll lose money. If they lose too much money, they’ll be out of business. Then who’s gonna pay the lawyers?
I am well versed in carrier expense and profitably.
I believe that no one has a problem with profitability.
I do believe that we have a problem with gouging and then complaining that we are not making enough..
Also..What you indicated as to the carrier pricing is very true…
For many years the carriers underpriced policies but this was the carriers fault for choosing to do so.
This being the case would mean that the system itself doesn’t need to change..It would seem that the carriers would need to rethink their corporate pricing strategies.
I know that I will run in opposition to most people who receive the insurance journal but that is ok as I think our industry believes what it likes to believe
when it suits us (most industries do..lol!!).
You’re not well versed in carrier expense and profitability if you believe no one has a problem with profitability. How many insolvencies are there each year?
Even if carriers’ past losses were self inflicted, does that mean they’re never allowed to make a profit?
Also, can you define gouging? Does that mean making more than you pay out? Most if not all states have statutes that say insurance rates can’t be excessive and they have regulators to check on that.
Carriers did rethink their pricing strategy and raised rates. That’s why it’s such a hot issue. As long as insurers shut up and eat the losses, everybody’s happy. How long is the insurance industry supposed to finance the law suit industry?
Like I said, it took years to get where we are, it’ll take years for the effects of tort reform to be felt. Years, that is, after it’s been enacted, and after the challenges to it, and after it’s been interpreted by the higher courts. Will it be federal or state? Or both? There’s a lot of uncertainty. It’ll be an ongoing process, just like ADA, HIPAA, etc.
Your posting strikes me as someone who no little about our industry.
As I said…No one has problem with someone’s desire to make a profit (this is different from what you are referencing).
What you indicate is that carriers are not responsible for their own actions (i.e. pricing)…
In your logic…No blame lies with our industry to it all must be someone elses fault (ie. plaintiff counsels)…Thats nonsense and you know it but you must always spout the party line..
In addition to this…Until very recently, practically no carriers made an underwriting profit (for YEARS!!).
They anticipated being profitable from their investment returns but when these (like ours) when down..
Now..All of a sudden we have a “Crisis”.
So Again…We can yell fire and blame the firefighters for not putting the fire fast enough but it is we (too) who started the fire.
Please grow up and look at more than 1 side of things…Maybe then you will learn something about business (and maybe even life).
Mike, you need to consider one more thing before you accuse others of not having a familiarity with pricing.
Yes, states have laws that require rates not to be excessive. Those same states have laws that require rates to be adequate. Both of these requirements are supposedly enforced by the governing body within that state (the DOI, independent actuarial body, whomever).
While I agree that the industry likely fed the fire with price-focused competitive practices (see the 1990’s and the mad dash for market share via slashed rates), the fact that companies failed to make an UW profit cannot be laid solely at the feet of the company.
How many times have we seen actuarially justified rate increases shot down because of political pressures? See WC in NY and CA. See homeowner rates in FL. Until market forces are the sole determinant of price as it is in so many other industries (how about the banks and the benefits they’ve seen from a federal regulatory oversight in lieu of 51 independent jurisdictions), pricing will still be influenced by factors outside of the actual claims experience and expenses of the company.
What nerve did I hit? You went from cordial to nasty in one fell swoop. My apologies for misunderstanding your comment that â€Åâ€Ŕno one has a problem with profitability.†It sounded like you were saying every carrier is profitable. It now seems you’re trying to say no one minds if an insurer makes money. That’s probably not entirely true but I’ll take it as your position.
I did not say insurers are blameless. But you don’t seem to want them to mend their ways and return to profitability. When investment income dried up, insurers turned their attention to their core business. They have mended their ways and are pricing for an underwriting profit and now you’re crying that premiums aren’t dropping enough! You’ve just given the perfect argument against your original statement. If an insurer is going to survive when they’ve been under priced and investments go south, they can’t drop rates as fast as claims go down (or at least appear to).
The crisis is doctors can’t afford the premium insurers have to charge to pay the lawyers that sue them so health care is either unavailable or unaffordable. And I don’t believe insurers are the loudest voice in crying crisis. This may be the â€Åâ€Ŕparty line†but it seems to me insurers are just pointing to the causes and results of the crisis.
Love, Ned
PS does your data that indicates rates haven’t dropped indicate that insurer payouts have?
PPS your original comment also says you â€Åâ€Ŕwill vote not to have ‘tort reform’†because you â€Åâ€Ŕcan only suspect that the carriers are profiting the difference.†That sounds like you are opposed to insurers making money. Which is it?
The insurance industry is once again twisting data to suit its own needs. I ask you if you are so in favor of caps then when you go to a doctor’s office or hospital voluntarily sign a contract indicating you will limit your damages to 250K if there is an error put your money where your mouth is.
The thing the general public fails to realize is that the caps are solely for non-economic damages, meaning the “pain and suffering”. Medical costs, including long-term care, follow-up procedures, lost wages and/or loss of earning potential, etc., etc., etc. associated with malpractice are still covered 100%.
I’ll sign the contract, too. If fact, I’ll sign an open ended contract that states I’ll accept the cap for anything, not just med mal. The contact will also state I won’t sue if I do something stupid, like put hot coffee in my lap while driving.
I’m with John and Scott. I will never sue for a medical error. No amount of money will give me back what I lose. Some things just don’t have a price tag. Especially in the case of the death of a loved one, seeking monetary compensation cheapens their life.
Whoa, Ned. I didn’t say I’d never sue for med mal. All I said was I’d sign a contract limiting noneconomic damages to $250,000. I reserve the right to sue a doc or anyone who causes me harm or monetary loss through their negligence, carelessness, or stupidity. I want to be made whole, to the extent that is possible, I do not expect a windfall (which, of course, I’d have to “share” with an attorney.)
This is a ridiculously stupid article. They want to combat a statistical study but don’t cite a single statistic or counterveiling study?
They just describe the methodology as “laugable” (why? dunno.) and spout nonlogic like: “If that were the case – that is, if tort reform did not impact underlying insurance claim costs – why is CJD fighting so desperately against tort reform?” Uh… because tort reform harms injured people?
This is a pathetic attempt at argument, and a worse attempt at defense of an industry. I’m not buying an inch of it.
My comment regarding limiting damages to 250K is a bad idea. By the way, pain and suffering pays for things like being in a wheel chair, loss of a leg, things medical bills cannot help with. I do not believe suing cheapens a life although it is a rough process, at the very least it can shed light on what happened. Also I ask all who are in favor of tort reform to state that if a doctor or hospital blinded them, paralyzed them or caused them or a family member to loose a leg if 250K would be enough for that as a limit. I would say no. But if you are in favor of such caps tell me if 250K is enough for your leg or your eye eventhough that does not include medical bills. Remember you won’t be able to walk with out a prostehetic or see your kid’s ball game or a sunset ever again. Also remember there is no exception in caps for people who have no lost wages such as kids and retirees, juries may have problems as they are filled with people but I’ll take judgment by my fellow citizens over judgment by a biased official like the AMA wants with appointed Health Courts.
This articile also distorts the truth and has a lot of lies which have been refuted by the Pew Charitable Trusts and repports by state Supreme Courts in PA as well as studies by Insurance Commisioners in states like WV and Missouri. Also see WV State medical Board report of 2002, malpractice payouts are not rising, but premiums are.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Whose statistics do you believe?
If the methodology is, in fact, flawed, then the statistics are meaningless. You don’t have to counter with a statistic or competing study.
As for the “nonlogic” you cite, your answer is no better. Someone can just as easily answer “because trial attorneys will take it in the teeth.” It’s just as valid as your statement that tort reform harms injured people. In fact, let’s turn your statement around to lack of tort reform is hurting innocent people. Any less logical?
I’m not an apologist for the insurance industy. I just don’t like to see all BS that gets thrown around. There’s enough blame to go around for the mess we call a tort system.
Tort reform does harm injured people, i.e. the public and patients. That is not illogical, it is the truth. By reversing logic you seem to alluding to moral relativism. However, in this world there is still truth and right and wrong not just acting out of selfishness and greed which is what is the basis for tort reform. Our society is about responsibility. Also when many independent studies show no benefit but profits to the insurers from tort reform, that is harm to society and unwise policy. Government policy is supposed to be beneficial to society not to its detriment and tort reform is not only un Republican but also is detrimental to society as it says the most severly injured, retirees and children have a statutory amount set on the value for their lives since they have no lost wages in many instances.
Selfishness and greed? I’m sure there’s none of that behind any lawsuit that has ever been filed.
If my “reversal” isn’t valid, and there is, may I presume, absolute truth and right and wrong, are you prepared to declare the tort system absolutely fair to everyone?
Please don’t cite “independent studies” without specifics.
Finally, if our society was “about responsibility”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I’m sorry, but you’ve gone off the deep end. I’ve reread the article several times, and you’re reading a lot into it that isn’t there, and believing it.
I’m in favor of tort reform, but that’s not what I’ve been arguing here. I’m just poking holes in the arguments being posted, and I’m having some success, since the discussion has been degraded by some to insults.
Our tort system is broken and needs to be fixed. Whether the fix is loser pays, damage caps, or something else as yet proposed, I don’t know. I do know that the bleatings by trial attorneys and their “consumer advocate” surrogates about the rights of the injured, elderly, children, are largely a smoke screen to mask the impact tort reform, in whatever form, will have on the income of trial attorneys. I’ve yet to hear one cogent argument against tort reform in general, while the effects of a system run amok are obvious.
One last comment before I leave this discussion. Actually, an anecdote. I was asked to appear on a local TV news show that featured a short segment on med mal tort reform, speicifally damage caps. I couldn’t make it, but was able to watch show. The panel constisted of an MD who was also on the board of the state medical society med mal insurer, an independent insurance agent, and one of the country’s leading trial attorney’s. During the discussion, the MD mentioned the insurer’s precarious financial position, to which the attorney retorted, “but they have a billion dollars in assets.) Now, this means either the attorney is completely ignorant of even basic accounting (there is, of course, another side to the balance sheet), which I doubt, or he was blowing smoke to mislead the viewers. Well, it’s clear he was trying to play the audience. Now, why would he have to do that if there’s a solid arument against tort reform?
“I’m sorry, but you’ve gone off the deep end. I’ve reread the article several times, and you’re reading a lot into it that isn’t there, and believing it.”
Such as? The assertions about the CJD study in the article don’t make sense and are not supported. This is true regardless of whether you believe in the results or not. This would be true no matter what the article was about.
“Our tort system is broken and needs to be fixed.”
And/or our insurance industry is broken and based on outmoded regulations, best practices standards, and underwriting formulae.
“Well, it’s clear he was trying to play the audience. Now, why would he have to do that if there’s a solid arument against tort reform?”
What on earth are you talking about? Nice story, if a bit braggartly, but it has no bearing on the fact that this article was poorly written, pathetically reasoned, and an embarassment to the industry.
Scott did not view my previous posts and took them out of context too. Tort Reform does not work. Only legal system bashing insurance industry supporters do not seem to have the ability to research the issue to find out reform does not work.
If it hurts, it’s because it can’t follow your twisted “logic”. Please explain where I say tort reform won’t have an effect on premiums?
Scott, read the thread yourself.
The original statement in the article questions why CJD would oppose something that it concludes would have no impact on insurance claim costs. The author’s support of reforms is based on the idea that reduced claims costs reduces premiums.
The authors statement makes no sense because CJD feels that this brand of tort reform has a negative impact on consumers. Thus, if this kind of so-called tort reform is instituted, in the CJD’s view there will be a negative impact on consumers and no positive impact on insurers or, by extention, on policy holders. As such, what the author should be asking is why WOULDN’T the CJD vehemently oppose this useless idea that would harm consumers?
Do you get it now?
As insurance professionals we should at least be able to make a cogent argument to support our point. This says nothing to the fact that it is a complete phallacy to call damage caps tort reform. They are damage caps, and they don’t reduce premiums… it’s been proven time and time again… see California MICRA for example. ($250K noneconomic caps in the 1970s resulted in 300% net med mal premiums increase)
Tort reform starts with underwriting and involvement in the insured’s business procedures. Damage caps only hurt those that have already been victimized. They are a lazy answer and no solution.
Great to see the trial lawyers twisting, distorting empirical data to suit their needs.
At some point, politicians are going to need to stop coddling and ignoring their former colleagues and start reining the trial lawyers and their abuses in.
Of course, since many legislators are accepting money and campaign contributions from this powerful lobby, we will probably not see any serious attempt at real tort reform in the near future. Too many politicians constantly running for reelection, et al.
I’ve seen a lot data from various sources of late which indicate that were tort reform was established…That there was only a very moderate lowering of medical malpractice rates/premiums.
This being the case…What has happened to all of the money being saved?…
I can only suspect that the carriers are profiting the difference.
If this is in fact the case..I will vote not to have “tort reform”.
There are no immediate miracles. It’s taken years to get us into the mess we’re in, and it will take years for the full effect of tort reform to be felt. Tort reform laws will affect only suits brought after the laws are passed. That leaves a lot of suits already filed but not yet settled that are not covered by the laws, not to mention the flood of suits that are sure to be filed just before the laws go into effect.
Hey Scott,
Good Afternoon!
What you say is true, however, the data I have seen goes back into the late 1990’s.
At what point are the so called savings supposed to occur?
Just a thought…
Cya
The moderate lowering of the rates brings them in line with claim levels. Prior to the reforms, insurers were in the hole so much of the benefit of the reforms just brought the claims level down to where insurers were already pricing. Insurers also need to be cautious as these reforms can be overturned, reversed or ignored in court and they’ll end up paying out as much as before.
Insurers set rates to pay claims and expenses and, as ghastly as it seems, make a profit. They predict future claims based on historical claims and the expected impact of reforms or other trends. If a company predicts too big a benefit from reforms, they’ll lose money. If they lose too much money, they’ll be out of business. Then who’s gonna pay the lawyers?
Hey Ned,
Good Afternoon!
I am well versed in carrier expense and profitably.
I believe that no one has a problem with profitability.
I do believe that we have a problem with gouging and then complaining that we are not making enough..
Also..What you indicated as to the carrier pricing is very true…
For many years the carriers underpriced policies but this was the carriers fault for choosing to do so.
This being the case would mean that the system itself doesn’t need to change..It would seem that the carriers would need to rethink their corporate pricing strategies.
I know that I will run in opposition to most people who receive the insurance journal but that is ok as I think our industry believes what it likes to believe
when it suits us (most industries do..lol!!).
Be Well,
Mike
You’re not well versed in carrier expense and profitability if you believe no one has a problem with profitability. How many insolvencies are there each year?
Even if carriers’ past losses were self inflicted, does that mean they’re never allowed to make a profit?
Also, can you define gouging? Does that mean making more than you pay out? Most if not all states have statutes that say insurance rates can’t be excessive and they have regulators to check on that.
Carriers did rethink their pricing strategy and raised rates. That’s why it’s such a hot issue. As long as insurers shut up and eat the losses, everybody’s happy. How long is the insurance industry supposed to finance the law suit industry?
Mike:
Like I said, it took years to get where we are, it’ll take years for the effects of tort reform to be felt. Years, that is, after it’s been enacted, and after the challenges to it, and after it’s been interpreted by the higher courts. Will it be federal or state? Or both? There’s a lot of uncertainty. It’ll be an ongoing process, just like ADA, HIPAA, etc.
Hey Ned,
Good Afternoon!!
Your posting strikes me as someone who no little about our industry.
As I said…No one has problem with someone’s desire to make a profit (this is different from what you are referencing).
What you indicate is that carriers are not responsible for their own actions (i.e. pricing)…
In your logic…No blame lies with our industry to it all must be someone elses fault (ie. plaintiff counsels)…Thats nonsense and you know it but you must always spout the party line..
In addition to this…Until very recently, practically no carriers made an underwriting profit (for YEARS!!).
They anticipated being profitable from their investment returns but when these (like ours) when down..
Now..All of a sudden we have a “Crisis”.
So Again…We can yell fire and blame the firefighters for not putting the fire fast enough but it is we (too) who started the fire.
Please grow up and look at more than 1 side of things…Maybe then you will learn something about business (and maybe even life).
Mike, you need to consider one more thing before you accuse others of not having a familiarity with pricing.
Yes, states have laws that require rates not to be excessive. Those same states have laws that require rates to be adequate. Both of these requirements are supposedly enforced by the governing body within that state (the DOI, independent actuarial body, whomever).
While I agree that the industry likely fed the fire with price-focused competitive practices (see the 1990’s and the mad dash for market share via slashed rates), the fact that companies failed to make an UW profit cannot be laid solely at the feet of the company.
How many times have we seen actuarially justified rate increases shot down because of political pressures? See WC in NY and CA. See homeowner rates in FL. Until market forces are the sole determinant of price as it is in so many other industries (how about the banks and the benefits they’ve seen from a federal regulatory oversight in lieu of 51 independent jurisdictions), pricing will still be influenced by factors outside of the actual claims experience and expenses of the company.
Dear Mike,
What nerve did I hit? You went from cordial to nasty in one fell swoop. My apologies for misunderstanding your comment that â€Åâ€Ŕno one has a problem with profitability.†It sounded like you were saying every carrier is profitable. It now seems you’re trying to say no one minds if an insurer makes money. That’s probably not entirely true but I’ll take it as your position.
I did not say insurers are blameless. But you don’t seem to want them to mend their ways and return to profitability. When investment income dried up, insurers turned their attention to their core business. They have mended their ways and are pricing for an underwriting profit and now you’re crying that premiums aren’t dropping enough! You’ve just given the perfect argument against your original statement. If an insurer is going to survive when they’ve been under priced and investments go south, they can’t drop rates as fast as claims go down (or at least appear to).
The crisis is doctors can’t afford the premium insurers have to charge to pay the lawyers that sue them so health care is either unavailable or unaffordable. And I don’t believe insurers are the loudest voice in crying crisis. This may be the â€Åâ€Ŕparty line†but it seems to me insurers are just pointing to the causes and results of the crisis.
Love, Ned
PS does your data that indicates rates haven’t dropped indicate that insurer payouts have?
PPS your original comment also says you â€Åâ€Ŕwill vote not to have ‘tort reform’†because you â€Åâ€Ŕcan only suspect that the carriers are profiting the difference.†That sounds like you are opposed to insurers making money. Which is it?
The insurance industry is once again twisting data to suit its own needs. I ask you if you are so in favor of caps then when you go to a doctor’s office or hospital voluntarily sign a contract indicating you will limit your damages to 250K if there is an error put your money where your mouth is.
In a heartbeat. Where’s the form?
The thing the general public fails to realize is that the caps are solely for non-economic damages, meaning the “pain and suffering”. Medical costs, including long-term care, follow-up procedures, lost wages and/or loss of earning potential, etc., etc., etc. associated with malpractice are still covered 100%.
I’ll sign the contract, too. If fact, I’ll sign an open ended contract that states I’ll accept the cap for anything, not just med mal. The contact will also state I won’t sue if I do something stupid, like put hot coffee in my lap while driving.
I’m with John and Scott. I will never sue for a medical error. No amount of money will give me back what I lose. Some things just don’t have a price tag. Especially in the case of the death of a loved one, seeking monetary compensation cheapens their life.
Whoa, Ned. I didn’t say I’d never sue for med mal. All I said was I’d sign a contract limiting noneconomic damages to $250,000. I reserve the right to sue a doc or anyone who causes me harm or monetary loss through their negligence, carelessness, or stupidity. I want to be made whole, to the extent that is possible, I do not expect a windfall (which, of course, I’d have to “share” with an attorney.)
This is a ridiculously stupid article. They want to combat a statistical study but don’t cite a single statistic or counterveiling study?
They just describe the methodology as “laugable” (why? dunno.) and spout nonlogic like: “If that were the case – that is, if tort reform did not impact underlying insurance claim costs – why is CJD fighting so desperately against tort reform?” Uh… because tort reform harms injured people?
This is a pathetic attempt at argument, and a worse attempt at defense of an industry. I’m not buying an inch of it.
And I’m an insurance defense/coverage lawyer!
My comment regarding limiting damages to 250K is a bad idea. By the way, pain and suffering pays for things like being in a wheel chair, loss of a leg, things medical bills cannot help with. I do not believe suing cheapens a life although it is a rough process, at the very least it can shed light on what happened. Also I ask all who are in favor of tort reform to state that if a doctor or hospital blinded them, paralyzed them or caused them or a family member to loose a leg if 250K would be enough for that as a limit. I would say no. But if you are in favor of such caps tell me if 250K is enough for your leg or your eye eventhough that does not include medical bills. Remember you won’t be able to walk with out a prostehetic or see your kid’s ball game or a sunset ever again. Also remember there is no exception in caps for people who have no lost wages such as kids and retirees, juries may have problems as they are filled with people but I’ll take judgment by my fellow citizens over judgment by a biased official like the AMA wants with appointed Health Courts.
This articile also distorts the truth and has a lot of lies which have been refuted by the Pew Charitable Trusts and repports by state Supreme Courts in PA as well as studies by Insurance Commisioners in states like WV and Missouri. Also see WV State medical Board report of 2002, malpractice payouts are not rising, but premiums are.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Whose statistics do you believe?
If the methodology is, in fact, flawed, then the statistics are meaningless. You don’t have to counter with a statistic or competing study.
As for the “nonlogic” you cite, your answer is no better. Someone can just as easily answer “because trial attorneys will take it in the teeth.” It’s just as valid as your statement that tort reform harms injured people. In fact, let’s turn your statement around to lack of tort reform is hurting innocent people. Any less logical?
I’m not an apologist for the insurance industy. I just don’t like to see all BS that gets thrown around. There’s enough blame to go around for the mess we call a tort system.
Tort reform does harm injured people, i.e. the public and patients. That is not illogical, it is the truth. By reversing logic you seem to alluding to moral relativism. However, in this world there is still truth and right and wrong not just acting out of selfishness and greed which is what is the basis for tort reform. Our society is about responsibility. Also when many independent studies show no benefit but profits to the insurers from tort reform, that is harm to society and unwise policy. Government policy is supposed to be beneficial to society not to its detriment and tort reform is not only un Republican but also is detrimental to society as it says the most severly injured, retirees and children have a statutory amount set on the value for their lives since they have no lost wages in many instances.
Selfishness and greed? I’m sure there’s none of that behind any lawsuit that has ever been filed.
If my “reversal” isn’t valid, and there is, may I presume, absolute truth and right and wrong, are you prepared to declare the tort system absolutely fair to everyone?
Please don’t cite “independent studies” without specifics.
Finally, if our society was “about responsibility”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
My logic is no better?
You do realize what you’re saying is that the insurance industry should fight for something that will have no effect on premiums.
Nice try son, I think your head hurts.
My logic is no better?
You do realize what you’re saying is that the insurance industry should fight for something that will have no effect on premiums.
Nice try son, I think your head hurts.
I’m sorry, but you’ve gone off the deep end. I’ve reread the article several times, and you’re reading a lot into it that isn’t there, and believing it.
I’m in favor of tort reform, but that’s not what I’ve been arguing here. I’m just poking holes in the arguments being posted, and I’m having some success, since the discussion has been degraded by some to insults.
Our tort system is broken and needs to be fixed. Whether the fix is loser pays, damage caps, or something else as yet proposed, I don’t know. I do know that the bleatings by trial attorneys and their “consumer advocate” surrogates about the rights of the injured, elderly, children, are largely a smoke screen to mask the impact tort reform, in whatever form, will have on the income of trial attorneys. I’ve yet to hear one cogent argument against tort reform in general, while the effects of a system run amok are obvious.
One last comment before I leave this discussion. Actually, an anecdote. I was asked to appear on a local TV news show that featured a short segment on med mal tort reform, speicifally damage caps. I couldn’t make it, but was able to watch show. The panel constisted of an MD who was also on the board of the state medical society med mal insurer, an independent insurance agent, and one of the country’s leading trial attorney’s. During the discussion, the MD mentioned the insurer’s precarious financial position, to which the attorney retorted, “but they have a billion dollars in assets.) Now, this means either the attorney is completely ignorant of even basic accounting (there is, of course, another side to the balance sheet), which I doubt, or he was blowing smoke to mislead the viewers. Well, it’s clear he was trying to play the audience. Now, why would he have to do that if there’s a solid arument against tort reform?
I know you’ve “left the discussion” but please.
“I’m sorry, but you’ve gone off the deep end. I’ve reread the article several times, and you’re reading a lot into it that isn’t there, and believing it.”
Such as? The assertions about the CJD study in the article don’t make sense and are not supported. This is true regardless of whether you believe in the results or not. This would be true no matter what the article was about.
“Our tort system is broken and needs to be fixed.”
And/or our insurance industry is broken and based on outmoded regulations, best practices standards, and underwriting formulae.
“Well, it’s clear he was trying to play the audience. Now, why would he have to do that if there’s a solid arument against tort reform?”
What on earth are you talking about? Nice story, if a bit braggartly, but it has no bearing on the fact that this article was poorly written, pathetically reasoned, and an embarassment to the industry.
Scott did not view my previous posts and took them out of context too. Tort Reform does not work. Only legal system bashing insurance industry supporters do not seem to have the ability to research the issue to find out reform does not work.