I practice medicine in Florida. Our cheapest rates for minimal insurance have gone up ten percent or more, in a year where other malpractice rates are stable or going down. I cannot say that malpractice reform has benefited Florida Primary Care Physicians.
Not hard to guess how this \”study\” was going to turn out when you look at who paid for it. All the tobacco studies funded by the Tobacco companies found no link between smoking and cancer and other health problems.
Willing to Bet.. I put my money on you. put very concisely, its a fundamental point that the high claims cost drive up premium rates. How does investment return (that too pls let me know in whcih geographic zone are they that attractive any more)compensate for margins on premium rates. Mike… pls illuminate me on this…
Jeffrey – Sure hope you have read this article. After our dialogue last week on the SE article on 04/27/06, \”Gov Bush signs important Tort Reform….\”, this certianly explains that it is not the insurance company\’s who drive the price of rising premiums, it is because of outlandish lawsuits. Tort reform is the answer for all consumers. Hope you have a change of mind.
This is just an amalgam of non seguitur quotes from other papers. Most importantly, the only ratio that matters is missing.
What is the ratio of claims losses to premiums earned?
The paper doesn\’t say. You know why? The ratio has increased disproportionately in favor of premiums earned.
On top of that, even the paper states that 20% of claims loss amounts is adjustment! That\’s just carrier inefficiency at its best driving up premiums.
For me, more intellectual dishonesty of this paper is striking. We can\’t have honest tort reform unless we have honest data. Data driven by the carrier profit motive ain\’t honest.
Mike –
You missed it again, just like in the 04/27/06 article and subsequent postings. This article clearly states \”Tort reforms are the best proven instrument for reducing medical liability insurance premium growth\”. It was you who posted, \”While I do not like the way that joint and several has been abused (deep pocket application), I do not like the fact that someone who is harmed )thru no fault of their own) could end up suffering with no ability to obtain compensation…\”.
Why do you think med liability premiums go up. Because of those on jury\’s who apply your thought process.
Tort reform is good. Do not rely on the system to take care of individuals who do not research and check to see if their Doc has coverage in force.
Sparky – You really do not believe what you typed in your posting do you??? You infer just because someone pays for a report it is \”fixed\”. It does not take a economist to figure out that high claims cost and verdicts raise premiums.
Furry – \”carrier inefficiency\” is the reason for rising premiums. What evidence do you have to support this? Verdicts from liberal jury\’s raise your insurance premiums. Proven fact. And just because one carrier may be inefficeint doesn\’t make them all ineffecient. One thing for sure though, wehter the carrier is or is not effecient, lawsuits, and liberal verdicts raise insurance premiums.
The 20% number is from the figures in the paper. If you look at the tables in the paper itself (linked from the Ins J. article) you will find the numbers.
By the way, attorneys don\’t take a percentage on defense matters. Insurance companies pay pathetically low hourlies, in the $125 to $150 range for Los Angeles.
Willing: The evidence is in the article itself. That\’s why I mentioned it.
Have you ever even served on a jury or set foot in a courtroom? The vast majority of med mal cases that go to trial end in defense verdicts (prolly in the 60%-75% range). Almost every penny of indemnity paid by insurers are settlements. Liberal juries? Juries have the exact same cross-section of political leanings as the American public. That\’s the whole point of juries. In fact, since jurors that actually serve tend to be older, they tend towards more conservative. Where\’s your evidence?
Lawyers take what, a third, for their efforts at bringing claims. 20% to defend doesn\’t seem to be out of line. Where did the 20% figure originate, anyway?
Furry, I must have been mistaken. The cost to defend is free b.c carriers never bring in outside lawyers to assit!@#$. I have been in the court room, I work for an insurance company. Even if 60 to 75% are won by the insurance copmany\’s that means 60 to 75% of suits should not be filed. Attorney\’s file claims to get people to settle. Doen\’t always work and casues an increase in premiums, thus tort reform to control out of control lawyers.
Eman – Get real on your postings. If you don\’t believe that lawsuits add to increasing premiums than you do not undersatnd rating 101. Here comes your education: Depts of Insurance set profit contingency factors each year for each line of business. Usually around 4%. The company then makes a rate filing based off of their past losses to set rates for future losses. If a company gets more than expected lawsuits and or claims then guess what? The paid losses are used in the company\’s next rate filing and the premiums increase. Tort reform prohibits excess verdicts by LIBERAL jury\’s thus keeping insurance premims lower. I am \”Willing to Bet\” you are a liberal and would rather rely on the Gov. than yourself. As far as playing battleship, your game is over and your gig is up. As far as tort reform being an insurance trick, nice try b.c its now the law.
1. I\’ve been called for jury duty and as soon as either lawyer finds out I have a college degree/work for an insurance company & am a Republican, I am excused without cause. Cross section?? More like cross-hairs.
2. Most adjusters make less than $20/hr, Independants bill around $70/hr,bonuses & commisions are \”unfair trade practices\”. I have no tears for lawyers who can\’t get by on $125 – $200/hr.
I practice medicine in Florida. Our cheapest rates for minimal insurance have gone up ten percent or more, in a year where other malpractice rates are stable or going down. I cannot say that malpractice reform has benefited Florida Primary Care Physicians.
Folks,
Not hard to guess how this \”study\” was going to turn out when you look at who paid for it. All the tobacco studies funded by the Tobacco companies found no link between smoking and cancer and other health problems.
Sparky
Willing to Bet.. I put my money on you. put very concisely, its a fundamental point that the high claims cost drive up premium rates. How does investment return (that too pls let me know in whcih geographic zone are they that attractive any more)compensate for margins on premium rates. Mike… pls illuminate me on this…
Jeffrey – Sure hope you have read this article. After our dialogue last week on the SE article on 04/27/06, \”Gov Bush signs important Tort Reform….\”, this certianly explains that it is not the insurance company\’s who drive the price of rising premiums, it is because of outlandish lawsuits. Tort reform is the answer for all consumers. Hope you have a change of mind.
This is just an amalgam of non seguitur quotes from other papers. Most importantly, the only ratio that matters is missing.
What is the ratio of claims losses to premiums earned?
The paper doesn\’t say. You know why? The ratio has increased disproportionately in favor of premiums earned.
On top of that, even the paper states that 20% of claims loss amounts is adjustment! That\’s just carrier inefficiency at its best driving up premiums.
For me, more intellectual dishonesty of this paper is striking. We can\’t have honest tort reform unless we have honest data. Data driven by the carrier profit motive ain\’t honest.
There goes Willing to Bet Again…
No Research but plenty of nonsense spouting…
Here is a new idea for you….Look up the effect of investment income on pricing of premiums…
You may learn a thing or too about your chosen field…
Mike –
You missed it again, just like in the 04/27/06 article and subsequent postings. This article clearly states \”Tort reforms are the best proven instrument for reducing medical liability insurance premium growth\”. It was you who posted, \”While I do not like the way that joint and several has been abused (deep pocket application), I do not like the fact that someone who is harmed )thru no fault of their own) could end up suffering with no ability to obtain compensation…\”.
Why do you think med liability premiums go up. Because of those on jury\’s who apply your thought process.
Tort reform is good. Do not rely on the system to take care of individuals who do not research and check to see if their Doc has coverage in force.
Sparky – You really do not believe what you typed in your posting do you??? You infer just because someone pays for a report it is \”fixed\”. It does not take a economist to figure out that high claims cost and verdicts raise premiums.
Furry – \”carrier inefficiency\” is the reason for rising premiums. What evidence do you have to support this? Verdicts from liberal jury\’s raise your insurance premiums. Proven fact. And just because one carrier may be inefficeint doesn\’t make them all ineffecient. One thing for sure though, wehter the carrier is or is not effecient, lawsuits, and liberal verdicts raise insurance premiums.
The 20% number is from the figures in the paper. If you look at the tables in the paper itself (linked from the Ins J. article) you will find the numbers.
By the way, attorneys don\’t take a percentage on defense matters. Insurance companies pay pathetically low hourlies, in the $125 to $150 range for Los Angeles.
Willing: The evidence is in the article itself. That\’s why I mentioned it.
Have you ever even served on a jury or set foot in a courtroom? The vast majority of med mal cases that go to trial end in defense verdicts (prolly in the 60%-75% range). Almost every penny of indemnity paid by insurers are settlements. Liberal juries? Juries have the exact same cross-section of political leanings as the American public. That\’s the whole point of juries. In fact, since jurors that actually serve tend to be older, they tend towards more conservative. Where\’s your evidence?
Lawyers take what, a third, for their efforts at bringing claims. 20% to defend doesn\’t seem to be out of line. Where did the 20% figure originate, anyway?
You nailed it. Direct hit! YOU SANK THEIR BATTLESHIP!!!!
BULL!!!
???
Furry, I must have been mistaken. The cost to defend is free b.c carriers never bring in outside lawyers to assit!@#$. I have been in the court room, I work for an insurance company. Even if 60 to 75% are won by the insurance copmany\’s that means 60 to 75% of suits should not be filed. Attorney\’s file claims to get people to settle. Doen\’t always work and casues an increase in premiums, thus tort reform to control out of control lawyers.
tort reform is an insurance industry trick to steal even more money from the american public. Stop helping me, please.
Eman – Get real on your postings. If you don\’t believe that lawsuits add to increasing premiums than you do not undersatnd rating 101. Here comes your education: Depts of Insurance set profit contingency factors each year for each line of business. Usually around 4%. The company then makes a rate filing based off of their past losses to set rates for future losses. If a company gets more than expected lawsuits and or claims then guess what? The paid losses are used in the company\’s next rate filing and the premiums increase. Tort reform prohibits excess verdicts by LIBERAL jury\’s thus keeping insurance premims lower. I am \”Willing to Bet\” you are a liberal and would rather rely on the Gov. than yourself. As far as playing battleship, your game is over and your gig is up. As far as tort reform being an insurance trick, nice try b.c its now the law.
Way to contradict yourself, Willing. Is is liberal juries or out-of-control lawyers?
They go hand and hand. Bad lawyers and Liberal jury\’s. Thats why we need tort reform. Never seen democratics calling for tort reform.
1. I\’ve been called for jury duty and as soon as either lawyer finds out I have a college degree/work for an insurance company & am a Republican, I am excused without cause. Cross section?? More like cross-hairs.
2. Most adjusters make less than $20/hr, Independants bill around $70/hr,bonuses & commisions are \”unfair trade practices\”. I have no tears for lawyers who can\’t get by on $125 – $200/hr.
You got it right \”unwanted\”. Thanks for the help with some postings to tell the truth of what is wrong with the lawyers and liberal jury\’s.