Comments on: Fool Me Once: The Insurance Industry Looks to Tort Reform to Pad Profits http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/ Firedoglake weblog Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:32:21 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: LibWingofLibWing http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1987010 LibWingofLibWing Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:26:39 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1987010 <p>Republicans frame things in terms that help them. When we use those terms we help them, even if we argue against the concept. “Tort Reform” is such a term. How can anyone be against reform? Reform is a good thing. (Which is why Republicans don’t argue against “health care reform” but against “Obamacare” or “socialized medicine” or “government run health care.”)</p> <p>Let’s call it what it is: PROTECTION FOR DANGEROUS DOCTORS</p> Republicans frame things in terms that help them. When we use those terms we help them, even if we argue against the concept. “Tort Reform” is such a term. How can anyone be against reform? Reform is a good thing. (Which is why Republicans don’t argue against “health care reform” but against “Obamacare” or “socialized medicine” or “government run health care.”)

Let’s call it what it is: PROTECTION FOR DANGEROUS DOCTORS

]]> By: MsMustangSally http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1987009 MsMustangSally Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:02:33 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1987009 <p>I believe the yearlong requirement is only for group plans. When we insured my son individually it wasn’t required. They sure drop you quick enough if you quit paying premiums. They say it’s to minimize enrollment headaches for employers - which, working for a professional employment organization I can attest can be substantial. Also, since there is no individual underwriting requirements they don’t want people signing up, getting expensive surgery/procedures done they’ve been holding off on then dropping it as soon as insurance pays out. It’s to get as much premiums as possible to offset claims.</p> <p>Which I understand, but when we suffered a serious financial setback shortly after open enrollment when I signed up my (individually uninsurable) husband and could no longer afford the deductions for him our only options were a) to continue to pay the premiums for the rest of the year and untimately declare bankruptcy; or b) get a divorce in order to ger around the closed enrollment clause (only triggers for change are death, birth or divorce).</p> <p>We very, very reluctantly chose option A. Now our family doctor is offering a direct contract service for primary care. We pay $76/month for unlimited, basic primary care for husband and child (includes common labs/vaccines at cost) vs. $1000/mo. insurance premiums. No copays, no hassle, no waiting for appts, no commitment. But also no catastrophic/specialist/hospital care. So that’s the next thing to figure out.</p> I believe the yearlong requirement is only for group plans. When we insured my son individually it wasn’t required. They sure drop you quick enough if you quit paying premiums. They say it’s to minimize enrollment headaches for employers – which, working for a professional employment organization I can attest can be substantial. Also, since there is no individual underwriting requirements they don’t want people signing up, getting expensive surgery/procedures done they’ve been holding off on then dropping it as soon as insurance pays out. It’s to get as much premiums as possible to offset claims.

Which I understand, but when we suffered a serious financial setback shortly after open enrollment when I signed up my (individually uninsurable) husband and could no longer afford the deductions for him our only options were a) to continue to pay the premiums for the rest of the year and untimately declare bankruptcy; or b) get a divorce in order to ger around the closed enrollment clause (only triggers for change are death, birth or divorce).

We very, very reluctantly chose option A. Now our family doctor is offering a direct contract service for primary care. We pay $76/month for unlimited, basic primary care for husband and child (includes common labs/vaccines at cost) vs. $1000/mo. insurance premiums. No copays, no hassle, no waiting for appts, no commitment. But also no catastrophic/specialist/hospital care. So that’s the next thing to figure out.

]]> By: Izomagritte369 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986985 Izomagritte369 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:22:07 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986985 <p>Anthony,<br /> Thank you for this piece. I am not a fan of tort reform and agree with what you have written here. However, in trying to reframe the debate with other NOT like minded folks, I find that it helps to provide original sources to support my arguments/premises. So toward that gal,would you please list the sources for you data, especially the quotes from the insurance reps. re not saying caps would reduce malpractice premiums.<br /> (i.e., “Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings,” said the American Insurance Association in 2002. “We wouldn’t tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates,” said Sherman “Tiger” Joyce, head of the tort reform movement in 1999″)?<br /> It would help in efforts to open some folks’ minds.<br /> Thanks</p> Anthony,
Thank you for this piece. I am not a fan of tort reform and agree with what you have written here. However, in trying to reframe the debate with other NOT like minded folks, I find that it helps to provide original sources to support my arguments/premises. So toward that gal,would you please list the sources for you data, especially the quotes from the insurance reps. re not saying caps would reduce malpractice premiums.
(i.e., “Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings,” said the American Insurance Association in 2002. “We wouldn’t tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates,” said Sherman “Tiger” Joyce, head of the tort reform movement in 1999″)?
It would help in efforts to open some folks’ minds.
Thanks

]]> By: Gastro http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986977 Gastro Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:11:40 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986977 <p>Thanks for the thoughtful response. </p> <p>I disagree strongly that eliminating pre-existing conditions, eliminating caps on coverage and eliminating the ability of an insurance company to drop you when ill is not significant change for the better. I think it would be extraordinary change and help tens of millions of people. I am not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater and support a no vote against a bill like that because it has no public option in it. I agree with Obama and you don’t and that’s ok. That’s America. </p> <p>I don’t disagree that many of the negatives you mention might rear their ugly heads. I don’t think speculation leads to anything substantive though; you just have to see the final bill and evaluate it. And my point is that not having a perfect system right away should not be a deal breaker. Compromise and change over time is a reasonable way to get things done. I think Obama agrees with that.</p> <p>I do not believe that you will ever remove health care completely from a for-profit industry. It’s too radical a change, practically, as well as philosophically and as good as it sounds the upheaval to people’s lives would be significant. I prefer to change things slowly, get what you can, pass something and then regulate and deal with abuses legislatively as they come up.</p> Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I disagree strongly that eliminating pre-existing conditions, eliminating caps on coverage and eliminating the ability of an insurance company to drop you when ill is not significant change for the better. I think it would be extraordinary change and help tens of millions of people. I am not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater and support a no vote against a bill like that because it has no public option in it. I agree with Obama and you don’t and that’s ok. That’s America.

I don’t disagree that many of the negatives you mention might rear their ugly heads. I don’t think speculation leads to anything substantive though; you just have to see the final bill and evaluate it. And my point is that not having a perfect system right away should not be a deal breaker. Compromise and change over time is a reasonable way to get things done. I think Obama agrees with that.

I do not believe that you will ever remove health care completely from a for-profit industry. It’s too radical a change, practically, as well as philosophically and as good as it sounds the upheaval to people’s lives would be significant. I prefer to change things slowly, get what you can, pass something and then regulate and deal with abuses legislatively as they come up.

]]> By: Ann in AZ http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986967 Ann in AZ Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:49:31 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986967 <p>Hmmm…which reminds me, does anyone know why, once we have insurance, we are constrained to keep it for an entire year no matter how unsatisfied we are with it?</p> Hmmm…which reminds me, does anyone know why, once we have insurance, we are constrained to keep it for an entire year no matter how unsatisfied we are with it?

]]> By: robspierre http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986963 robspierre Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:27:06 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986963 <p>You aren’t any closer to making either barrier go away in anything but print until you have single-payer or a very robust public option. Pre-existing condition exclusions and caps are just tactics–and not the only tactics–for risk avoidance in the insurance industry. Others exist and others will pop up. Insurers will find ways to discriminate pricewise against groups. For example, they will charge high premiums for groups that have lots of old or sick workers, and ridiculously low rates for groups that contain mostly the young and healthy. Employers will use layoffs to rid themselves of expensive employees, with actuarial help from their insurers, so that the pattern is not clear enough for a law suit. Government subsidies for the sick will become unsustainable in the plans that accept them, while the insurance copies rake in huge profits from the plans that cover only the healthy. </p> <p>We need to face it: for-profit health insurance is a fraud, not a business. You can’t make it honest unless you either regulate it to the point where profit is not possible or take it over, like we did with highways and bridges long ago.</p> You aren’t any closer to making either barrier go away in anything but print until you have single-payer or a very robust public option. Pre-existing condition exclusions and caps are just tactics–and not the only tactics–for risk avoidance in the insurance industry. Others exist and others will pop up. Insurers will find ways to discriminate pricewise against groups. For example, they will charge high premiums for groups that have lots of old or sick workers, and ridiculously low rates for groups that contain mostly the young and healthy. Employers will use layoffs to rid themselves of expensive employees, with actuarial help from their insurers, so that the pattern is not clear enough for a law suit. Government subsidies for the sick will become unsustainable in the plans that accept them, while the insurance copies rake in huge profits from the plans that cover only the healthy.

We need to face it: for-profit health insurance is a fraud, not a business. You can’t make it honest unless you either regulate it to the point where profit is not possible or take it over, like we did with highways and bridges long ago.

]]> By: sadlyyes http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986962 sadlyyes Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:19:49 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986962 <p>we were approved! yay</p> we were approved! yay

]]> By: Gastro http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986960 Gastro Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:10:44 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986960 <p>Thanks for the discussion and allowing me to express my opinion. I applaud your passion. Have a good day.</p> Thanks for the discussion and allowing me to express my opinion. I applaud your passion. Have a good day.

]]> By: Gastro http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986959 Gastro Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:09:37 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986959 <p>I agree totally. I think you need very strong regulatory oversight and nothing has been done about that. I just don’t think you can get it all at once. A health care bill that would achieve the elimination of removing pre-existing conditions, caps on coverage and dropping ill patients would be a huge step in the right direction. You get that done and go from there.</p> I agree totally. I think you need very strong regulatory oversight and nothing has been done about that. I just don’t think you can get it all at once. A health care bill that would achieve the elimination of removing pre-existing conditions, caps on coverage and dropping ill patients would be a huge step in the right direction. You get that done and go from there.

]]> By: Gastro http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986958 Gastro Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:07:10 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/30/fool-me-once-the-insurance-industry-looks-to-tort-reform-to-pad-profits/#comment-1986958 <p>I’m sorry Sally, I respectfully disagree. It depends what poll you are looking at but in any event I don’t think you govern by polling; an imperfect science to say the least. The reality is that if you look at the no public option Schumer votes yesterday by Democrats, namely Conrad, Baucus and Lincoln, they came from Red states that did not support Obama. They are voting their constituency.</p> I’m sorry Sally, I respectfully disagree. It depends what poll you are looking at but in any event I don’t think you govern by polling; an imperfect science to say the least. The reality is that if you look at the no public option Schumer votes yesterday by Democrats, namely Conrad, Baucus and Lincoln, they came from Red states that did not support Obama. They are voting their constituency.

]]>