Regarding the surplus of Texas physicians:
What happened next is worth remembering the next time you feel cynical about politics. The legislature took steps to make it cheaper, and they worked.Our state leaders effectively lowered the cost of medical malpractice insurance 20 percent by capping the awards for “non-economic” damages that lawyers could win against doctors. Runaway verdicts became a thing of the past. The medical malpractice lawsuit surge stopped, and a stream of doctors started.
More from Investor’s Business Daily.
Related posts:
- Texas malpractice caps: Readers react
- Tort reform in Texas: Working better than expected
- The next malpractice burden: Payouts for grief
- A physician is on the hook for a $9M malpractice case
- Edwin Leap: Who pays when politicians commit malpractice?
- Malpractice plaintiff wins case, wants more
- Texas malpractice reforms are working too well
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 12 comments }
More evidence that extortion works wonders.
… as any lawyer would tell you from personal experience.
How much less have Texas insurers paid out over the previous periods of time?
Yeah, Matthew, you’re right. It’s so easy to “extort” money from insurance companies.
Random anonymous commenter (CJD? still not proud of your posts?) -
The fact that extorting money from insurance companies is both possible and prevalent is precisely why State Farm no longer writes new insurance policies for people in much of the Katrina-effected area of the country.
Matthew, you’re killing me.
Please, tell us how one, in your personal experience, “extorts” money from an insurer.
State Farm doesn’t write policies because they took a bath on them. You seem to have this odd belief that insurance companies should just collect premiums and never have to pay when the risk comes due, and it’s a bad thing if they do. It’s like you don’t even have a basic understanding of how insurance works. Why do you pay premiums to your insurer?
CJD,
You extort money from an insurer by suing them to pay for damages that were not covered by the policy you bought. Did you not read about any of this when it was going on? When insurers are forced to pay despite what the policy says and despite the fact that reserves weren’t set aside for things that were above and beyond the policy, they leave because the courts permit extortion. Plain and simple.
If I sued my auto insurance company for limo rides for life when all we agreed to was the value of my car upon an accident and I won, then yes, I would be extortionate and would not expect the company to continue doing business in an area where such a thing was allowed.
Put it together, son.
And the obvious question is, if State Farm pulled out of the market because it “took a bath”, why did it not pull out of the state with the most damage, but only the one where the courts saw fit to rewrite contracts as they went along? They only cut off Mississippi, not Louisiana. Care to start again?
Matthew,
In what case were insurers forced to pay for things their policies don’t cover? Can you give me a link to the opinion so I can read it? Which policy provision did you believe didn’t cover the particular damages?
There are literally hundreds of thousands of cases where insurers have denied coverage and they’ve won some and lost some. Some were legit denials and some weren’t. (I know that last part may come as a shock to someone who believes insurers are inherently virtuous)
In fact, hundreds of thousands of doctors sued a number of health insurers recently. Do you think they are all “extortionists”?
Tell me, are you an expert in any other areas you know nothing about?
Again, I’m making you look like a fool as you opine on things you know little about. Call it a day.
“And the obvious question is, if State Farm pulled out of the market because it “took a bath”, why did it not pull out of the state with the most damage, but only the one where the courts saw fit to rewrite contracts as they went along? They only cut off Mississippi, not Louisiana. Care to start again? “
State Farm settled that case, you know? They didn’t go to the court. Given how often insurers take coverage disputes to court, and how they’re usually not that afraid of it, particularly in a loss that size, why do you think they would settle?
Are you proposing we no longer require insurers to cover losses? That they not pay claims when their own adjusters say they should but they still deny it anyway?
That sounds like a good business -take money to insure risk, but get laws passed to say you don’t have to pay the damage when the downside comes.
Are you an insurance exec?
By the way, State Farm also tried to pull out of Florida, too. Again, you’re light on facts. That’s getting to be a real calling card of yours, eh?
CJD,
Nope, not an insurance exec. Just an impartial observer with no financial interest in either party. I know you probably don’t associate with those folks often, and you’re certainly not one yourself, but you might ask around and look for a few. You’ll probably learn some things.
“State Farm tried to pull out of Florida” sounds a lot like “State Farm didn’t pull out of Florida”, doesn’t it. Or Louisiana… hmm… still waiting for you to actually address that one. State Farm made it clear that excessive lawsuits, publicity hungry politicians and a legal system that can’t be relied on to enforce contracts as written were the reason they stopped selling new policies in one state, and one state alone. If you have a refutation, let’s hear it. “State Farm almost pulled out of one other state one time” doesn’t cut it, chief. Had you looked into the Florida situation before posting, you would have found out that it was, again, government intervention that was driving the insurers out, and certainly not the losses themselves. But you didn’t. The state did its level best to insure everyone there through taxpayers’ pockets. That’s where the trouble came in. I didn’t mention it because it wasn’t relevant. You did. Go figure.
I’m proposing that insurers pay for what their policies state they’re liable for. It’s that simple. Clearly, that’s happening in some states, since SF pulled out of only one. Go ask Trent Lott about it if you need more details.
An impartial observer who apparently has no knowledge of the facts. Again, what provision do you believe means that State Farm shouldn’t have had to pay and on what claims? If you don’t know the answer, then how are you possibly qualified to opine on the subject?
Every one of those health insurers sued by those 900,000 doctors claims that their policies don’t require them to pay in the way the doctors believe they should. Do you believe those physicians are “extorting” money by filing suit? As an impartial observer and all?
I’ve never known an insurance company not to blame all their woes on too many claims, have you? Yet when they do fail, regulators usually conclude it was internal financial mismanagement. Who should we believe – the insurers or the regulators. . . hmmm?
Comments on this entry are closed.