Thevmaxrider
Well-Known Member
Thx, don't mind if I do:biglaugh: One good thing I see here is that the conversation seems to be remaining civil. As long as that is the case and good discussion ensues I will continue to comment. If personal attacks, either way, start I will just ignore the thread.
These topics are definitely emotionally charged. This is a matter of perspective from both sides. People that have a vested interest, no matter what that interest is, in seeing this legislation enacted are as passionate as those of us who do not want it around. I do understand that some form of law is necessary to regulate what insurance companies have been getting away with for as long as they have been around we have to remember one thing. Lawyers are the prime reason that costs are so high. Frivalous lawsuits where moron jurys award millions in damages are the prime mover for high insurance rates and for other costs associated with health care. The cost for a Dr. to have malpractice insurance is through the roof. What would have been more effective, and as a byproduct cost less, would have been tort reform that limits damage claims. I do like the approach that Canada has taken by assigning a $ value to injuries. In this way you eliminate the "need" to sue the hell out of someone as the lawyers won't be chasing you screaming "Sue the hell out of them!!". The only part of the legislation that actually might make some sense is making insurance companies insure everyone, prexisting condition or not. Now having said that I would allow the insurance companies to charge more if you do have a condition that is going to cost them tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat though. They are a business and as such they must assign a "risk" to everyone they insure so the fee should be commensurate with the evaluated "risk".
Off the soapbox for a few, have to get some work done.
These topics are definitely emotionally charged. This is a matter of perspective from both sides. People that have a vested interest, no matter what that interest is, in seeing this legislation enacted are as passionate as those of us who do not want it around. I do understand that some form of law is necessary to regulate what insurance companies have been getting away with for as long as they have been around we have to remember one thing. Lawyers are the prime reason that costs are so high. Frivalous lawsuits where moron jurys award millions in damages are the prime mover for high insurance rates and for other costs associated with health care. The cost for a Dr. to have malpractice insurance is through the roof. What would have been more effective, and as a byproduct cost less, would have been tort reform that limits damage claims. I do like the approach that Canada has taken by assigning a $ value to injuries. In this way you eliminate the "need" to sue the hell out of someone as the lawyers won't be chasing you screaming "Sue the hell out of them!!". The only part of the legislation that actually might make some sense is making insurance companies insure everyone, prexisting condition or not. Now having said that I would allow the insurance companies to charge more if you do have a condition that is going to cost them tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat though. They are a business and as such they must assign a "risk" to everyone they insure so the fee should be commensurate with the evaluated "risk".
Off the soapbox for a few, have to get some work done.