Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yea. I think there needs to be more strict dropping policies and a more efficient law for preventing them from upping your premium too much.
Of course, the problem is just going about doing that.
1) In what way is this an issue?
2) What kind of insurance are talking about?
3) By whom?
And in general, unless I get a convincing answer to any of those three that there's a problem, the answer is no.
You're always just questioning the question Sun Tzu. Just answer it lol
Government mandated insurance = legalized extortion.
The purchasing of any kind of insurance should be strictly voluntary, not mandated by the government.
After all, we all should be responsible for ourselves and not babysat by our government.
Therefore insurance should be consumer driven and that alone would be the only control needed.
The question is vague. I cannot answer a question that doesn't have a certainty of topic.
What precisely is the problem with insurance that supposedly needs more regulation? The "regulated properly" implies some outcome that is "desirable" that is currently not solved without regulation. In my view, most of the problems are caused by regulators operating in monopoly capture environments, killing off competitive markets by establishing high and onerous barriers to entry/exit. Calling for additional regulation at that point is insensible if the market failure was caused by government. "Fixing" it with additional government makes no sense, as though somehow governments would be aware of the "proper" market conditions under which to offer, price, and distribute "equally" market contracts for insurance. Much less that government would not instead simply be responding to the demands of the industry itself rather than establishing consumer friendly reforms.
See for yourself how the health care bill and financial reforms legislation are set up. As hint, it's not your ass they are covering.
I know, I should start up an :"oil rig disaster" insurance company. Then I should use political lobbying to force companies to buy my insurance. Then I'll sell shares, making a huge personal profit while actually mitigating my own liabilities. Then I'll live the good life until another disaster strikes, where upon I the company promptly declares bankruptcy while my own personal assets are protected.
Yes to more government controlled and mandated insurance! Papa needs a new pair of shoes!
There are outliers though PapaDawg. Insurance companies are out to make money and they can't be allowed to get out of paying bills and drop people too easily.
Yea. For some reason, when it comes to insurance, I personally believe that's something that anyone shouldn't be profiting from. You put people in these situations where they've been paying premiums for years and the second something goes wrong, you have the insurance companies just fighting their way out of paying. The government has to put more regulations in place to avoid that from happening.
:S Okay… umm my post was being entirely ironic, in that I was showing how government mandated and controlled combined with the lack of personal liability inherent in corporations sets up an insurance system where everybody gets screwed. The problem isn't that we need more regulation, it's that we need to make stock holders personally liable for the actions of their company and end government corporate welfare.
Profit incentives, or the lack thereof, do not automatically ennoble or curse a business in its methods of operation. Non-profit insurers, for example even the government through medicare/aid, have the same incentives not to pay and to fight to assure they are paying only when they are meant to do so.
I for one believe that if we are going to have to pay for medicare (as it appears we will have to continue doing so), that it should be means tested and that only people who are poor and elderly should receive it in full. I'd have trouble reconciling that view with the idea that we shouldn't be able to drop people's coverage under any circumstances I should think.
Stronger and transparent contract enforcement and competitive opportunities should be sufficient to force businesses like insurers to pay what they owe under the terms of their agreements. Higher regulatory compliance costs and market barriers they cause will do little to ameliorate the problem you describe. If anything they often appear to be counterproductive by forcing out competitive opportunities at the behest of powerful corporate actors.