Hillary lost!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You seem to be saying that the only reason for increased premiums is greed on the part of the insurers.  You say they're simply lining their pockets by upping their premiums for no reason, that there's no corresponding increase in risk to justify the increase in premiums.

Stop and think about that for a moment.  If it's easy, risk free money for the insurers, they'd all be racing into the so-called "crises states" to sell as many of those super-profitable insurance policies as they can.  Yet that's the exact opposite of what's happening.  In crises states, they're selling fewer policies to fewer doctors, or even ceasing coverage outright.  They're doing whatever they can to reduce their exposure.

They wouldn't do that unless the value of the increased premiums were outweighed by even larger increases in their risk.

Simply put, your belief that there's no justification for the increased premiums (no increased risk/cost) doesn't square with reality.  The financial risk to the insurers really is way up in those states.  You may not believe it, but the insurers certainly do. 

Methinks that they're right and you're wrong. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ya know, this thread was supposed to be a celebration of Hillary's big defeat in Iowa.  Let's have the insurance discussion somewhere else.

[De Selby]

Headless,

You're not considering changes in the financial markets that impact the profits insurance companies can gather from the money they collect in premiums-the money doesn't just sit, they do something with it.  This has been what drives insurance premiums over the past twenty years, not lawsuits, which haven't changed in number or character for much longer than that against doctors, except to be more restrictive.

But yeah, Hillary lost-and she won't be the one dealing with this problem.  Who will, and how? No way to call it yet.

[Bogie]

Guys, remember - If Hillary loses in the primaries, the Republican candidate will have to go up against someone like Edwards... And all those democrats who'd vote against Hillary just 'cuz she's female will be out of the equation - and voting for the guy...
 
Nominate Hillary!
 
Besides, I've got a whole buncha stickers made up for Knob Creek.

[The Rabbi]

Headless,

You're not considering changes in the financial markets that impact the profits insurance companies can gather from the money they collect in premiums-the money doesn't just sit, they do something with it.  This has been what drives insurance premiums over the past twenty years, not lawsuits, which haven't changed in number or character for much longer than that against doctors, except to be more restrictive.

But yeah, Hillary lost-and she won't be the one dealing with this problem.  Who will, and how? No way to call it yet.

No, that is NOT what drives insurance premiums.  Your understanding of the insurance business leaves something to be desired.
Insurers make money 2 ways: premiums and return on their investments.  The business is extremely competitive.  Anyone who has shopped for term life in the last 10 years will see this.
Premiums are set based on risk.  There are insurers who will grab market share by underpricing risk, but it usually comes back to bite them.
Headless's point is an excellent one: if the policies in high risk states were such a money maker, every insurance company would be rushing in to write them.  They are not.
On the topic of caps, you need to explain how caps worked in TX but failed in CA.  Are Californians somehow immune to the laws of economics?  Or are Texans less litigious?
On the subject of litigious, does anyone really believe that Edwards is for "the little guy"?  This is someone who has made millions of dollars suing corporations, corporations that employ and pay wages to...the little guy.  Law suits are an unstated tax on our economy, and a big one too.

[RocketMan]

Hillary lost in Iowa.  Maybe it was the insurance companies fault.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread derailment.

[De Selby]

Rabbi,

Your understanding of the insurance business leaves something to be desired.
Insurers make money 2 ways: premiums and return on their investments.

I bolded the part that I was referring to with this piece above:

You're not considering changes in the financial markets that impact the profits insurance companies can gather from the money they collect in premiums-the money doesn't just sit, they do something with it.  This has been what drives insurance premiums over the past twenty years, not lawsuits, which haven't changed in number or character for much longer than that against doctors, except to be more restrictive.

Considering that there seems to be no correlation between imposing caps and making it harder to sue for med-mal an insurance premiums, explanation number 2 (what you refer to as way number 2 that insurance co's make money) is a much more plausible explanation for the rise in rates than a change in the risk of lawsuits.

The fact that the risk of lawsuits has only gone down for a good half century is further evidence of this-there has been no increase in the percentage of suits, success rate, or proportional damages requested by plaintiffs for decades.  In that time, the trend has been towards making such lawsuits even more difficult on every front.  So your claim that risks are driving the insurance increases simply does not wash with the facts-the risks have, if anything, gone down, while premiums have continued to jump wildly. 

[The Rabbi]

You have succeeded in not explaining yourself.  Admirably I might add.
Rates are not dictated by returns but by risk.
You have still failed to explain how caps worked in TX but did not work in CA.  You use CA to show that caps dont work but conveniently forget TX where they did.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"The fact that the risk of lawsuits has only gone down for a good half century"
what planet do you live on?

[De Selby]

You have succeeded in not explaining yourself.  Admirably I might add.
Rates are not dictated by returns but by risk.
You have still failed to explain how caps worked in TX but did not work in CA.  You use CA to show that caps dont work but conveniently forget TX where they did.

Rabbi,

Sorry, but that doesn't wash.  Rates bring in cash; investments bring in more cash on the money they collect in rates.

If an insurance company's profits drop because the investments bring in less cash, what do you think happens? Rates stay the same, and insurance companies just eat the loss?

No-rates go up to achieve the demanded profits.

The reason rates changed in TX but not in CA is that Texas and California have different schemes for regulating insurance and insurance premiums.  The damage caps and bars to lawsuit, which are similar, obviously weren't the controlling factor, or insurance premiums would've dropped in CA also.

[The Rabbi]

If what you said about rates were true then it would imply that companies have unlimited abilities to raise rates.  If that were so, then rates would never go down and they would raise them through the roof.
That hasnt happened and it doesn't happen.
Insurance companies do lose money periodically.  Typically when investments underperform and/or insurance losses are higher than what the stats would have predicted.
I also dispute that caps did not cause rates to fall in CA.  They did, initially.  The fact that rates rose after that might be correlated to the enormous inflation the country was experiencing during that time.

[gunsmith]

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOEq-ImGWJ0

I know people who are voting for Edwards and Obama, they are not news junkies
and they can not tell you what the first two amendments are.

 Generally, it is "cool" to be against GW and the repubs, Obama and Edwards seem
like nice guys. Thats all they have to do for the uninformed.

I choose political critters on how much damage I think they'll do to gun rights then after that illegal immigration, then pro life.

I think Obama and Edwards will be easier to beat then shrill hill...I loved the Iowa outcome.
more more more!

[CAnnoneer]

I must disagree. Obama will be the hardest to beat. Hillary generates a lot of hatred; Edwards already lost once and is not taken seriously by many, especially independents. Obama has no natural haters (except for KKK) and can unite the Dems and bring in independents, including Ron Paul supporters vying for change.

But for me, the question is: is sinking Hillary early worth increasing Dem victory chances by having Obama instead? Or, is it better to weaken the Dems now by having Hillary, at the price of potentially having Hillary elected?

[wooderson]

Short of racism, the only glaring negative for Obama in terms of appealing to independents and cross-overs is his stance on guns.

I'm very curious how he alters that message for the general. I hope the Democrats wouldn't be dumb enough to make gun control an issue after 2006, but you never know.

[CAnnoneer]

Short of racism, the only glaring negative for Obama in terms of appealing to independents and cross-overs is his stance on guns.

You should add lack of business and executive experience, at the least. Also, AFAIK, he has not done military service, which will be another putoff for some. Finally, there are independents that just don't like overly liberal candidates. Such might vote for somebody like Dodd, but they will be put off by parts of Obama's rhetoric.

[wooderson]

You should add lack of business and executive experience, at the least. Also, AFAIK, he has not done military service, which will be another putoff for some.

There are lots of things that will "put off some."

But there's no reason to believe that "business and executive experience" or "military service" effect support to any meaningful degree. In the last 30 years we've had one (1) President with legitimate military experience (Pappy Bush). In the last century-plus, we've only had two Presidents for whom military experience was a significant element of their prestige.

Likewise, we've not elected someone with 'business experience' - and no one in the primary or the general, Romney aside, is a captain of industry.

Executive experience - people may like state execs, but there's not conclusive evidence that gubernatorial experience weighs in the public mind more than being a sitting Senator. And in all likelihood, Obama wouldn't be facing a former governor in the general.

You're proceeding from a lot of strange assumptions.

Finally, there are independents that just don't like overly liberal candidates.

Um, yeah, except that Obama isn't positioned as "overly liberal" - hence his stance on gun control (the most 'liberal' position taken) is what I find as potentially objectionable to moderates and crossovers.

While I know that the APS hive mind thinks he's a Stalinist, Obama's rating among self-described moderates and conservatives in the rest of the world is pretty bloody good. Certainly far superior to Hillary.

[Paddy]

Hillary seems to be in meltdown, crying and all.  Somehow, I don't think that will help her get the nomination. Obama makes me wanna barf, but I really don't think he's electable.  Who does that leave?

[CAnnoneer]

Hillary seems to be in meltdown, crying and all. 

"Mmm, let me taste your tears! So sweet!" Eric Cartman, South Park

[gunsmith]

The Republicrats will lose against Hilary because untold dead people will vote for her.
If we can beat her in the primaries it will be a joyous occasion!
We just gotta make sure Rudy gets nowhere near the Whitehouse.
Its to bad the left wing moon bats who like Ron Paul couldn't get it together to actually register and vote for him.
The ones I've talked to say they thought the base would vote for him.

So who do we gunnies support?
We should decide and unite soon because it won't be a cake walk beating Obama, all the kids like him & they're organized and voting.

[roo_ster]

Fred Thompson is the best of the top-tier, IMO.

[pistolchamp]

Its looking like Obambam will beat the socks off the Hildebeast again today in NH.  AND the polls show him ahead by double digits in SC.... Good!!!  I think he'll be MUCH easier to beat than the Comrades of Clinton.  Its about time to rename the DNC "ABH" (Anybody But Hillary)

On CNN (Communist News Network) yesterday a shot was shown of the Obomination with a bunch of black guys standing around him and the commentator simply said "I wonder if that's what the new cabinet would look like" and he was cut off instantly and not heard from again.  OPPS!  Guess the Commies can't take a joke or was it the truth, God help us.

I'm not in love with any of the Republicans, but, we gotta have one of them and its looking more and more like a possible Huckabee/McCain ticket... not the pair that I would choose, but, I am only one vote.  However, I'd bet my socks they would beat the Obomination and whoever it chooses as a running mate.  It certainly will NOT be the Hildebeast as she would never accept second place... for anything, however, she did look very good in third place.

[CAnnoneer]

I agree - Thompson would be my candidate as the only traditional rational conservative in the race. But, he simply does not have enough support. Therefore, I would like to see a Romney-Thompson ticket. Romney will appeal to some independents as the new face on the block and to perhaps even some democrats as the former governor of Mass-hole. Thompson can rally the republican base and mitigate Mitt's misperceived mormonism. Also, one is young and the other old, one a businessman and the other a senator - something for everybody.

If they are smart, they'd gang up. Actually, I can see it as a possibility since Thompson did not go after Romney the way all the others did, especially McCain and Huckee. So, he did not burn any bridges. Incidentally, after the Sunday debate Huckee should be history in the books of almost anybody but the staunchest evangelicals.

[Manedwolf]

"Keep your Mitt Off Our Guns" signed the 1998 MA AWB. He's out. Shyster who bought a new Reagan hat and thinks he's fooling anyone.

[Paddy]

Remember the video of the chick (who looked like a dude) crying about Britney?  "Leave Britney alone....."
Maybe she'll do a remake for Hillary........

[The Rabbi]

Romney and Giuliani are not Republicans outside of the North East and the editorial page of the New York Times.