Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Snoop Dogg in Bollywood
I've been in India this last week. There is a huge marketing blitz for an upcoming Bollywood film, Singh is Kinng. The title song is catchy, and I can't get it out of my head. I looked on YouTube, and to my surprise found that Snoop Dogg actually rapped on the song. Thomas Friedman is right - the world really is flat.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
10 Worse Insurance Companies
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 9, 2008
CONTACT:
Ray De Lorenzi, American Association for Justice
202-965-3500 x369
ray.delorenzi@justice.org
ALLSTATE RANKS AS WORST INSURER FOR CONSUMERS
Insurance Industry Employs "Deny, Delay, Defend" Strategy, Puts Profits Over Policyholders
WASHINGTON, DC Allstate ranks as the worst insurer for consumers, according to a comprehensive investigation of thousands of legal documents and financial filings.
The rankings show a distinct pattern of insurance industry greed amongst 10 companies that refuse to pay just claims, employ hardball tactics against policyholders, reward executives with extravagant salaries, and raise premiums while hoarding excessive profits.
"While Allstate publicly touts its 'good hands' approach, it has instead privately instructed its agents to employ a 'boxing gloves' strategy against its policyholders," said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. "Allstate ducks, bobs and weaves to avoid paying claims to increase its profits."
Allstate (NYSE: ALL) set the standard for insurance company greed and placing profits over policyholders. Allstate contracted with consulting giant McKinsey & Co. in the mid-1990s to systematically force consumers to accept lowball claims or face its "boxing gloves," an aggressive strategy designed to deny claims at any cost. One Allstate employee reported that supervisors told agents to lie and blame fires on arson, and in turn, were rewarded with portable fridges.
Thousands of court documents, materials uncovered from litigation and discovery, testimony, complaints filed with state insurance departments, SEC and FBI records, and news accounts were reviewed to compile the rankings and statistics.
The rest of the rankings are as follows:
2. Unum (NYSE: UNM) Unum's actions are even more shameful considering the type of insurance it sells: disability. Unum's behavior was epitomized when it denied the claim of a woman with multiple sclerosis for three years, stating her conditions were "self-reported," contrary to doctors' evaluations. In 2005, Unum agreed to a settlement with insurance commissioners from 48 states over their practices.
3. AIG (NYSE: AIG) The world's biggest insurer, AIG's slogan was "we know money." AIG, described by commentators as "the new Enron," has engaged in massive corporate fraud and claims abuses. In 2006, the company paid $1.6 billion to settle a host of charges.
4. State Farm State Farm is notorious for its deny and delay tactics, and like Allstate, hired McKinsey consultants. State Farm's true motives became apparent during Hurricane Katrina; for example, it employed multiple engineering firms until they could deny the claims of the Nguyen family of Mississippi. In April 2007, State Farm agreed to re-evaluate more than 3,000 Hurricane Katrina claims.
5. Conseco (NYSE: CNO) Conseco sells long-term care policies, typically to the elderly. Amongst its egregious behavior, the insurer "made it so hard to make a claim that people either died or gave up," said a former Conseco-subsidiary agent. Former Conseco executives were fined when they admitted to filing misleading financial statements with regulators.
6. WellPoint (NYSE: WLP) Health insurer WellPoint has a long history of putting profits ahead of policyholders. For instance, California fined a WellPoint subsidiary in March 2007 after an investigation revealed that the insurer routinely canceled policies of pregnant women and chronically ill patients.
7. Farmers Swiss-owned Farmers Insurance Group consistently ranks at or near the bottom of homeowner satisfaction surveys, and for good reason. For example, Farmers had an incentive program called "Quest for Gold" that offered pizza parties to its adjusters that met low claims payments goals. Like Allstate, it also hired the McKinsey consultants.
8. UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH) The SEC opened an investigation into former UnitedHealth CEO WILLIAM MCGUIRE for stock backdating, which ultimately led to his ouster in 2006 and returning $620 million in stock gains and retirement compensation. Physicians have also reported that their reimbursements are so low and delayed by the company that patient health is being compromised.
9. Torchmark (NYSE: TMK) According to Hoover's In-Depth Company Records, Torchmark's very origins were little more than a scam devised to enrich its founder, Frank Samford. Torchmark has preyed on low-income Southern residents and charged minority policyholders more than whites on burial policies.
10. Liberty Mutual Like Allstate and State Farm, Liberty Mutual hired consulting giant McKinsey to adopt aggressive tactics. Liberty's tactics were highlighted when a New York couple's insurance was "nonrenewed" by Liberty, even though they lived 12 miles from the coast and never experienced weather-related flooding.
Financial documents also revealed extravagant profits and executive compensation while policyholders' claims were routinely delayed and denied:
· Over the last 10 years, the property / casualty and life / health insurance industries have each enjoyed annual profits exceeding $30 billion.
· The insurance industry takes in over $1 trillion in premiums every year. It has $3.8 trillion in assets, more than the GDPs of all but two countries.
· The CEOs of the top 10 property / casualty firms earned an average of $8.9 million in 2007. The CEOs of the top 10 life / health insurance earned an average of $9.1 million.
· The median insurance CEO's cash compensation is $1.6 million per year, leading all industries.
To see how consumers can hold the insurance industry accountable and view a full copy of the study, visit http://www.justice.org/docs/TenWorstInsuranceCompanies.pdf.
July 9, 2008
CONTACT:
Ray De Lorenzi, American Association for Justice
202-965-3500 x369
ray.delorenzi@justice.org
ALLSTATE RANKS AS WORST INSURER FOR CONSUMERS
Insurance Industry Employs "Deny, Delay, Defend" Strategy, Puts Profits Over Policyholders
WASHINGTON, DC Allstate ranks as the worst insurer for consumers, according to a comprehensive investigation of thousands of legal documents and financial filings.
The rankings show a distinct pattern of insurance industry greed amongst 10 companies that refuse to pay just claims, employ hardball tactics against policyholders, reward executives with extravagant salaries, and raise premiums while hoarding excessive profits.
"While Allstate publicly touts its 'good hands' approach, it has instead privately instructed its agents to employ a 'boxing gloves' strategy against its policyholders," said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. "Allstate ducks, bobs and weaves to avoid paying claims to increase its profits."
Allstate (NYSE: ALL) set the standard for insurance company greed and placing profits over policyholders. Allstate contracted with consulting giant McKinsey & Co. in the mid-1990s to systematically force consumers to accept lowball claims or face its "boxing gloves," an aggressive strategy designed to deny claims at any cost. One Allstate employee reported that supervisors told agents to lie and blame fires on arson, and in turn, were rewarded with portable fridges.
Thousands of court documents, materials uncovered from litigation and discovery, testimony, complaints filed with state insurance departments, SEC and FBI records, and news accounts were reviewed to compile the rankings and statistics.
The rest of the rankings are as follows:
2. Unum (NYSE: UNM) Unum's actions are even more shameful considering the type of insurance it sells: disability. Unum's behavior was epitomized when it denied the claim of a woman with multiple sclerosis for three years, stating her conditions were "self-reported," contrary to doctors' evaluations. In 2005, Unum agreed to a settlement with insurance commissioners from 48 states over their practices.
3. AIG (NYSE: AIG) The world's biggest insurer, AIG's slogan was "we know money." AIG, described by commentators as "the new Enron," has engaged in massive corporate fraud and claims abuses. In 2006, the company paid $1.6 billion to settle a host of charges.
4. State Farm State Farm is notorious for its deny and delay tactics, and like Allstate, hired McKinsey consultants. State Farm's true motives became apparent during Hurricane Katrina; for example, it employed multiple engineering firms until they could deny the claims of the Nguyen family of Mississippi. In April 2007, State Farm agreed to re-evaluate more than 3,000 Hurricane Katrina claims.
5. Conseco (NYSE: CNO) Conseco sells long-term care policies, typically to the elderly. Amongst its egregious behavior, the insurer "made it so hard to make a claim that people either died or gave up," said a former Conseco-subsidiary agent. Former Conseco executives were fined when they admitted to filing misleading financial statements with regulators.
6. WellPoint (NYSE: WLP) Health insurer WellPoint has a long history of putting profits ahead of policyholders. For instance, California fined a WellPoint subsidiary in March 2007 after an investigation revealed that the insurer routinely canceled policies of pregnant women and chronically ill patients.
7. Farmers Swiss-owned Farmers Insurance Group consistently ranks at or near the bottom of homeowner satisfaction surveys, and for good reason. For example, Farmers had an incentive program called "Quest for Gold" that offered pizza parties to its adjusters that met low claims payments goals. Like Allstate, it also hired the McKinsey consultants.
8. UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH) The SEC opened an investigation into former UnitedHealth CEO WILLIAM MCGUIRE for stock backdating, which ultimately led to his ouster in 2006 and returning $620 million in stock gains and retirement compensation. Physicians have also reported that their reimbursements are so low and delayed by the company that patient health is being compromised.
9. Torchmark (NYSE: TMK) According to Hoover's In-Depth Company Records, Torchmark's very origins were little more than a scam devised to enrich its founder, Frank Samford. Torchmark has preyed on low-income Southern residents and charged minority policyholders more than whites on burial policies.
10. Liberty Mutual Like Allstate and State Farm, Liberty Mutual hired consulting giant McKinsey to adopt aggressive tactics. Liberty's tactics were highlighted when a New York couple's insurance was "nonrenewed" by Liberty, even though they lived 12 miles from the coast and never experienced weather-related flooding.
Financial documents also revealed extravagant profits and executive compensation while policyholders' claims were routinely delayed and denied:
· Over the last 10 years, the property / casualty and life / health insurance industries have each enjoyed annual profits exceeding $30 billion.
· The insurance industry takes in over $1 trillion in premiums every year. It has $3.8 trillion in assets, more than the GDPs of all but two countries.
· The CEOs of the top 10 property / casualty firms earned an average of $8.9 million in 2007. The CEOs of the top 10 life / health insurance earned an average of $9.1 million.
· The median insurance CEO's cash compensation is $1.6 million per year, leading all industries.
To see how consumers can hold the insurance industry accountable and view a full copy of the study, visit http://www.justice.org/docs/TenWorstInsuranceCompanies.pdf.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
"Magic" Mushrooms Good for the Psyche?
Study Sees Benefit in Mushroom Drug
By MALCOLM RITTER,
AP
Posted: 2008-07-02 20:08:23
Filed Under: Health News
NEW YORK (July 2) - In 2002, at a Johns Hopkins University laboratory, a business consultant named Dede Osborn took a psychedelic drug as part of a research project.
Magic Mushrooms
AP
She felt like she was taking off. She saw colors. Then it felt like her heart was ripping open.
But she called the experience joyful as well as painful, and says that it has helped her to this day.
"I feel more centered in who I am and what I'm doing," said Osborn, now 66, of Providence, R.I. "I don't seem to have those self-doubts like I used to have. I feel much more grounded (and feel that) we are all connected."
Scientists reported Tuesday that when they surveyed volunteers 14 months after they took the drug, most said they were still feeling and behaving better because of the experience.
Two-thirds of them also said the drug had produced one of the five most spiritually significant experiences they'd ever had.
The drug, psilocybin, is found in so-called "magic mushrooms." It's illegal, but it has been used in religious ceremonies for centuries.
The study involved 36 men and women during an eight-hour lab visit. It's one of the few such studies of a hallucinogen in the past 40 years, since research was largely shut down after widespread recreational abuse of such drugs in the 1960s.
The project made headlines in 2006 when researchers published their report on how the volunteers felt just two months after taking the drug. The new study followed them up a year after that.
Experts emphasize that people should not try psilocybin on their own because it could be harmful. Even in the controlled setting of the laboratory, nearly a third of participants felt significant fear under the effects of the drug. Without proper supervision, someone could be harmed, researchers said.
Osborn, in a telephone interview, recalled a powerful feeling of being out of control during her lab experience. "It was ... like taking off, I'm being lifted up," she said. Then came "brilliant colors and beautiful patterns, just stunningly gorgeous, more intense than normal reality."
And then, the sensation that her heart was tearing open.
"It would come in waves," she recalled. "I found myself doing Lamaze-type breathing as the pain came on."
Yet "it was a joyful, ecstatic thing at the same time, like the joy of being alive," she said. She compared it to birthing pains. "There was this sense of relief and joy and ecstasy when my heart was opened."
With further research, psilocybin (pronounced SILL-oh-SY-bin) may prove useful in helping to treat alcoholism and drug dependence, and in aiding seriously ill patients as they deal with psychological distress, said study lead author Roland Griffiths of Johns Hopkins.
Griffiths also said that despite the spiritual characteristics reported for the drug experiences, the study says nothing about whether God exists.
"Is this God in a pill? Absolutely not," he said.
The experiment was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The results were published online Tuesday by the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
Fourteen months after taking the drug, 64 percent of the volunteers said they still felt at least a moderate increase in well-being or life satisfaction, in terms of things like feeling more creative, self-confident, flexible and optimistic. And 61 percent reported at least a moderate behavior change in what they considered positive ways.
That second question didn't ask for details, but elsewhere the questionnaire answers indicated lasting gains in traits like being more sensitive, tolerant, loving and compassionate.
Researchers didn't try to corroborate what the participants said about their own behavior. But in the earlier analysis at two months after the drug was given, researchers said family and friends backed up what those in the study said about behavior changes. Griffiths said he has no reason to doubt the answers at 14 months.
Dr. Charles Grob, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, called the new work an important follow-up to the first study.
He said it is helping to reopen formal study of psychedelic drugs. Grob is on the board of the Heffter Research Institute, which promotes studies of psychedelic substances and helped pay for the new work.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
By MALCOLM RITTER,
AP
Posted: 2008-07-02 20:08:23
Filed Under: Health News
NEW YORK (July 2) - In 2002, at a Johns Hopkins University laboratory, a business consultant named Dede Osborn took a psychedelic drug as part of a research project.
Magic Mushrooms
AP
She felt like she was taking off. She saw colors. Then it felt like her heart was ripping open.
But she called the experience joyful as well as painful, and says that it has helped her to this day.
"I feel more centered in who I am and what I'm doing," said Osborn, now 66, of Providence, R.I. "I don't seem to have those self-doubts like I used to have. I feel much more grounded (and feel that) we are all connected."
Scientists reported Tuesday that when they surveyed volunteers 14 months after they took the drug, most said they were still feeling and behaving better because of the experience.
Two-thirds of them also said the drug had produced one of the five most spiritually significant experiences they'd ever had.
The drug, psilocybin, is found in so-called "magic mushrooms." It's illegal, but it has been used in religious ceremonies for centuries.
The study involved 36 men and women during an eight-hour lab visit. It's one of the few such studies of a hallucinogen in the past 40 years, since research was largely shut down after widespread recreational abuse of such drugs in the 1960s.
The project made headlines in 2006 when researchers published their report on how the volunteers felt just two months after taking the drug. The new study followed them up a year after that.
Experts emphasize that people should not try psilocybin on their own because it could be harmful. Even in the controlled setting of the laboratory, nearly a third of participants felt significant fear under the effects of the drug. Without proper supervision, someone could be harmed, researchers said.
Osborn, in a telephone interview, recalled a powerful feeling of being out of control during her lab experience. "It was ... like taking off, I'm being lifted up," she said. Then came "brilliant colors and beautiful patterns, just stunningly gorgeous, more intense than normal reality."
And then, the sensation that her heart was tearing open.
"It would come in waves," she recalled. "I found myself doing Lamaze-type breathing as the pain came on."
Yet "it was a joyful, ecstatic thing at the same time, like the joy of being alive," she said. She compared it to birthing pains. "There was this sense of relief and joy and ecstasy when my heart was opened."
With further research, psilocybin (pronounced SILL-oh-SY-bin) may prove useful in helping to treat alcoholism and drug dependence, and in aiding seriously ill patients as they deal with psychological distress, said study lead author Roland Griffiths of Johns Hopkins.
Griffiths also said that despite the spiritual characteristics reported for the drug experiences, the study says nothing about whether God exists.
"Is this God in a pill? Absolutely not," he said.
The experiment was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The results were published online Tuesday by the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
Fourteen months after taking the drug, 64 percent of the volunteers said they still felt at least a moderate increase in well-being or life satisfaction, in terms of things like feeling more creative, self-confident, flexible and optimistic. And 61 percent reported at least a moderate behavior change in what they considered positive ways.
That second question didn't ask for details, but elsewhere the questionnaire answers indicated lasting gains in traits like being more sensitive, tolerant, loving and compassionate.
Researchers didn't try to corroborate what the participants said about their own behavior. But in the earlier analysis at two months after the drug was given, researchers said family and friends backed up what those in the study said about behavior changes. Griffiths said he has no reason to doubt the answers at 14 months.
Dr. Charles Grob, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, called the new work an important follow-up to the first study.
He said it is helping to reopen formal study of psychedelic drugs. Grob is on the board of the Heffter Research Institute, which promotes studies of psychedelic substances and helped pay for the new work.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
I-69
For those of you interested in the I-69 project, TXDOT has a webpage with the latest official information. The more I read about the project, the more I think it is a horrible idea.
We currently can take US 77 to connect to the Interstate system in Corpus Christi. US 77 is a decent highway, although it only has two lanes. As traffic increases in the future, it might make sense to add another lane, although many interstates only have two lanes in rural areas.
I-69 would leave us with those two free lanes, and would only add toll lanes. That pretty much guarantees that there will be no additional free lanes. Additionally, the operators of the toll roads will likely lobby against the state spending much to maintain the existing free lanes because they will have to create some reason why people will start paying good money to drive from here to Corpus when they can already drive for free. We may end up with what we face driving to Monterrey, Mexico -- a nice highway system for those with enough money to pay an extra $30 each way, and a run down, dangerous road for those living on a budget. Further, with gas prices at all-time highs, it is hard to comprehend why TXDOT wants to hit drivers with tolls as well.
So why is TXDOT so high on toll roads? Because it fits in with the Republican mantra. Tolls are regressive taxes. They can tax the motorists instead of taxing big business. Big businesses tend to have more big campaign contributors, PACS, and lobbyists than everyday drivers. Additionally, the companies who hope to profit from operating toll roads will donate big bucks in the hope of getting the contract. Rick Perry and his big money contributors win, and the rest of us lose.
We currently can take US 77 to connect to the Interstate system in Corpus Christi. US 77 is a decent highway, although it only has two lanes. As traffic increases in the future, it might make sense to add another lane, although many interstates only have two lanes in rural areas.
I-69 would leave us with those two free lanes, and would only add toll lanes. That pretty much guarantees that there will be no additional free lanes. Additionally, the operators of the toll roads will likely lobby against the state spending much to maintain the existing free lanes because they will have to create some reason why people will start paying good money to drive from here to Corpus when they can already drive for free. We may end up with what we face driving to Monterrey, Mexico -- a nice highway system for those with enough money to pay an extra $30 each way, and a run down, dangerous road for those living on a budget. Further, with gas prices at all-time highs, it is hard to comprehend why TXDOT wants to hit drivers with tolls as well.
So why is TXDOT so high on toll roads? Because it fits in with the Republican mantra. Tolls are regressive taxes. They can tax the motorists instead of taxing big business. Big businesses tend to have more big campaign contributors, PACS, and lobbyists than everyday drivers. Additionally, the companies who hope to profit from operating toll roads will donate big bucks in the hope of getting the contract. Rick Perry and his big money contributors win, and the rest of us lose.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
My take on Kennedy v. Louisiana
This week the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kennedy v.Louisiana, a 5-4 decision holding that the Constitution prohibited executing someone for raping a child. While I am generally no fan of the death penalty, I think this decision is simply wrong.
I may be old fashioned, but I think that if the Constitution is really going to protect any of our rights, it has to be interpreted based on its plain language, and on the intent of its drafters. If our Constitutional rights can “evolve” over time based on unwritten “societal standards,” then the text of the Constitution does not protect our rights at all; they are no more than what five currently-sitting justices decide them to be.
Kennedy v. Louisiana is an example of how our Court decided to legislate on its own without any support from either the text or the intent of the Founding Fathers. The majority based its decision on the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” There is no evidence that, at the time the nation adopted the Eighth Amendment, the term “cruel and unusual punishment” was thought to include the death penalty. In fact, most of the states had the death penalty for many crimes, including arson, piracy, burglary, robbery, rape, and horse-stealing.
However, the Kennedy majority (based on prior Supreme Court decisions) decided to base its decision on “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In other words, the Eighth Amendment prohibits whatever a five-justice majority thinks it should prohibit. The majority then decided that we had a societal consensus that child rape did not merit the death penalty. The Court measured that “consensus” be the fact that most states did not make child rape a capital offense. I do not agree that looking at state statutes is an accurate way to measure our “societal consensus.” If anything, I think an accurate poll of today’s society may well show that most Americans think that child molesters should not only be killed, but should also be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment before the execution.
The Court went on to make the kind of legislative policy judgments that courts simply should not make. The Court held that the death penalty was “disproportionate” for child rapists because molestation does not always result in the death of the victim. Again, this is just the opinion of five judges, and is not enshrined in the Constitution. As the dissent points out, child molestation is a horrible crime which has horrific, often life-long consequences for the innocent victims. Elected Legislatures, not courts, should make these kinds of value judgments.
If the Constitution is going to provide any protection for our freedoms, it must mean what it says, rather than providing an excuse for a slim-majority of non-elected judges to overrule legislation based on their personal philosophies. Otherwise, our rights are wholly dependent on the whims of five judges, and those rights may change every time a new judge is appointed to the Court.
Some Conservatives will seize on this decision to rail about activist justices and the need to elect more Republicans. However, Republican judges have proven to be just as activist, if not more activist, as Democrats. In fact, three members of the five-judge majority in Kennedy are Republicans. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Justice Stevens was a Ford appointee, and Justice Souter was appointed by the first President Bush.
There is one thing for sure, if I caught someone trying to harm my child, the death penalty would be applied [by me, personally, probably after some cruel and unusual punishment]. And in Cameron County, my bet is that a jury would either find me not guilty or give me probation.
I may be old fashioned, but I think that if the Constitution is really going to protect any of our rights, it has to be interpreted based on its plain language, and on the intent of its drafters. If our Constitutional rights can “evolve” over time based on unwritten “societal standards,” then the text of the Constitution does not protect our rights at all; they are no more than what five currently-sitting justices decide them to be.
Kennedy v. Louisiana is an example of how our Court decided to legislate on its own without any support from either the text or the intent of the Founding Fathers. The majority based its decision on the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” There is no evidence that, at the time the nation adopted the Eighth Amendment, the term “cruel and unusual punishment” was thought to include the death penalty. In fact, most of the states had the death penalty for many crimes, including arson, piracy, burglary, robbery, rape, and horse-stealing.
However, the Kennedy majority (based on prior Supreme Court decisions) decided to base its decision on “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In other words, the Eighth Amendment prohibits whatever a five-justice majority thinks it should prohibit. The majority then decided that we had a societal consensus that child rape did not merit the death penalty. The Court measured that “consensus” be the fact that most states did not make child rape a capital offense. I do not agree that looking at state statutes is an accurate way to measure our “societal consensus.” If anything, I think an accurate poll of today’s society may well show that most Americans think that child molesters should not only be killed, but should also be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment before the execution.
The Court went on to make the kind of legislative policy judgments that courts simply should not make. The Court held that the death penalty was “disproportionate” for child rapists because molestation does not always result in the death of the victim. Again, this is just the opinion of five judges, and is not enshrined in the Constitution. As the dissent points out, child molestation is a horrible crime which has horrific, often life-long consequences for the innocent victims. Elected Legislatures, not courts, should make these kinds of value judgments.
If the Constitution is going to provide any protection for our freedoms, it must mean what it says, rather than providing an excuse for a slim-majority of non-elected judges to overrule legislation based on their personal philosophies. Otherwise, our rights are wholly dependent on the whims of five judges, and those rights may change every time a new judge is appointed to the Court.
Some Conservatives will seize on this decision to rail about activist justices and the need to elect more Republicans. However, Republican judges have proven to be just as activist, if not more activist, as Democrats. In fact, three members of the five-judge majority in Kennedy are Republicans. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Justice Stevens was a Ford appointee, and Justice Souter was appointed by the first President Bush.
There is one thing for sure, if I caught someone trying to harm my child, the death penalty would be applied [by me, personally, probably after some cruel and unusual punishment]. And in Cameron County, my bet is that a jury would either find me not guilty or give me probation.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Subrogation - Kicking the injured while they're down
Local politics haven't inspired me to blog lately, so I haven't posted in a while. At the risk of boring my few remaining readers to death, I have decided to post instead on a legal doctrine that's been angering me lately: subrogation.
Most non-lawyers have probably never heard of subrogation. Subrogation is the legal doctrine that allows an insurance company to recoup the money it paid to its insured when there is a recovery from a third party. For example, if John gets hurt in a car wreck, and John's health insurance company pays for this hospital bill, if John makes a claim against the other driver the health insurance company will use subrogation to try to recover the money it paid to the hospital from the other driver.
In an ideal world, every injured person would be able to recover the full value of his or her claim, so subrogation would not present a problem. For example, suppose Maria is injured, and her health insurance company paid $20,000 for her medical treatment. She also sustained $10,000 in lost wages, and her pain, suffering, and impairment is worth $30,000. Therefore, she would have a claim worth $60,000. If she could recover the entire $60,000, then it would be fair to have her health insurance company subrogate and make her pay back the $20,000. Otherwise, she would receive $80,000 in benefits on a claim only worth $60,000.
The problem is that we don't live in an ideal world, and most of the time injured people do not get full recoveries. Using the same example, if the driver of the other vehicle only had $25,000 in insurance, then Maria would only recover $25,000. If her health insurance company was allowed to subrogate and make her repay the $20,000 in benefits, then she would only recover $5,000, which means that she only gets half of her lost wages, and nothing for pain and suffering. Not only would Maria be woefully undercompensated for her injuries, she also did not get the benefit of all the health insurance premiums she paid because she had to pay back everything her health insurance paid.
The law used to have a solution for this issue, which it called the "made whole doctrine." Under the made whole doctrine, the health insurance company is only entitled to subrogation if Maria has enough of a recovery to be "made whole." That is, if Maria only recovered $25,000 on a claim worth $60,000, then she would not have to repay her health insurance company any of the $20,000, because when you add the health insurance benefits and third-party recovery, she still only recovered $55,000, which is less than the value of her claim.
However, the Texas Supreme Court, overruling over 100 years of well-established legal precedent, eviscerated the made whole doctrine last summer in a case called Fortis v. Cantu. The Court held that the made whole doctrine remained the default rule in Texas, but if that the language of the health insurance policy was different than the made whole doctrine, then the language of the policy controlled. In other words, if the health insurance company inserted language in the policy stating that the insurance company gets first dollar out of any settlement, then the made whole doctrine is out the window and the health insurance company gets paid before the injured victim.
In other words, it is up to insurance companies to decide what their subrogation rights are. Not surprisingly, almost all policies now have provisions that allow them to get paid before the injured person recovers a dime. Going back to my example, if there is only $25,000 in insurance, the insurance company would collect the first $20,000, and Maria would be left with only $5,000, even though she had $10,000 in lost wages and $30,000 in pain, suffering, and impairment. The end result is often that health insurance companies make even bigger profits, while Maria is forced to file bankruptcy because she cannot even recover her lost wages and therefore can't pay her mortgage, car payments, or other bills.
Even worse, if the other driver's insurance won't just pay the $25,000, and Maria has to hire a lawyer, the insurance companies are telling Maria that SHE has to pay all of the legal fees and expenses out of her share, and that they still want to get the entire $20,000 they paid even if it leaves her with nothing.
Subrogation seems like an obscure legal issue until you or someone in your family is facing it. Any rule that allows insurance companies to recoup all the benefits they paid (even though they collected premiums from their insured) but at the same time leave the insured without full compensation is inherently unjust. I suspect that the Texas Supreme Court knew exactly what it was doing; if the system become so unfair that people can't get any real recovery when they file a claim, they will simply stop filing claims. As a result, the liability insurance companies will make even more profits, and trial lawyers (who tend to give to Democratic candidates) will go out of business.
Most non-lawyers have probably never heard of subrogation. Subrogation is the legal doctrine that allows an insurance company to recoup the money it paid to its insured when there is a recovery from a third party. For example, if John gets hurt in a car wreck, and John's health insurance company pays for this hospital bill, if John makes a claim against the other driver the health insurance company will use subrogation to try to recover the money it paid to the hospital from the other driver.
In an ideal world, every injured person would be able to recover the full value of his or her claim, so subrogation would not present a problem. For example, suppose Maria is injured, and her health insurance company paid $20,000 for her medical treatment. She also sustained $10,000 in lost wages, and her pain, suffering, and impairment is worth $30,000. Therefore, she would have a claim worth $60,000. If she could recover the entire $60,000, then it would be fair to have her health insurance company subrogate and make her pay back the $20,000. Otherwise, she would receive $80,000 in benefits on a claim only worth $60,000.
The problem is that we don't live in an ideal world, and most of the time injured people do not get full recoveries. Using the same example, if the driver of the other vehicle only had $25,000 in insurance, then Maria would only recover $25,000. If her health insurance company was allowed to subrogate and make her repay the $20,000 in benefits, then she would only recover $5,000, which means that she only gets half of her lost wages, and nothing for pain and suffering. Not only would Maria be woefully undercompensated for her injuries, she also did not get the benefit of all the health insurance premiums she paid because she had to pay back everything her health insurance paid.
The law used to have a solution for this issue, which it called the "made whole doctrine." Under the made whole doctrine, the health insurance company is only entitled to subrogation if Maria has enough of a recovery to be "made whole." That is, if Maria only recovered $25,000 on a claim worth $60,000, then she would not have to repay her health insurance company any of the $20,000, because when you add the health insurance benefits and third-party recovery, she still only recovered $55,000, which is less than the value of her claim.
However, the Texas Supreme Court, overruling over 100 years of well-established legal precedent, eviscerated the made whole doctrine last summer in a case called Fortis v. Cantu. The Court held that the made whole doctrine remained the default rule in Texas, but if that the language of the health insurance policy was different than the made whole doctrine, then the language of the policy controlled. In other words, if the health insurance company inserted language in the policy stating that the insurance company gets first dollar out of any settlement, then the made whole doctrine is out the window and the health insurance company gets paid before the injured victim.
In other words, it is up to insurance companies to decide what their subrogation rights are. Not surprisingly, almost all policies now have provisions that allow them to get paid before the injured person recovers a dime. Going back to my example, if there is only $25,000 in insurance, the insurance company would collect the first $20,000, and Maria would be left with only $5,000, even though she had $10,000 in lost wages and $30,000 in pain, suffering, and impairment. The end result is often that health insurance companies make even bigger profits, while Maria is forced to file bankruptcy because she cannot even recover her lost wages and therefore can't pay her mortgage, car payments, or other bills.
Even worse, if the other driver's insurance won't just pay the $25,000, and Maria has to hire a lawyer, the insurance companies are telling Maria that SHE has to pay all of the legal fees and expenses out of her share, and that they still want to get the entire $20,000 they paid even if it leaves her with nothing.
Subrogation seems like an obscure legal issue until you or someone in your family is facing it. Any rule that allows insurance companies to recoup all the benefits they paid (even though they collected premiums from their insured) but at the same time leave the insured without full compensation is inherently unjust. I suspect that the Texas Supreme Court knew exactly what it was doing; if the system become so unfair that people can't get any real recovery when they file a claim, they will simply stop filing claims. As a result, the liability insurance companies will make even more profits, and trial lawyers (who tend to give to Democratic candidates) will go out of business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
