From Reason.com via Instapundit:
Happy Halloween!
.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Seattle area warned about landslide risk
Today, the Seattle Times published a warning about the risk of landslides due to recent heavy rains: Heavy rains bring increased risk of landslides, SPU warns. "With rain late Thursday and Friday morning, Seattle exceeded the official U.S. Geological Survey’s landslide threshold."
In addition to taking the steps outlined in the article, homeowners should take a look at the insurance policies. Homeowner policies typically do not cover damage caused by land movement or a landslide if the underlying case is excessive water.
There are options for homeowners who wish to have coverage in the event of a landslide. Consumers can purchase a rider that covers the contents of their home from all perils, including landslides. Some companies also sell earth-movement coverage for any structures on your property. Flood insurance may cover landslide damage that is due to heavy rains. Your insurance agent or broker can tell you what type of coverage is best for your situation.
Read more about flood insurance on our website. If you have questions, contact our consumer advocates at 1-800-562-6900.
In addition to taking the steps outlined in the article, homeowners should take a look at the insurance policies. Homeowner policies typically do not cover damage caused by land movement or a landslide if the underlying case is excessive water.
There are options for homeowners who wish to have coverage in the event of a landslide. Consumers can purchase a rider that covers the contents of their home from all perils, including landslides. Some companies also sell earth-movement coverage for any structures on your property. Flood insurance may cover landslide damage that is due to heavy rains. Your insurance agent or broker can tell you what type of coverage is best for your situation.
Read more about flood insurance on our website. If you have questions, contact our consumer advocates at 1-800-562-6900.
Agent pleads guilty, taken into custody
Former Washington insurance agent Jasmine Jamrus-Kassim pleaded guilty this morning to 10 counts of theft for stealing more than $1 million in retirement funds from elderly insurance clients.
Jamrus-Kassim, who had been free on bond, was immediately taken into custody.
From 2007 to late 2009, several of Jamrus-Kassim's clients cashed out large portions of their retirement accounts, apparently thinking they were re-investing the money. In reality, the money went to Jamrus-Kassim, who spent tens of thousands of dollars on a psychic hotline, clothes, jewelry and a trip to Mexico.
An investigation by the Washington insurance commissioner's Special Investigations Unit led to her arrest in March.
And Bankers Life and Casualty, one of the companies that Jamrus-Kassim worked for, agreed last month to repay the money that Jamrus-Kassim stole.
Sentencing in King County Superior Court is slated for Nov. 18.
Jamrus-Kassim, who had been free on bond, was immediately taken into custody.
From 2007 to late 2009, several of Jamrus-Kassim's clients cashed out large portions of their retirement accounts, apparently thinking they were re-investing the money. In reality, the money went to Jamrus-Kassim, who spent tens of thousands of dollars on a psychic hotline, clothes, jewelry and a trip to Mexico.
An investigation by the Washington insurance commissioner's Special Investigations Unit led to her arrest in March.
And Bankers Life and Casualty, one of the companies that Jamrus-Kassim worked for, agreed last month to repay the money that Jamrus-Kassim stole.
Sentencing in King County Superior Court is slated for Nov. 18.
Apropos of nothing much (P&C edition)
Via email, I just learned a new word, "Nutraceutical:"
"Do you have clients involved in the manufacture, distribution, or packaging of vitamin, nutritional or supplement products? ... [We are] pleased to provide our expertise in Primary Product Liability Coverage for the Nutraceutical Industry"
Since this is way outside my wheelhouse, I would normally have just deleted it. But how can one resist that term? Although I must admit, my first thought was of boats.
Thanks, A. J. Renner & Associates!
"Do you have clients involved in the manufacture, distribution, or packaging of vitamin, nutritional or supplement products? ... [We are] pleased to provide our expertise in Primary Product Liability Coverage for the Nutraceutical Industry"
Since this is way outside my wheelhouse, I would normally have just deleted it. But how can one resist that term? Although I must admit, my first thought was of boats.
Thanks, A. J. Renner & Associates!
Flood advisory issued for most of western Washington
The National Weather Service office in Seattle has issued an urban- and small-stream flood advisory for 14 counties throughout western Washington. Nearly 2 inches of rain has fallen across much of the area in the past 24 hours, with another 1-2 inches expected today.
Affected counties include:
CLALLAM COUNTY
ISLAND COUNTY
JEFFERSON COUNTY
SAN JUAN COUNTY
SKAGIT COUNTY
WHATCOM COUNTY
KING COUNTY
KITSAP COUNTY
LEWIS COUNTY
MASON COUNTY
PIERCE COUNTY
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
THURSTON COUNTY
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
Minor flooding is expected in urban areas and small streams into this evening, according to the NWS. The flood advisory has been extended to 6:30 p.m. today.
Affected counties include:
CLALLAM COUNTY
ISLAND COUNTY
JEFFERSON COUNTY
SAN JUAN COUNTY
SKAGIT COUNTY
WHATCOM COUNTY
KING COUNTY
KITSAP COUNTY
LEWIS COUNTY
MASON COUNTY
PIERCE COUNTY
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
THURSTON COUNTY
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
Minor flooding is expected in urban areas and small streams into this evening, according to the NWS. The flood advisory has been extended to 6:30 p.m. today.
12-Year-Old Sues Parents For Drunk Driving
Photo by RTE
Faith, now 12, is suing her parents for the physical and psychological injury they caused. Faith and her brother, John, sustained severe injuries when their alcoholic mother passed out while driving the children home from school. Ava, Faith’s 6-year-old sister, and friend Michaela Logan, 9, died when the vehicle crashed into an embankment.
The children’s mother, Mary Carberry, was “in the middle of a pub crawl and decided to pick up the four kids from school.” Mary remembers bits of the accident that killed her youngest daughter. “All I remember is the thump. Then the flashing blue lights,” she testified in court in 2007. “I did not know what I hit. I remember Ava, I remember her face, I just don’t know what happened. I don’t remember arriving in the hospital.”
After the accident, Mary was sentenced to six years in prison, but her time was later reduced to four years.
Now, Faith, with the help of her grandfather, is seeking justice for her sister. Faith was injured in the accident, undergoing surgery to her spine and spending ten weeks in a spinal cast at Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital. Faith also suffered “severe psychological trauma and upset and she attended a child psychologist for three months after the incident.”
Mary Carberry had already been banned from driving at the time of the accident. After two previous DUIs, Mary had no license and no insured vehicle. Faith’s father – also being targeted in the girl’s lawsuit – claims that he bought Mary a car, but didn’t expect her to drive it. He’d merely purchased the car after Mary allegedly told him that the children were “wet and cold” walking to and from school.
“It pulled at my heart strings. She was seeking for me to provide transport, purchase a car and somebody who was insured and had a full licence would drive it,” Tommy Varden told the court, adding that he never intended for Mary to drive the purchased BMW.
Varden added that Mary was attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at the time, and “seemed to be turning a new leaf.”
The father recounts the night of the accidents, saying that he received a phone call from Mary. “She said Ava was dead and she thought Faith was dead too,” he said. Vargan notes that it was only when he arrived at the hospital that he discovered Mary had been driving the car. “I was angry. I am still very angry. No way would I have given the car to her if I thought she was going to use it that way. I trusted her,” he said.
Faith, however, still holds her father responsible. He did, after all, purchase Mary a car. Vargan insists that, although he’d purchased the vehicle, it was only later that he discovered Mary had insured it, forging his signature on a check.
The lawsuit was settled on Wednesday, but the official outcome has yet to be disclosed.
According to Yahoo!News, Faith’s story is not a unique one. In the US, more than two-thirds of children fatally injured in car accidents “were riding with drunk drivers.” Young children, unlike adults, often do not have the awareness or option to opt out of getting into a car with an intoxicated driver, especially if a parent is behind the wheel.
In March, a mom in Iowa was allegedly driving drunk, and her 15-year-old daughter called 911 from the passenger’s seat. In 2009, four young kids died in a crash after their guardian was found to have a “blood alcohol level of .19 percent.
source
Facebook Link Helps Break insurance Fraud Case
The value of analytics as a fraud tool has become well accepted. The concept has been borrowed from social media platforms like Facebook where users can reach out to past friends who share similar characteristics such as attending the same school, summer camp or workplaces. The case below illustrates that even without sophisticated analytics, social connections can help identify potential fraud cases.
Four Sacramento women are suspected of working together to defraud auto insurers of more than $37,000, according to the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
CDI spokesman Dave Althausen said Susan Lee, 24; Angelique Jones, 20; Angela Medeiros, 40; and, Krystelmaree Marquez, 23 denied knowing each other but investigators obtained Facebook records and determined the foursome did know each other as "friends" on the social media website.
CDI spokesman Dave Althausen said according to detectives, 23-year-old Krystelmaree Marquez rented a U-Haul truck Dec. 11, 2011 and purchased extra insurance protection. She was driving the truck the next day when she was involved in a collision with a Toyota Yaris drivien by 40-year-old Angela Medeiros with 24-year-old Susan Lee and 20-year-old Angelique Jones as passengers. The women all claimed crash-related injuries. Althausen also said Medeiros denied knowing the other involved parties to insurance company representatives and the other three women said they didn't know Medeiros.
However, Althausen said investigators obtained Facebook account records and determined the foursome did know each other as "friends" on the social media website.
Medeiros, Lee and Jones were arrested on suspicion of three fraud charges including providing false statements in support of an insurance claim and participating in a vehicle collision for the purpose of submitting a false insurance claim. Marquez, who faces the same allegations, hasn't been located.
Althausen said if convicted of all charges, the suspects face two to five years in state prison and/or a $50,000 fine.
source
Four Sacramento women are suspected of working together to defraud auto insurers of more than $37,000, according to the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
CDI spokesman Dave Althausen said Susan Lee, 24; Angelique Jones, 20; Angela Medeiros, 40; and, Krystelmaree Marquez, 23 denied knowing each other but investigators obtained Facebook records and determined the foursome did know each other as "friends" on the social media website.
CDI spokesman Dave Althausen said according to detectives, 23-year-old Krystelmaree Marquez rented a U-Haul truck Dec. 11, 2011 and purchased extra insurance protection. She was driving the truck the next day when she was involved in a collision with a Toyota Yaris drivien by 40-year-old Angela Medeiros with 24-year-old Susan Lee and 20-year-old Angelique Jones as passengers. The women all claimed crash-related injuries. Althausen also said Medeiros denied knowing the other involved parties to insurance company representatives and the other three women said they didn't know Medeiros.
However, Althausen said investigators obtained Facebook account records and determined the foursome did know each other as "friends" on the social media website.
Medeiros, Lee and Jones were arrested on suspicion of three fraud charges including providing false statements in support of an insurance claim and participating in a vehicle collision for the purpose of submitting a false insurance claim. Marquez, who faces the same allegations, hasn't been located.
Althausen said if convicted of all charges, the suspects face two to five years in state prison and/or a $50,000 fine.
source
Because Shut Up, That's Why
The Obamastration has a history of silencing critics of its health care policies. From 2009:
"The government is investigating a major insurance company for allegedly trying to scare seniors with a mailer warning they could lose important benefits under health care legislation in Congress."
This, despite the fact that the carrier, Humana, was absolutely correct. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, because they were correct.
La plus ca change:
"What is going on is, behind the scenes attempt by the White House to at least keep insurerers from publicly criticizing what is happening on this [ObamaTax] rollout. Basically, if you speak out, if you are quoted, you're going to get a call from the White House, pressure to be quiet," reports CNN."
Lie down with dogs....
[Hat Tip: Hot Air]
"The government is investigating a major insurance company for allegedly trying to scare seniors with a mailer warning they could lose important benefits under health care legislation in Congress."
This, despite the fact that the carrier, Humana, was absolutely correct. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, because they were correct.
La plus ca change:
"What is going on is, behind the scenes attempt by the White House to at least keep insurerers from publicly criticizing what is happening on this [ObamaTax] rollout. Basically, if you speak out, if you are quoted, you're going to get a call from the White House, pressure to be quiet," reports CNN."
Lie down with dogs....
[Hat Tip: Hot Air]
Healthcare.gov is the symptom....
FoIB Bob Graboyes has a wonderful, insightful post up over at Forbes, in which he notes the confluence of Israeli daycare, Blue Grass State healthcare (well, health insurance, to be precise) and the SCOTUS tax-scare:
"[D]ay care centers in Haifa, Israel, had a problem with tardy parents retrieving their children after closing time ... monetary penalties would discourage parents from flouting the no-tardiness mandate"
The problem is that they aimed low, and shot themselves in the foot. How? By imposing only a nominal fine, they ended up reinforcing the behavior.
And then there was Kentucky's ill-fated 1994 attempt at its own version ofRomneyCare the ObamaTax:
"Insurers could neither refuse purchasers nor drop them for health reasons. Insurers could not differentiate premiums on the basis of gender, health status, or claims experience ... Insurers fled the state by the dozens ... By 2000, guaranteed issue was gone"
I remember this debacle well - in fact, I taught a CE class on it, back in the day. I recall how frustrating it was for Kentucky agents, since the only carrier left was Blue Cross. Lots of choice there.
Which brings us to the SCOTUS and liver. To this day, I'm ambivalent about whether CJ Roberts' decision was a gift or a curse. Bob offers his own take, and I can't say that I disagree.
Read the whole thing©.
"[D]ay care centers in Haifa, Israel, had a problem with tardy parents retrieving their children after closing time ... monetary penalties would discourage parents from flouting the no-tardiness mandate"
The problem is that they aimed low, and shot themselves in the foot. How? By imposing only a nominal fine, they ended up reinforcing the behavior.
And then there was Kentucky's ill-fated 1994 attempt at its own version of
"Insurers could neither refuse purchasers nor drop them for health reasons. Insurers could not differentiate premiums on the basis of gender, health status, or claims experience ... Insurers fled the state by the dozens ... By 2000, guaranteed issue was gone"
I remember this debacle well - in fact, I taught a CE class on it, back in the day. I recall how frustrating it was for Kentucky agents, since the only carrier left was Blue Cross. Lots of choice there.
Which brings us to the SCOTUS and liver. To this day, I'm ambivalent about whether CJ Roberts' decision was a gift or a curse. Bob offers his own take, and I can't say that I disagree.
Read the whole thing©.
Top. Men. (Redux)
Back in April, Bob reported on the CGI Group's recruitment as ObamaTax Exchange developers. In case you were wondering, the "C" in CGI apparently stands for "Canadian," since the firm is headquartered there.
And apparently they use igloos as data warehouses, since their last big government contract didn't go so well:
"Their most famous government project was for the Canadian Firearms Registry. The registry was estimated to cost in total $119 million, which would be offset by $117 million in fees. That’s a net cost of $2 million."
Not a bad deal: register 7 million rifles at a net cost of about $4.50 (assuming that's Canadian dollars, that works out to about US$4.38 in 2004 currency values),
Turns out, they underestimated the actual cost a bit: the original $119 million bid ballooned into an impressive $2 billion final price tag; a staggering "thousand times more expensive."
Yikes!
But here's the kicker: "Canada’s auditor general reported to parliament that much of the information was either duplicated or wrong"
Sound familiar?
Oh, the epilogue:
"CGI was hired to create an entirely new CFIS II, which would operate alongside CFIS I until the old system could be scrapped ... $81 million was thrown at it before a new Conservative government scrapped the fiasco in 2007"
Wouldn't it have been less expensive - and certainly more efficient - to just flush a fully-laden Brink's truck down a toilet?
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
And apparently they use igloos as data warehouses, since their last big government contract didn't go so well:
"Their most famous government project was for the Canadian Firearms Registry. The registry was estimated to cost in total $119 million, which would be offset by $117 million in fees. That’s a net cost of $2 million."
Not a bad deal: register 7 million rifles at a net cost of about $4.50 (assuming that's Canadian dollars, that works out to about US$4.38 in 2004 currency values),
Turns out, they underestimated the actual cost a bit: the original $119 million bid ballooned into an impressive $2 billion final price tag; a staggering "thousand times more expensive."
Yikes!
But here's the kicker: "Canada’s auditor general reported to parliament that much of the information was either duplicated or wrong"
Sound familiar?
Oh, the epilogue:
"CGI was hired to create an entirely new CFIS II, which would operate alongside CFIS I until the old system could be scrapped ... $81 million was thrown at it before a new Conservative government scrapped the fiasco in 2007"
Wouldn't it have been less expensive - and certainly more efficient - to just flush a fully-laden Brink's truck down a toilet?
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
Friday, October 30, 2015
Market Conduct Examiner position extended to Nov. 13
Please help us spread the word - We're currently hiring for a Market Conduct Examiner. Sound interesting? This person will work under our Chief Market Conduct Examiner or Lead Examiner Analyst, analyzing, reviewing and identifying the market conduct practices of health insurance companies and other regulated entities that could harm consumers.
This job posting is open until Nov. 13, so if you know someone who may be interested and who's up to the challenge, please tell them soon! See the salary, specific duties and other qualifications.
This job posting is open until Nov. 13, so if you know someone who may be interested and who's up to the challenge, please tell them soon! See the salary, specific duties and other qualifications.
Halbig is it?
Last week, we noted that Michael Cannon's years-long coverage of the subsidy vs Federally-run Exchange issue had passed another hurdle:
"A federal judge ... refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law ... 'The IRS cannot rewrite the law that Congress passed'"
This was a substantial blow to proponents of the ObamaTax, and this week, Michael has more details on why this is, in fact, a very big deal. I highly recommend that you click on through.
But I wanted to highlight a few items. Joel L. McElvain is thegovernment's Obamastration lawyer arguing the case on behalf of his masters. Here he attempts verbal jujitsu, with predictable effect:
"Congress is creating a “legal fiction” that each state has established an Exchange. If a state does not establish an Exchange, “the premise stands” that it has. Therefore, when the federal government establishes an Exchange, it is, fictionally but legally, “an Exchange established by the State.”
I told Michael that this gave me a headache, and wondered how Mr McE could say that with a straight face.
A bit later, we run into our old "friend," Timothy Jost. Esteemed co-blogger Patrick recently skewered Mr J here:
"So tell me Tim, as a law professor which quote of yours is correct?"
Definitely read Michael's piece, it's quite enlightening.
"A federal judge ... refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law ... 'The IRS cannot rewrite the law that Congress passed'"
This was a substantial blow to proponents of the ObamaTax, and this week, Michael has more details on why this is, in fact, a very big deal. I highly recommend that you click on through.
But I wanted to highlight a few items. Joel L. McElvain is the
"Congress is creating a “legal fiction” that each state has established an Exchange. If a state does not establish an Exchange, “the premise stands” that it has. Therefore, when the federal government establishes an Exchange, it is, fictionally but legally, “an Exchange established by the State.”
I told Michael that this gave me a headache, and wondered how Mr McE could say that with a straight face.
A bit later, we run into our old "friend," Timothy Jost. Esteemed co-blogger Patrick recently skewered Mr J here:
"So tell me Tim, as a law professor which quote of yours is correct?"
Definitely read Michael's piece, it's quite enlightening.
Stupid Chamber Tricks
We have been members (and supporters) of our local Chamber of Commerce (South Metro Regional Chamber of Commerce) for many years, during some of which we've been more active than others. But we have always felt that it was important to support the Chamber's efforts, as they have supported - to a greater or lesser degree - ours.
But no more.
This morning, we received an email that the SMRCOC has decided that rather than support us, they wish to compete with us, by contracting with an out-of-town outfit to sell and administer the Chamber's own private employer health insurance Exchange, in direct competition with us and other member agents.
They've never reached out to us for help or advice on this, or even asked if we'd like to participate as a professional and experienced sales partner.
That's obviously their prerogative, as it is ours to immediately resign.
Here's what's sad: we are not the only agents who've been active and supportive members for many years, and yet the "leadership" has decided that, instead of a mutually beneficial relationship with folks who have donated time, effort and money, they would rather cast their lot with an organization who will never be in a position to financially support (as in patronize) the very businesses that the SMCROC claims to represent and support.
I'd call that pretty shortsighted.
But no more.
This morning, we received an email that the SMRCOC has decided that rather than support us, they wish to compete with us, by contracting with an out-of-town outfit to sell and administer the Chamber's own private employer health insurance Exchange, in direct competition with us and other member agents.
They've never reached out to us for help or advice on this, or even asked if we'd like to participate as a professional and experienced sales partner.
That's obviously their prerogative, as it is ours to immediately resign.
Here's what's sad: we are not the only agents who've been active and supportive members for many years, and yet the "leadership" has decided that, instead of a mutually beneficial relationship with folks who have donated time, effort and money, they would rather cast their lot with an organization who will never be in a position to financially support (as in patronize) the very businesses that the SMCROC claims to represent and support.
I'd call that pretty shortsighted.
Obamacare Co-ops - The Next Big Scam [UPDATED]
Evergreen, a health co-op in Maryland, came to life as a result of a $65 million loan from the federal government. The idea of the co-op is to provide lower cost health insurance to fulfill the promise of premium savings in the #Obamacare sales pitch.However, there is a problem.
Just days into the Obamacare enrollment fiasco, CEO Dr. Peter Beilenson had to blow up his business plan.
"We actually called a meeting immediately, upon learning of he difficulties with the exchange, of our entire 35-person staff and said, 'Listen, guys, we're going to have to switch our marketing strategy, our strategy of going after folks," Beilenson said.
That means forgetting about individuals for now and instead targeting small businesses the old-fashioned way, with phone calls and TV ads.
It's not just the lack of new enrollee's that is creating the problem.
Their biggest fear is that with the website problems, more of the people who enroll will be the sickest and most motivated. If that happens, insurers would have no choice but to raise premiums and that could cause more healthy customers to flee.
Well duh.
Heavily subsidized health insurance is like an "all you can eat buffet for a buck".
Why does this remind me of #Solyndra?
UPDATE [HGS]: Meantime, HHS Secretary Kathy "Baghdad Bob" Shecantbeseriousweighs in lies through her teeth:
UPDATE [HGS]: Meantime, HHS Secretary Kathy "Baghdad Bob" Shecantbeserious
Cavalcade of Risk #195: Choose Your Own Adventure edition now up
Jason Hull makes his CavRisk hosting debut with a true blockbuster of a post. His introduction makes some terrific points, perhaps the most eloquent of which is that "[o]ne of the biggest mistakes I see people make is accepting risks they should be insured against and insuring risks that they should be accepting."
It's also helpful that he gives each featured post helpful context.
Kudos, Jason!!
HOSTING BLEG: We're looking for a few good hosts for late Fall Cav's. Just click here to grab yours!
It's also helpful that he gives each featured post helpful context.
Kudos, Jason!!
HOSTING BLEG: We're looking for a few good hosts for late Fall Cav's. Just click here to grab yours!
Thursday, October 29, 2015
No, no, no - A thousand times no!
This has been making the rounds:
"The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered."
Which is true, and puts the lie to the claim that "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."
But some folks, not content to let the truth speak for itself, have added a flourish: that even premium increases will render a plan "ungrandfathered."
No. It. Won't.
Premiums increase all the time. I am looking at one client's grandfathered plan, which has had 3 rate increases since it was written in January 2010, and it is still grandfathered.
Please, people, the ObamaTax is bad and destructive enough on its own; it is in fact counterproductive to mischaracterize additional defects.
So stop it.
"The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered."
Which is true, and puts the lie to the claim that "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."
But some folks, not content to let the truth speak for itself, have added a flourish: that even premium increases will render a plan "ungrandfathered."
No. It. Won't.
Premiums increase all the time. I am looking at one client's grandfathered plan, which has had 3 rate increases since it was written in January 2010, and it is still grandfathered.
Please, people, the ObamaTax is bad and destructive enough on its own; it is in fact counterproductive to mischaracterize additional defects.
So stop it.
Docs Just Say No to Obamacare
.jpg)
If you like your doc, they may not like you. A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan.
Another 33 percent say they’re still not sure whether to become ObamaCare providers.
Only 23 percent of the 409 physicians queried said they’re taking patients who signed up through health exchanges.
And you thought the new rates + higher deductibles were your only problem.
Nearly eight in 10 — 77 percent — said they had not been given a fee schedule to show much they’ll get paid if they sign up.
Go ahead and treat the patient, doc. Trust us. You will eventually get paid.
“Any doctor who accepts the exchange is just a bad businessman/woman. Pays terrible,” argued one doctor.
Remember "If you like your plan you can keep it"?
Too bad that was a lie.
California Proposition 33, Automobile Insurance Persistency Discounts
In California, a ballot proposition is a proposed law that is submitted to the electorate for approval in a direct vote. Propositions have been part of the California political landscape for quite some time.
A ballot proposition may be proposed by the State Legislature or by a petition signed by members of the public under the initiative system.
One of the best known was Proposition 13 in 1978 which decreased property taxes and imposed a 2/3 requirement for budget votes and tax increases. Some Propositions have been passed but found unconstitutional such as Proposition 22 in 2000 which banned same-sex marriages but was struck down by the California Supreme Court.
On November 6th, there will be eleven propositions on the ballot including Proposition 33 which if passed would change current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Insurance companies would be allowed to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage and increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. It would also treat drivers with a lapse as continuously covered if the lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if the lapse is less than 90 days.
Proposition 33 is similar to Proposition 17, which was on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Proposition 17 was narrowly defeated. Unlike Proposition 17, Proposition 33 exempts soldiers and those who have been unemployed for 18 months or less from paying more after a lapse.
There is a provision in Ontario regulations dealing with lapses in insurance coverage. Ontario Regulation 664 prohibits an insurer from considering a lapse in insurance coverage for purposes of risk classification unless:
California law requires all drivers to buy automobile insurance. Approximately 85% of California drivers follow the law and buy insurance. If you follow the law and maintain continuous automobile insurance coverage, you are currently eligible for a discount, but only if you stay with the same insurance company. Current law punishes you for seeking better insurance or trying to get a better deal by taking away your discount for being continuously insured.
Those opposed are concerned that insurers will use the new rules to raise rates on drivers. There is concerns that people who stop driving, perhaps for economic reasons, and need to begin driving again and will therefore pay higher rates. The Ontario regulation only allows insurers raise rates due to a lapse of coverage where the lapse was the result of a driving conviction, licence suspension of policy cancellation.
UPDATE: Proposition 33 was defeated on Tuesday for the second time in three years. It was the second attempt by billionaire insurance executive George Joseph to let insurers lower rates for drivers who maintain insurance coverage and raise them for drivers who dropped coverage in the past. Consumer advocates raised about $200,000 to defeat the measure but were dramatically outspent by Joseph, who donated $16 million to the yes campaign.
A ballot proposition may be proposed by the State Legislature or by a petition signed by members of the public under the initiative system.
One of the best known was Proposition 13 in 1978 which decreased property taxes and imposed a 2/3 requirement for budget votes and tax increases. Some Propositions have been passed but found unconstitutional such as Proposition 22 in 2000 which banned same-sex marriages but was struck down by the California Supreme Court.
On November 6th, there will be eleven propositions on the ballot including Proposition 33 which if passed would change current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Insurance companies would be allowed to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage and increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. It would also treat drivers with a lapse as continuously covered if the lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if the lapse is less than 90 days.
Proposition 33 is similar to Proposition 17, which was on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Proposition 17 was narrowly defeated. Unlike Proposition 17, Proposition 33 exempts soldiers and those who have been unemployed for 18 months or less from paying more after a lapse.
There is a provision in Ontario regulations dealing with lapses in insurance coverage. Ontario Regulation 664 prohibits an insurer from considering a lapse in insurance coverage for purposes of risk classification unless:
- the insured person was convicted of driving without insurance during the lapse in coverage;
- the lapse resulted from the termination of an automobile insurance policy because the insured person failed to pay the premiums due under the policy;
- the lapse resulted from the suspension of the insured person's driver's license as a result of a driving conviction;
- the lapse resulted from the insured person's attempt to misrepresent their driving record due to earlier accidents or convictions, in order to avoid paying higher insurance premiums.
California law requires all drivers to buy automobile insurance. Approximately 85% of California drivers follow the law and buy insurance. If you follow the law and maintain continuous automobile insurance coverage, you are currently eligible for a discount, but only if you stay with the same insurance company. Current law punishes you for seeking better insurance or trying to get a better deal by taking away your discount for being continuously insured.
Those opposed are concerned that insurers will use the new rules to raise rates on drivers. There is concerns that people who stop driving, perhaps for economic reasons, and need to begin driving again and will therefore pay higher rates. The Ontario regulation only allows insurers raise rates due to a lapse of coverage where the lapse was the result of a driving conviction, licence suspension of policy cancellation.
UPDATE: Proposition 33 was defeated on Tuesday for the second time in three years. It was the second attempt by billionaire insurance executive George Joseph to let insurers lower rates for drivers who maintain insurance coverage and raise them for drivers who dropped coverage in the past. Consumer advocates raised about $200,000 to defeat the measure but were dramatically outspent by Joseph, who donated $16 million to the yes campaign.
ObamaTaxAgeddon Break: CanuckCare
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a bit burned out on the sheer volume of ObamaTax glitches, snafus, cock-ups and crashes. So, for a change of pace, let's look to our Neighbors to the North© for some inspiration.
Oh, wait.
"Canada's Supreme Court has ruled that under the "law of the land" in Ontario, a government board, not the family or doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug on a patient."
This reminds me of something, what do you suppose that is?
Oh, wait.
"Canada's Supreme Court has ruled that under the "law of the land" in Ontario, a government board, not the family or doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug on a patient."
This reminds me of something, what do you suppose that is?
Insurance News - Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Wednesday, October 29, 2014:
- Quebec is not being as aggressive as Ontario with regard to telematics since the take-up for auto usage-based insurance products has been lackluster to date.
- It's hard to imagine tomorrow’s transportation infrastructure to support driverless cars when haven't gotten around to fixing today’s infrastructure.
- In New York insurers and and trial lawyers agree the state’s no fault insurance law needs reforming but they don't agree on how. Sounds like Ontario.
- New Jersey has a bill that today is advancing in the Legislature that would establish a program to allow people to obtain endorsements on their driver’s licenses to operate and test driverless vehicles.
This Sceptered Isle - Part DLXXIV
“NHS pulls the plug on its £11bn IT system”
Hey, isn’t that good news!??! This means the Fair Kathleen has lots more programming and systems design expertise available to help her fix the federal Exchanges she’s responsible for!
In theory, the UK system was intended "to result in improved quality of care and lower costs. This theory is also widely touted by health care observers in the U.S." As we noted at the time (6 years ago!):
“As with all theory, the true test is whether it works in real life. No better way to tell than to try it out. And - maybe - the best place to try it out is somewhere else not here.”
Now, after lo! these many years and mountains of British taxpayer money, the U.K government has decided that real life is tougher than they thought - and expresses its regret (well, sort of), to wit: “a department spokesman said: "The Government recognises the weaknesses of a top-down, centrally imposed IT system.” Not to mention the cost - 11 billion British pounds sterling is nearly 18 billion US dollars.
Just to clarify, it’s the U.K. Government – not ours - that recognizes its strategic error.
Sadly, our present administration has not learned this lesson. And with each passing day it becomes more obvious that learning this lesson is going to cost American taxpayers a lot more than $18 billion.
Hey, isn’t that good news!??! This means the Fair Kathleen has lots more programming and systems design expertise available to help her fix the federal Exchanges she’s responsible for!
In theory, the UK system was intended "to result in improved quality of care and lower costs. This theory is also widely touted by health care observers in the U.S." As we noted at the time (6 years ago!):
“As with all theory, the true test is whether it works in real life. No better way to tell than to try it out. And - maybe - the best place to try it out is somewhere else not here.”
Now, after lo! these many years and mountains of British taxpayer money, the U.K government has decided that real life is tougher than they thought - and expresses its regret (well, sort of), to wit: “a department spokesman said: "The Government recognises the weaknesses of a top-down, centrally imposed IT system.” Not to mention the cost - 11 billion British pounds sterling is nearly 18 billion US dollars.
Just to clarify, it’s the U.K. Government – not ours - that recognizes its strategic error.
Sadly, our present administration has not learned this lesson. And with each passing day it becomes more obvious that learning this lesson is going to cost American taxpayers a lot more than $18 billion.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Insurance News - Monday, October 28, 2013
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Monday, October 28, 2013:
- FSCO's third quarter rate approvals are posted and they show a decline of 0.68% for the entire market. However, CAA rates are dropping by 7.15%, as the insurer appears to be the first company to aggressively accept the government rate reduction strategy.
- Ontario auto insurers are moving closer to widespread deployment of usage-based insurance programs.
- Florida appeals court finally lifts temporary ban on part of auto insurance law clearing the way for enforcement on anti-fraud reforms.
- Meanwhile, a Florida crack down on insurance fraud has led to 1,571 arrests for the first half of this year.
- Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90 percent and save $450 billion annually in the U.S. What impact will that have on premiums?
- Not only that, but data shows that self-driving cars are smoother, safer drivers than humans.
Insurance News - Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Tuesday, October 28, 2014:
- Japanese insurer is about to launch a smartphone service that warns drivers when their vehicles are approaching locations where traffic accidents frequently occur.
- Companies such as Google and Amazon may pose some of the biggest threats to insurers, as consumers increasingly trust technology behemoths to provide services such as insurance.
- A recent study concluded that Americans wasted $124 billion sitting in traffic in 2013 and traffic cost the average household $1,700 a year.
- Insurance Bureau of Canada warns UberX drivers about insurance coverage (or lack of it).
- The use of anti-fraud technology by insurers in North America is on the rise however, many companies are still struggling with the deployment of proactive predictive analytics tools because of resource constraints, according to a study.
You’ve sold it, now what happens…
I have a client, who currently has UHC RPPO, the copay is $0 for her PCP. I find out today that her Primary care doctor has been charging her a $35 copay every time she sees her. The doctor is clearly listed as a "Primary Care Physician" in the directory, and not a specialist, So I cannot figure out why she would get billed a copay like this. I have not had a chance to contact the doctor yet to investigate, but when I found this out, I was outraged, i wanted to go down to her doctor's office and demand they give her her money back.
While I admire this agent's chivalry, before he cold-cocks a doctor, maybe we should review the situation, beginning with: what is a co-payment? A co-payment is an amount of money a patient agrees to pay a physician for an appointment, as set by the insurance company, which the physician agrees to accept. These co-payments are to be collected at time of service, hopefully before the appointment ( but I digress). Some companies determine the co-payment by the type of provider (eg Family Practice or Specialist) or by appointment type (eg Physical Therapy), or even a single co-payment regardless of the appointment type or provider. In this situation, the Family Practice Doctor was charging the higher Specialist co-payment to the patient.
Let’s assume that the doctor is collecting the higher co-payment. When the doctor electronically bills the insurance company for the appointment, the co-payment of $35.00 will be reflected in the bill, so the insurance company will know what the patient paid and the charge by the provider. If the co-payment is incorrect, the doctor will receive an EOB with the $35.00 taken out of his payment and probably a note reflecting that the insurance refunded the patient the $35.00. In the end the doctor still makes the same amount of money, and it will be reflected in the doctor’s practice management system that a co-payment is not due. Insurance companies are very competent in ensuring that doctors are not, in any way, overpaid for the services they render.
To be honest, unless this provider is practicing in the dark ages, without any type of electronic practice management system or EMR, this scenario does not often play out, for two reasons:
Let’s assume that the doctor is collecting the higher co-payment. When the doctor electronically bills the insurance company for the appointment, the co-payment of $35.00 will be reflected in the bill, so the insurance company will know what the patient paid and the charge by the provider. If the co-payment is incorrect, the doctor will receive an EOB with the $35.00 taken out of his payment and probably a note reflecting that the insurance refunded the patient the $35.00. In the end the doctor still makes the same amount of money, and it will be reflected in the doctor’s practice management system that a co-payment is not due. Insurance companies are very competent in ensuring that doctors are not, in any way, overpaid for the services they render.
To be honest, unless this provider is practicing in the dark ages, without any type of electronic practice management system or EMR, this scenario does not often play out, for two reasons:
1) The HITECH Act, passed several years ago, outlines 20-plus meaningful uses that each physician’s office must adhere to in order to continue to get their Medicare monies. One of those meaningful uses is to verify insurance and the patient’s financial responsibility. This is then recorded into the software, and when the patient arrives with their insurance card and driver’s license and their paperwork filled out completely, then the patient is charged their co-payment as set by the insurance company.And:
2) Patients do not know much about their health insurance but they, by God, know how much their co-payment is and will REFUSE to pay one penny more than they owe; oftentimes they don’t even want to pay their co-payment, but again I digress.
So, I would not worry too much about the co-payment: the patient and the insurance will surely keep the doctor in line.
"The insurance company came out and looked at my car. Doesn't that commit them to paying the claim?"
No. Insurers are required to investigate claims, but the fact that they start an investigation doesn't obligate them to pay a claim that they wouldn't otherwise pay. Once the facts are gathered and reviewed, the insurer can then make a coverage decision.
That said, if you feel your claim has been wrongly denied, is delayed, isn't fair, etc., our consumer advocacy staff may be able to help you. (We're the state agency that regulates insurance in Washington state.) Email us at AskMike@oic.wa.gov or call us at 1-800-562-6900.
Not in Washington state? Here's a handy map to help you contact your own state's insurance regulator.
That said, if you feel your claim has been wrongly denied, is delayed, isn't fair, etc., our consumer advocacy staff may be able to help you. (We're the state agency that regulates insurance in Washington state.) Email us at AskMike@oic.wa.gov or call us at 1-800-562-6900.
Not in Washington state? Here's a handy map to help you contact your own state's insurance regulator.
Privacy, Shmivacy
This story has been making the rounds, and it's bad enough. If and/or when one finally does manage to log on to the ObamaTax website, if one looks closely enough, one will find this disclaimer:
"You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system"
Now there are actually two things terribly wrong with this picture:
First, the disclaimer is itself hidden inside the Terms & Conditions agreement (to which one must consent before moving forward with the process); it's available only by "using a web browser's "View Source" feature."
Talk about passing it to find out what's in it.
But that's not even the most egregious part: after all, if one is resourceful enough (and aware of its existence) one may find the CYA clause fairly easily.
No, what's truly scary is this:
Not long ago, Isuffered through underwent the training and certification process which allows me to sell new "metal" plans on the Exchange (someday, maybe). Fully 30% of that training was focused exclusively on privacy and security measures that agents must take in order to be compliant.
Section 5 promised that its completion would allow me to:
■ Define PII (Personally Identifiable Information)
■ Identify the extent to which PII may be used and disclosed
■ Identify key privacy responsibilities and restrictions associated with PII under the Marketplaces
Specifically:
"You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system"
Now there are actually two things terribly wrong with this picture:
First, the disclaimer is itself hidden inside the Terms & Conditions agreement (to which one must consent before moving forward with the process); it's available only by "using a web browser's "View Source" feature."
Talk about passing it to find out what's in it.
But that's not even the most egregious part: after all, if one is resourceful enough (and aware of its existence) one may find the CYA clause fairly easily.
No, what's truly scary is this:
Not long ago, I
Section 5 promised that its completion would allow me to:
■ Define PII (Personally Identifiable Information)
■ Identify the extent to which PII may be used and disclosed
■ Identify key privacy responsibilities and restrictions associated with PII under the Marketplaces
Specifically:
Two key points to remember about this definition:
1. This definition may be different than definitions provided under other laws. It is important that you are familiar with this federal definition and how it applies to Marketplace information.
2. A key component to the definition is that PII involves information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual. Therefore, if it is possible to link information to an individual, this information would be considered PII, even if it has not yet been linked to that individual.Now compare that with what the Navigators on the phone at the actual government-run web-site have privy to, and yet are completely exempted from, and the web-site itself, which is also exempted from these burdensome requirements.
The purpose of Section 6, we're told, is to enable us to:
■ Define the term "information security"
■ Identify three key elements to protecting information
■ Identify the differences between threats, vulnerabilities, and risks to information
■ Identify certain controls that agents and brokers can take to protect information within the Marketplaces
■ List steps that agents and brokers can take to help promote information security in the Marketplaces
■ Identify types of security incidents
■ List steps for responding to a privacy breach as it relates to information security management
And here's a snippet from that section:
• Information security is achieved through implementing technical, management, and operational measures designed to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of informationBoth "snippets" are culled from the actual on-line coursework, which is available by clicking the highlighted sections. I figure Ms Shecantbeserious is entitled to just as much privacy as the rest of us.
• The goal of an information security program is to understand, manage, and reduce the risk to information under the control of the organization.
• In today’s work environment, many information systems are electronic; however the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a media neutral policy towards information. This means that any data must be protected — whether it is in electronic, paper, or oral format.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Children's open enrollment ends Monday, Oct. 31
If you need an individual health plan for your child or want to add them to your insurance, you have until Monday, Oct. 31. After that, unless you meet certain requirements, you'll have to wait until March 15-April 30, 2012.
There are some exceptions that allow children to be enrolled anytime during the year. Parents must apply for their child within 31 days of the following events if either they or their child:
There are some exceptions that allow children to be enrolled anytime during the year. Parents must apply for their child within 31 days of the following events if either they or their child:
- No longer qualify for a state program.
- Lose coverage due to a divorce.
- Lose employer-sponsored coverage (including COBRA).
- Move and their plan is not available where they live.
- Also, parents or guardians can apply year-round for individual coverage within 60 days of birth, adoption, or placement of a child for adoption.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Arraignment for Spokane man who claimed repo-ed truck was stolen
Andrew James Petrie, 28, was arraigned today in Spokane County Superior Court for claiming that his truck had been stolen when in reality it had been repossessed.
He faces one count of first-degree attempted theft and one count of insurance fraud.
He faces one count of first-degree attempted theft and one count of insurance fraud.
Cavalcade of Risk #195: Call for submissions
Jason Hull hosts next week's Cav. Entries are due by Monday (the 28th).
To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email it.
You'll need to provide:
■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post
PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like). And please only submit if you are willing to link back to the carnival if your submission is accepted.
To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email it.
You'll need to provide:
■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post
PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like). And please only submit if you are willing to link back to the carnival if your submission is accepted.
Dwight Duncan To Retire
Earlier I had written on the impact of Premier Dalton McGuinty's resignation on the auto insurance system. At the time I had speculated, as had others, that Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan would be running for Liberal leadership.
McGuinty had informed his Cabinet that ministers planning to run for leader would have to resign from Cabinet. I can tell you from experience that this was a wise decision. Back in 2002, when Mike Harris stepped down as premier of Ontario he did not ask his ministers to resign if there were running to replace him. As a result Cabinet dissolved into competing factions and was pretty dysfunctional for a while. I had an opportunity to observe this first hand when appearing before a Cabinet committee I witnessed a war break out over a minor regulation change being brought to the committee by the minister who was a leadership candidate where the committee chair was also leadership candidate.
My earlier post had suggested that with Minister Duncan resigning to run for leader, there would be little happening on the auto insurance file for some time. Now that he appears to be staying in Cabinet there will be some opportunities over the next few months to move some auto insurance issues forward. There will be no legislative changes with the legislature having been prorogued, but they may be opportunities to make some regulatory changes since Cabinet will continue to meet.
This window will be small with a leadership vote over the weekend of January 25th. Shortly after the new premier will likely be appointing a new Cabinet before calling an election. Since Minister Duncan has announced he will not be running for re-election, he will certainly be replaced shortly after the Liberal leadership convention.
So during this small window, if the outgoing minister still wants to make changes to the UDAP regulations or the definition of catastrophic impairment, it is possible. In addition, since he is leaving office he may be may more willing to introduce changes that might be more contentious.
So this change in events creates a different set of opportunities and possibilities, so stay tuned. It could get interesting.
McGuinty had informed his Cabinet that ministers planning to run for leader would have to resign from Cabinet. I can tell you from experience that this was a wise decision. Back in 2002, when Mike Harris stepped down as premier of Ontario he did not ask his ministers to resign if there were running to replace him. As a result Cabinet dissolved into competing factions and was pretty dysfunctional for a while. I had an opportunity to observe this first hand when appearing before a Cabinet committee I witnessed a war break out over a minor regulation change being brought to the committee by the minister who was a leadership candidate where the committee chair was also leadership candidate.
My earlier post had suggested that with Minister Duncan resigning to run for leader, there would be little happening on the auto insurance file for some time. Now that he appears to be staying in Cabinet there will be some opportunities over the next few months to move some auto insurance issues forward. There will be no legislative changes with the legislature having been prorogued, but they may be opportunities to make some regulatory changes since Cabinet will continue to meet.
This window will be small with a leadership vote over the weekend of January 25th. Shortly after the new premier will likely be appointing a new Cabinet before calling an election. Since Minister Duncan has announced he will not be running for re-election, he will certainly be replaced shortly after the Liberal leadership convention.
So during this small window, if the outgoing minister still wants to make changes to the UDAP regulations or the definition of catastrophic impairment, it is possible. In addition, since he is leaving office he may be may more willing to introduce changes that might be more contentious.
So this change in events creates a different set of opportunities and possibilities, so stay tuned. It could get interesting.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Insurance tips for consumers affected by Longview tornado
Yesterday, people in the Longview area experienced a tornado, a rare occurrence in Washington state. Luckily, there are no reports of injuries but there was some property damage to buildings and vehicles, according to news reports. Read more about the tornado in The Columbian newspaper.
Standard homeowner and commercial property policies typically cover damage caused by tornados or wind. Damage from tornados can damage building exteriors and roofs, which can leave them susceptible to water damage from rain, and can cause trees to fall on buildings and cars. Personal auto and commercial auto policies would need to have comprehensive coverage in order pay for damage caused by wind.
If you experienced any damage from yesterday’s tornado, contact your agent or broker to discuss what coverage you actually have and to get your claim started. If you have questions, you can contact our consumer advocates online or at 1-800-562-6900.
 |
| Photo courtesy KING5.com |
If you experienced any damage from yesterday’s tornado, contact your agent or broker to discuss what coverage you actually have and to get your claim started. If you have questions, you can contact our consumer advocates online or at 1-800-562-6900.
Does insurance cover space junk crashing to earth?
If pieces of a satellite crash on your home or car -- or on you -- does insurance cover that?
Yes, according to the Insurance Information Institute:
"Damages caused by falling objects are generally covered under standard auto, business, homeowners, and life insurance policies..."
the industry group says. It also noted, however, that the odds of being struck by space debris are extremely low.
Yes, according to the Insurance Information Institute:
"Damages caused by falling objects are generally covered under standard auto, business, homeowners, and life insurance policies..."
the industry group says. It also noted, however, that the odds of being struck by space debris are extremely low.
In what state am I most likely to hit a deer?
West Virginia has topped the list for six years in a row, with other particularly dangerous states being virtually all of the northern Midwestern states and the mid-Atlantic states. South Dakota's No. 2, and Iowa's No. 3.
Washington, it turns out, is one of the lowest-risk states, coming in at No. 43 this year. Your odds of hitting a deer in the Evergreen State are a mere 1 in 477, according to State Farm's estimates.
The company estimates that there are about 10,700 collisons with deer in Washington state each year. (Compare that with, say, Pennsylvania's 115,000.)
Oregon is No. 37 on the list, and Idaho's 33.
Arizona, perhaps not surprisingly, is the stae in which you're least likely to run into a deer. Armadillos, however, were not part of the study.
Here's the full list.
Did Anyone Conduct Due Diligence on Sebelius?
From an insurance agents perspective, when you look at the way #Obamacare was cobbled
together (the law, not the website) you have to ask yourself if HHS Secretary Sebelius learned anything at all during her 8 year tenure as Insurance Commissioner.
The answer is, she must have slept through the entire 8 years because she certainly did not learn anything.
But her lack of knowledge of the insurance industry apparently is not the only shortfall.
The answer is, she must have slept through the entire 8 years because she certainly did not learn anything.
But her lack of knowledge of the insurance industry apparently is not the only shortfall.
Sebelius oversaw numerous costly and disastrous government website projects during her six-year governorship (2003-2009), including a failed update of the Department of Labor’s program to provide unemployment pay and other services and similar updates pertaining to the Department of Administration and the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) services.
“In the Kansas Senate, I chaired the Commerce committee. We had oversight over the Department of Labor. For years, we watched as the Department of Labor under Sebelius worked on that computer program. After seven years and $50 million, something should work,” Brownlee told TheDC.
“In Kansas if you have a 40 or 50 million dollar project, that’s a lot of money,” Brownlee said, noting that the Labor Department project was funded by federal money while other Sebelius website projects sucked up state taxpayer dollars. “They started and stopped that project with at least 3 different major contractors.”
She had experience, if you can call it that, in blowing through $50 million on a project that still didn't work right.
Her reward was to put her in charge of a project that started out as $90 million and quickly grew to over $600 million . . . and counting.
Only in DC would a move like that make sense.
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Thursday, October 24, 2013:
- Canadian Centre for Study of Insurance Operations to release telematics data standards in January 2014.
- According to a Towers Watson survey the P&C market in Canada and the U.S. is hardening. So what additional impact will the Ontario legislated 15% rate reduction have?
- The U.K. plans to introduce independent medical panels to validate whiplash claims and surprisingly the proposal is supported by defense and plaintiff bar.
- Google's Director of Safety reports that even the best automotive safety technology can't possibly save every life. The limit to the effectiveness of safety technology is the way people use it (or don't use it).
- Looking into the future when self-driven cars cause crashes who will pay the auto insurer or product liability insurer?
- Watch a self-driving Nissan Leaf avoid a pedestrian on the road:
Health Wonk Review - Ignore at Your Peril edition is up
Jaan Siderov, one of my very favorite wonk-bloggers, presents this week's snarky but effective round-up of posts on health care policy and polity, And it looks like IB's contributed a new catchphrase - but you'll have to read the 'Review to find out what it is.
Kudos, Jaan!
Kudos, Jaan!
Friday, October 23, 2015
Kreidler fines insurer $500,000
Washington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler is fining Ohio-based BCS Insurance Company $500,000 for issuing hundreds of thousands of policies using unapproved rates and policy language.
“A fair insurance market depends on companies playing by the rules,” said Kreidler. “When an insurer files rates and policy language with us, that’s what we expect them to use.”
BCS Insurance has agreed to pay the fine. An additional $250,000 fine is suspended, provided the company commits no similar violations for two years. The company has also agreed to a two-year plan, including internal audits, to make sure the company is in compliance with Washington state law.
An investigation by Kreidler’s office found that between 2007 and 2009, BCS issued over 500,000 travel insurance policies that were different from the policy language filed with the state. Rates for identical benefits were inconsistent, depending on who the customer was.
“A fair insurance market depends on companies playing by the rules,” said Kreidler. “When an insurer files rates and policy language with us, that’s what we expect them to use.”
BCS Insurance has agreed to pay the fine. An additional $250,000 fine is suspended, provided the company commits no similar violations for two years. The company has also agreed to a two-year plan, including internal audits, to make sure the company is in compliance with Washington state law.
An investigation by Kreidler’s office found that between 2007 and 2009, BCS issued over 500,000 travel insurance policies that were different from the policy language filed with the state. Rates for identical benefits were inconsistent, depending on who the customer was.
Let's clear something up
Over at RedState, Moe Lane has a post up detailing a conversation ("online chat") between a potential ObamaTax buyer and one of the helpful help-desk folks. The whole thing's worth a read (it's pretty short), but here's the lede:
"You have until March 2014 to enroll ..."
Wrong!
"... health insurance coverage typically starts on the first day of a given month, and it takes up to 15 days to process applications ... to successfully accomplish that you have to send in your application by the middle of February."
So what else is Dean (et al) getting wrong?
"You have until March 2014 to enroll ..."
Wrong!
"... health insurance coverage typically starts on the first day of a given month, and it takes up to 15 days to process applications ... to successfully accomplish that you have to send in your application by the middle of February."
So what else is Dean (et al) getting wrong?
Breaking: ObamaTax website fixed!
The RH Group has managed the impossible - a working ObamaTax website.
Click here to check it out.
Click here to check it out.
And for those who really want to know, JWF has found the unsecured HHS site with real premiums (unsubsidized). Unfortunately, these aren't a joke.
Cannon-fire scores a hit
A while back, we noted that uber-wonk Michael Cannon claimed that citizens of states with Fed-run Exchanges weren't eligible for ObamaTax subsidies, and that the employer mandate was inoperative in those states. At the time, the story didn't have a lot of "legs;" indeed, the IRS ran rough-shod right over it, announcing far and wide that they were going to ignore that part of the actual, written, passed-by-Congress and sign-by-the-President law.
As one might imagine, this hasn't sat well with various and sundry folks who feel, perhaps nostalgically, that the law-as-written should mean something, and so a group of them filed suit to have it enforced.
The lawsuit has languished for a while, but has now been given new life by a Federal judge who - gasp! - understands that the plaintiffs have a legitimate case:
"A federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law ... 'The IRS cannot rewrite the law that Congress passed'"
But of course they can do just that, and so far what's stopping them?
Bueller? Anyone?
As one might imagine, this hasn't sat well with various and sundry folks who feel, perhaps nostalgically, that the law-as-written should mean something, and so a group of them filed suit to have it enforced.
The lawsuit has languished for a while, but has now been given new life by a Federal judge who - gasp! - understands that the plaintiffs have a legitimate case:
"A federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law ... 'The IRS cannot rewrite the law that Congress passed'"
But of course they can do just that, and so far what's stopping them?
Bueller? Anyone?
MVNHS© News
It's been a while since we've heard from the Much Vaunted National Health System© (aka that which the ObamaTax seeks to become), which is a shame, since it provides a glimpse into our own future, health-wise.
First up, the Independent reports that "free" health care isn't really, um, free:
"Stagnant health spending combined with ever rising costs and demand mean the NHS is facing "the most challenging period in its 65-year existence," ... In a frank assessment of the dangers faced by the health service, senior officials ... say that the two years following the next general election will be pivotal in deciding whether the NHS can continue to provide free health care for all patients."
I think that we can all surmise what the answer will be. Math is relentless.
Next, the Daily Mail reports that the MVNHS© may well have found its cost-cutting groove:
"GPs have been paid bonuses to put elderly patients on controversial ‘death lists’ in an attempt to save the NHS money by cutting the number of people who die in hospital"
At $81 (£50) a pop, a doc could make a nice living on these one-way tickets to Liverpool (Pathway, that is).
Easy come, easy go.
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
First up, the Independent reports that "free" health care isn't really, um, free:
"Stagnant health spending combined with ever rising costs and demand mean the NHS is facing "the most challenging period in its 65-year existence," ... In a frank assessment of the dangers faced by the health service, senior officials ... say that the two years following the next general election will be pivotal in deciding whether the NHS can continue to provide free health care for all patients."
I think that we can all surmise what the answer will be. Math is relentless.
Next, the Daily Mail reports that the MVNHS© may well have found its cost-cutting groove:
"GPs have been paid bonuses to put elderly patients on controversial ‘death lists’ in an attempt to save the NHS money by cutting the number of people who die in hospital"
At $81 (£50) a pop, a doc could make a nice living on these one-way tickets to Liverpool (Pathway, that is).
Easy come, easy go.
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Why does my insurer ask such tough questions about my claim?
We get this question a lot. The insurance industry experiences millions of dollars of claims regularly, year after year. Many of the claims are legitimate, but unfortunately, many involve fraud.
Whether or not a claim is legitimate or fraudulent, it is important that insurance companies perform complete investigations and gather all supportive documentation to be able to evaluate a claim.
Of course, the claim process is not a fun thing to experience, but it is necessary that you cooperate with the insurer to help facilitate your claim. Expect them to want supporting documentation and to ask questions - it may take a bit of time. But, after you've answered their questions and provided the necessary information, you should expect a timely decision and a clear explanation of their decision. If you don't that you've been treated fairly, call us at 1-800-562-6900 or file a complaint. Maybe we can help!
Insurers largely unprepared for climate change
A report issued today found only 9 percent of insurers are well prepared to face the risks posed by a changing climate. Only two of those insurers are headquartered in the United States.
Ceres today released its 2014 climate preparedness scorecard, which ranks the nation's 330 largest insurance companies on what they are saying and doing to respond to escalating climate risks. The report is based on a 2013 survey of insurers with an excess of $100 million in direct written premiums conducted by insurance regulators in Washington, California, Connecticut, Minnesota and New York.
More results:
- 276 of the 330 companies that responded scored in in the bottom half.
- The top nine best-prepared companies are: ACE, Munich Re, Swiss Re, Allianz, Prudential, XL Group, The Hartford, Sompo Japan and Zurich. Only The Hartford and Prudential are headquartered in the United States.
- Overall, property and casualty (P&C) insurers are better prepared than life and health insurers, which are largely unprepared.
Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler and the other insurance regulators care about this issue for a couple of reasons – first, climate change brings extreme weather events, which can cause widespread damage to homes and other property, as we saw during this summer's wildfires. More frequent and more severe natural disasters mean more claims, which means insurance companies need to make sure they have enough money to pay those claims. Insurers can help maintain their financial solvency by making sure their money is invested soundly and in climate-friendly ways. Secondly, insurance companies can reduce their risk by being proactive. Kreidler has called for insurers to get involved in building codes, land use practices and working with developers to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
“The insurance industry is uniquely positioned as the bearer of risk to make adjustments now to lessen dramatic impacts we know are coming. This is not a partisan issue, it’s a financial solvency issue and a consumer protection issue,” Kreidler said in the Ceres news release.
Take a look at our media roundup about the report findings.
Insurance News - Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Tuesday, October 22, 2013:
- Is personal lines auto worth fighting from an independent broker perspective?
- Growing trend in kickback schemes and staged accidents in Minnesota to take advantage of the state’s no-fault laws.
- If you need any proof of the problem there, a federal lawsuit filed October 14 accuses a diagnostic imaging company and 46 chiropractors of engaging in an elaborate kickback scheme aimed at defrauding Minnesota’s no-fault insurance system.
- Aging baby boomers expected to drive demand for self-driving cars as accident rates for seniors rise.
- To capitalize on a burgeoning market, the University of Michigan has approved a $6.5 million track for testing self-driving vehicles.
- Kathleen Wynne to launch ‘open government’ push but is the problem really lack of government transparency or is it Cabinet decision-making is clouded in secrecy?
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
NEWS FLASH! Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks!
Having problems logging in? Now you can have your very own version of ObamaCare...
Rumor has it that the 6 CD version should be out sometime in 2016.
Rumor has it that the 6 CD version should be out sometime in 2016.
Having trouble reaching the Exchange's call center?
We know Washington's Exchange, www.wahealthplanfinder.org is still experiencing high call volumes at most times of the day. If you need help getting started, consider calling a navigator or an insurance broker. You can find both in your area by entering your zip code. Here's the info. for finding a navigator and the broker information.