Why not limit insurance companys' profit margin on malpractice policies?

[PurityOfEssence]

Well, of course, we know the reason: limiting PROFITS is unholy in this country. It would also expose the fleecing the physicians are getting and show that accountability really isn't the reason for inhuman medical expenses here. Insurance companies treat the medical profession like a hostage, extorting ever more from those who have no choice. It's a charming plan, though: they get to make good their losses in bad, greedy investments, and they can scream bloody murder and get their true goal, which is immunity from responsibility.

If they REALLY wanted to do something about the health care crisis--and that's a REAL crisis--they would limit insurance companies' profit margin on these policies to something like, oh, say 8%, or even have the government do it.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Funny.

Why does no one ever bring things like this up? It's like tax breaks for the rich that are ostensibly to stimulate investment; why aren't the breaks only available if you prove you use the money to invest? Or how about the inheritance tax being used to save small businesses; why isn't it written in that legitimate small businesses warrant the break, whereas huge family accumulations don't?

We continually let them give a bogus reason for sweeping legislation that benefit the rich or corporations, without making the justification a built-in mechanism. Reality is our best weapon, yet we never seem to use it.

[The empressof all]

1. What are you a commie or something?

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[havocmom]

2. Insurance companies make their $$ by investing premium payments

in the stock market. When the market doesn't preform well, rates go up. It's always been that way. Malpractice suits/awards are down of late. States which have gone the 'tort reform' route have not seen lower rates. That exposed 'tort reform' for what it really is: limits on how accountable citizens can hold corporations to be.

[qwghlmian]

3. I would be all for limiting their profit margin -

as long as you also make a guarantee to limit their loss margin. Ready to do that?

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Yep.

Let's make it yearly. Profit margin is set for the year based on previous settlement payouts, and if the company makes more than 8%, it refunds to its insured proportionate to the premium, and some to a government fund set up for excessive overages. Should the set amount due based on the previous years' balance sheet eat into the agreed upon margin--or cause a loss--then additional premiums could be assessed (within some limit, with the excess being guaranteed by the government and hopefully made up by the aforementioned fund). There are ways to make this work.

It's all just patching an idiotic system promulgated by the madness that medicine should be done for profit in all cases. We should have socialized medicine, with a private industry for those who have the monies to spend beyond reasonable basic care. There's just a rabid hatred for taking the profit motive out of ANYTHING in this country, even if it costs untold lives, suffering and even more expense in the long run.

Don't you agree that there are mechanisms like these that can make things work?

[qwghlmian]

6. If you take the profit out of it -

then no one will do it. If you set limits for profits and losses at the same time, then you might as well just have the government run the insurance - why have a private company do it at all?

[meow2u3]

4. This is known as tort reform translated into English

Corporate immunity and impunity.