Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Berlau on Obama's New Regs: So Much for That
As Tim Cavanaugh just noted,
les regulations nouveau est sont
arrivent les nouvelles régulations sont
arrivées! The Competitive Enterprise Institute's John Berlau
has issued a
quick and detailed response:
Early on in the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that his economic team was pursuing true regulatory reform and modernization, consolidating and combining functions of key financial agencies and moving away from the "more is better" approach to regulation that had been followed even in some Republican administration in response to a crisis. Even this week, administration officials Tim Geithner and Larry Summers wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the current "framework for financial regulation" contains "jurisdictional overlaps, and suffers from an outdated conception of financial risk.
Initial reports indicate, however, that these early hopes of a more accountable regulatory structure have been dashed.
Whole thing worth a read. Berlau's Reason archive here.
hmm|6.17.09 @ 1:08PM|#
He's still speaking, but I'm pretty sure the one group of people
not mentioned in the regulation and creation there of were the
industries regulated.
That's a little odd. The most successfully regulated industries
result from the regulators and those regulated working closely in
all aspects.
Russ 2000|6.17.09 @ 1:27PM|#
I don't know about you, but Tim's comment made more sense to me than hmm's, and I don't understand French.
|6.17.09 @ 1:41PM|#
"Mais non, les regs sont arrivees."
Comment dis tu "Grammer Nazi" en français?
En plus t'as oublié le accent sur arrivées.
Jonas|6.17.09 @ 1:52PM|#
N'oubliez pas que c'est "nouvelles".
If I'm remembering my French correctly...
|6.17.09 @ 2:13PM|#
The most successfully regulated industries result from the
regulators and those regulated working closely in all
aspects.
But "those regulated" are greedy, baby-kicking CEOs. You can't
allow them a seat at the table. They're greedy.
GREEEEEDEEEEY!!!!11!
|6.17.09 @ 2:31PM|#
But "those regulated" are greedy, baby-kicking CEOs. You
can't allow them a seat at the table. They're greedy.
GREEEEEDEEEEY!!!!11!
I know you are trying to be sarcastic. but they are fucking
greedy.
Here are the CEOs of 3 major health insurance companies talking to
a congressional committee about their companies habit of wrongfully
dropping sick people -- who have been paying their health insurance
premiums -- once they get sick and need to make claims (this is
called 'rescission').
Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."
The answer from all three executives: "No."
Some reasons why people were dropped from their coverage:
A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.
The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him
No they aren't greedy at all.
People who have been paying their policy and done nothing wrong are
being dropped because they will essentially be expensive to
treat.
Why would we let the fox be part of the plan to keep the hen house
secure?
|6.17.09 @ 2:52PM|#
The most successfully regulated industries result from the
regulators and those regulated working closely in all
aspects.
If, by "successful" you mean "effective at erecting barriers to
entry while establishing above-market rates of return for
entrenched firms", okay.
Stephen Smith|6.17.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Ha, you're all wrong about the French. It should read:
Les nouvelles régulations sont arrivées.
It's "nouvelles" rather than "nouveau" because "régulations" is
plural and feminine. The accent goes above the e in "régulations"
because, well, it just does. The "nouvelles" precedes "régulations"
because it's one of the few adjectives that comes before the noun.
It's "sont" and not "est" because "régulations" is plural, and it's
"sont" rather than "ont" because "arriver" is an action verb and
thus is an être rather than avoir verb. And it's "arrivées" and not
"arrivé" because, when you have an être verb as opposed to an avoir
verb, the past participle must agree with the subject.
Quéstions?
|6.17.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Some reasons why people were dropped from their
coverage:
I've learned one rule of thumb in twenty years of practicing law -
never take one side's story at face value.
Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his
company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could
show "intentional fraud."
The answer from all three executives: "No."
Why shouldn't any material breach of the contract be enough to
justify a rescission? The intentional fraud standard would bar
rescission when, for example, people stopped paying their
premiums.
|6.17.09 @ 5:11PM|#
I've learned one rule of thumb in twenty years of practicing
law - never take one side's story at face value.
Well the other side isn't denying the validity of the
stories.
Why shouldn't any material breach of the contract be enough to
justify a rescission
Because intent matters.
Because honest mistakes shouldn't result in loss of coverage
especially when they keep taking your premiums and then only throw
you off the rolls when you get sick.
Because forgetting that you went to a dermo for acne has NO BEARING
on you cancer.
In fact, I think the rule should be that if they don't catch the
fraud within 60-90 days of enrollment, then they can't thrown you
off the rolls.
Look, you can argue that if they covered up a pre-existing
condition they should be thrown off the rolls, but people who made
a good faith effort to be honest about their health history who
might have missed something somewhere (most people cant tell you
the name of, date of and reason/outcome of every doctor you have
seen in the past 10 or so years) shouldn't get cut off once they
make a claim after they have been paying their premiums.
The intentional fraud standard would bar rescission when, for
example, people stopped paying their premiums.
Canceling for non-payment isn't a rescission.
A company can cancel someones policy for non-payment.
A rescission is like the contract never existed, rather than one
party breaching the contract.
|6.17.09 @ 5:59PM|#
Well the other side isn't denying the validity of the
stories.
ChicagoTom, insurance companies are subject to HIPAA, and are
barred by law from responding to these kinds of allegations without
the written consent of the insured. When a response is prohibited
by law, the lack of a response is not really an admission.
Because intent matters.
It does if the contract says it does. I don't think I've ever seen
a contract that says it can be cancelled or voided only for
intentional breaches.
I'm not saying that rescission hasn't been abused. I'm just saying
that allowing it only for intentional fraud is going too far.
Canceling for non-payment isn't a rescission. A company can
cancel someones policy for non-payment.
A rescission is like the contract never existed, rather than one
party breaching the contract.
True. Bad example.
In fact, I think the rule should be that if they don't catch
the fraud within 60-90 days of enrollment, then they can't thrown
you off the rolls.
Make that an option that people can elect and pay for, and I got no
problem. More insurance mandates, though, only increase the cost of
coverage for everyone, and lead more people to not have coverage. I
thought that was the problem we are trying to solve, no?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245