More to the point, why didn't Governor Abbott mention yesterday that this bill is about to go into effect (September 1st), will impact a large number of the people hit by Harvey, and that they ought to file claims before the end of this month? Could it be that he doesn't care? That he cares more for the insurance companies than the people of Texas? Could it be that he doesn't want to attempt to explain to the general public why this bill was passed in the first place? Time is running out. After tomorrow, it will be too late. Texas House Bill 1774 is a blow to the people of Texas hit hard by Hurricane Harvey. The Governor, the Lt Governor, and the Legislature don't want to publicize what they did. Yet another gift to big business, paid for by ordinary Texans, who will begin paying September 1st.
yea figuring out the downside to having higher penalties does not apply at all here..... you should always be skeptical of any article or discussion in which one side is obviously not being presented. why wouldn't a business include an expense when calculating pricing? what type of stupid ass practice would that be. the purpose of almost all tort reform is to lower costs.
You asked the question of what happens when we move the rate to the extreme, which is something that was never proposed or considered. You are welcome to do the research and show conclusions, but as is, it is irrelevant to this discussions. Serves as nothing more than a distraction. Because risk premiums are made on actuarial calculations and valuation models, and very specific variables go into those models. There is an accepted science too it.
Do you have a compulsion to defend every indefensible act the Republican Governor and Lt Governor, the Republican House and the Republican Senate of the Texas Legislature pass that has a negative impact on the citizens of Texas? Do you not care about the citizens of Texas, unless you can find a way to line your pockets? What was the point of this legislation? It certainly wasn't to help the general public of this state. It does the exact opposite.
alright ill rephrase the exact same question for you. Whats the downside to having higher penalties? businesses do not ignore costs of doing business. They consider them. havent defended the bill as I have no position on it. Like i said, I would want to look at data from other states to determine if 18% or 10% is better. Nobody has made an argument regarding this yet.
It's not our responsibility to do your research for you. Go out, do your own research, and come back with an opinion.
Nah. I just dont do the internet pitchfork thing. Gotta love these 'discussions' though....... so healthy didn't say it was your responsibility. how dare I ask people to defend their position on the bill.
Maybe you just don't realize how transparent you? Find a traditional leftist position, ask vague, broad, or leading questions, which aims to counter the leftist position. Act like a innocent information seeker, when people call you out for your tactics. When the information is given, attack the source or resort to ridiculous logical fallacies. And ultimately continue your "well I just don't see the data to support this" so I can't support this. It's not clever.
tort reform to lower insurance premiums isn't usually considered left/right. nothing vague about this question that you dodged: Whats the downside to having higher penalties? innocent of what?
