Insurance Costs

[corjulo]

MALPRACTICE

Here's another study of medical malpractice that comes to the same conclusion as practically every other study done in the past couple of years: the medical malpractice "crisis" is mostly an invention of insurance companies and their friends in Congress. As the attached chart shows, malpractice payouts have grown at about the same rate as medical costs in general. In 1992, malpractice payouts amounted to about 0.3% of total healthcare spending and 1.2% of physician and clinical spending. In 2002, the numbers were....0.3% and 1.2%.

(And yes, before anyone asks, these figures are for both court judgments and out-of-court settlements. It includes everything.)

The basic numbers are pretty simple: the number of total judgments per physician has gone gradually down, while the total value of payouts has gone gradually up. However, the increase has been small, and matches the overall growth in medical costs.

You can argue about whether malpractice costs should grow at the same rate as overall medical costs or not, but it's a tiny argument, not an excuse for crisis mongering. In fact, what's most striking about the numbers is that growth in payouts has been steady and slow. There haven't been any spikes, and certainly no excuse for sudden 100% increases in insurance premiums.

Analysts on all sides of this debate agree that reform of the malpractice process would be a good idea. But for the most part, the skyrocketing premiums we've seen over the past couple of years are the result of insurance company incompetence and greed, not actual increases in malpractice. I wonder how much of aviation insurance costs are the result of the same imbalance. I would like to see AAOP study this

 

[poadeleted3]

Perhaps you should try convincing an ob-gyn of your theory. Or maybe a good family practitioner. We seem to be having issues finding either one here. Cathy had to wait three months for her ob-gyn appointment. In Charleston, WV, it was nearly impossible to find one that was accepting new patients at all. Insurance and malpractice awards are the reasons I'm hearing for them going out of business or going to more friendly states. I'll be sure and let them know that Dan says there isn't a problem.

 

[Brian Austin]

Insurance is going up all over the place. My next door neighbor just quit running his own welding business. Three years ago his liability insurance was $5K for the year. Last year it was $13K. Now they want $47K!!!! No claims, no issues, nothing has changed. He simply can't afford to do it any longer. Scratch one more small business off the list, thanks to insurance.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Perhaps you should try convincing an ob-gyn of your theory. Or maybe a good family practitioner. We seem to be having issues finding either one here. Cathy had to wait three months for her ob-gyn appointment. In Charleston, WV, it was nearly impossible to find one that was accepting new patients at all. Insurance and malpractice awards are the reasons I'm hearing for them going out of business or going to more friendly states. I'll be sure and let them know that Dan says there isn't a problem.

Joe, I believe you missed Dan's point. The data he presented didn't discuss premiums (insurance company income), it discussed settlements (insurance company costs). The data shows that the costs haven't changed dramatically as a % of health expenses. What has changed dramatically, and your anecdotal data supports, is insurance premiums. IOW, if the data is the whole story, it appears that insurance companies have increased their income using the false claim that their costs (settlements) have increased dramatically.

 

[corjulo]

Perhaps you should try convincing an ob-gyn of your theory. Or maybe a good family practitioner. We seem to be having issues finding either one here. Cathy had to wait three months for her ob-gyn appointment. In Charleston, WV, it was nearly impossible to find one that was accepting new patients at all. Insurance and malpractice awards are the reasons I'm hearing for them going out of business or going to more friendly states. I'll be sure and let them know that Dan says there isn't a problem.[/QUOTE


Joe. READ WHAT I WROTE BEFORE COMMENTING NEXT TIME. The point was that rates HAVE gone through the roof. The chart CLEARLY states that. The point of contention is what is the cause. Insurance company business practices or lawsuits.
And as any doctor will tell you, if you treat the condition assuming the wrong cause the patient is likely to get sicker

 

[corjulo]

It was deregulation and a wave of overprices takeovers that has driven up rates.

 

[poadeleted3]

Perhaps you should try convincing an ob-gyn of your theory. Or maybe a good family practitioner. We seem to be having issues finding either one here. Cathy had to wait three months for her ob-gyn appointment. In Charleston, WV, it was nearly impossible to find one that was accepting new patients at all. Insurance and malpractice awards are the reasons I'm hearing for them going out of business or going to more friendly states. I'll be sure and let them know that Dan says there isn't a problem.[/QUOTE


Joe. READ WHAT I WROTE BEFORE COMMENTING NEXT TIME. The point was that rates HAVE gone through the roof. The chart CLEARLY states that. The point of contention is what is the cause. Insurance company business practices or lawsuits.
And as any doctor will tell you, if you treat the condition assuming the wrong cause the patient is likely to get sicker

I read what you wrote dan. I just think it's a load of BS. Insurance costs are going up, because claims are going up. It's that simple.

 

[poadeleted3]

Joe, I believe you missed Dan's point. The data he presented didn't discuss premiums (insurance company income), it discussed settlements (insurance company costs). The data shows that the costs haven't changed dramatically as a % of health expenses. What has changed dramatically, and your anecdotal data supports, is insurance premiums. IOW, if the data is the whole story, it appears that insurance companies have increased their income using the false claim that their costs (settlements) have increased dramatically.

I didn't miss his point, Ed. Just more of the same leftist "capitalist corporations are evil" crap. His point is invalid, his argument is wrong. If it were a simple matter of insurance rates going up, and if claims were truly declining, more doctors would be going bare. Instead, they are choosing to uproot their families, or give up their livelihoods. Sorry, but ya'll are going to have to look beyond your tired evil corporations line, right into the dependancy that leftist politics have foisted on this nation, and it's welfare/lawsuit lottery mentality.

 

[Greebo]

I read what you wrote dan. I just think it's a load of BS. Insurance costs are going up, because claims are going up. It's that simple.

Having written the underwriting software for a major NON-PROFIT insurance company in Maryland in the late 90's, I'm of the distinct impression of insurance companies in general that their primary focus is making as much money as they can while paying out as little as possible.

Having also been a member in that same ins. co's coverage and having had to argue with them over perfectly valid claim after perfectly valid claim, I'm even more inclined to believe that the companies are all about jacking up premiums and paying out as little as possible.

You wouldn't BELIEVE the smoke and mirror games this NON PROFIT health care company plays with its underwriting forumulas to invent bogus charges for things like 'Network Access Fees'. I literally wrote two reports in the underwriting system for showing plan costs for new/renewing groups - one for the inside people, one for the groups/agents to see. The agent/client side had about 6 really good sounding line items that all rolled into one line item on the insider side: PROFIT.

 

[wsuffa]

I'll throw another hand grenade in this cesspool.

Part of the issue is that corporations, as they grow larger, tend to retain larger parts of the risk themselves (e.g. they self-insure). Yes, they maintain reinsurance (aka excess coverage), but the cost for claims paid out in self insurance is typically much lower than paying an insurance company for coverage.

Because insurance is a pooled-risk/pooled-payout situation, the removal of large portions of income - even with removal of the attendant risk - means that premiums must go up to the remaining folks that get coverage from the insurance company to maintain the same reserve ratio and profitability.

Aviation insurance is expensive & hard to get because we have a small pool of participants. Life insurance is relatively cheap and easy to get (at younger ages) because of a large pool of participants.

Supply & Demand.

 

[Richard]

Bill, it's not simply supply and demand. That policy applications list involvement in aviation under their non-approved activities is evidence of that. No sir, what is driving the price is perceived risk.

Without debating to what degree does claims and/or settlements contribute to that increase I will go out on a limb and state that that perceived risk is what is jacking the costs in many industries and professions.

As evidence that the ins co's perception is not squarely based in reality I offer that the annual premiums paid out by my neighbor who paints residential and commercial new construction is almost 5x LESS than what my friend the small auto shop owner pays.

Both have less than 10 employees, no claims in 10 years, and handle Prop 65 chemicals yet the painter regularly uses ladders, scaffolds, and cherry pickers in an sometimes hazardous job site. Also, the auto shop owner has an IIPP in effect, attends recurrent training and his operation is inspected annually by no less than 3 different inspectors who represent one local, one state, and one federal agency. It seems that the precautions taken by the auto shop owner are not enough to offeset the perception of increased risk.

 

[Tom-D]

I read what you wrote dan. I just think it's a load of BS. Insurance costs are going up, because claims are going up. It's that simple.

I don't thing it is that simple, Joe. Because my Insurance for mechanic liaibility, jumped from $150. per year to $13k per year. I can't except that the lawsuits aginst Mechanics jumped that much, because the machinical caused accident rate didn't increase.

Second symptom would be to see what the Stock rates for public insurance companies did in the past year or two. (i'm too lazy to look it up)

 

[Jeff Oslick]

As evidence that the ins co's perception is not squarely based in reality I offer that the annual premiums paid out by my neighbor who paints residential and commercial new construction is almost 5x LESS than what my friend the small auto shop owner pays.

As someone who is in a heavy construction industry, I find this shocking, at least on the surface. But, then again, are we sure we're comparing apples to apples here? What kind of insurance/coverages are we talking about? Are they really the same? I can see where the auto shop may face much more frequent/significant claims for property damage/loss than a house/commercial painter, even though the worker injury risks are very different. Also, the auto body shop likely has to pay considerably more for environmental damage insurance, because they likely handle a much greater volume of hazardous chemicals (strippers) than a building painter.

Jeff

 

[woodstock]

corporations are only as evil as the men who run them. it sure seems like once certain folks get to a certain $$ level any idealism they once had goes out the window and it's all cynical greed and profit. they are no longer mere mortals and all the rest of us are here to serve them. think Enron, WorldCom and no doubt others I'm forgetting. think of the companies that go under and the CEOs who drove them there walk off with their millions while the worker bees get to work til age 70. I'm reading a book right now called "What's the Matter with Kansas" and a few of the stories about head-honcho greed are just breathtaking.

wasn't there a study done recently wherein they said many CEO-types actually score high on sociopathic tendencies? i.e. greater propensity to be a bastard to get that high? (apologies to any upper-management folks here).

re: insurance - maybe they are trying to make up in losses for their other sections - i.e. hurricane losses - although I'm sure that's unethical (e.g. raise driver rates to pay off their huge hurricane losses).

 

[wsuffa]

Bill, it's not simply supply and demand. That policy applications list involvement in aviation under their non-approved activities is evidence of that. No sir, what is driving the price is perceived risk.

Supply and demand is part of it.

Perceived risk is also a large part of it.

And insuring a company (or person) that has a demonstrated process to mitigate the perceived risk will lower premiums.

I was just talking with the safety director of a large, publically traded company. They reduced insurance costs two ways. One, by bringing risk-management in-house and eliminating normal insurance (still kept reinsurance), and two, by implementing and enforcing a rigid safety program. Some of their workers climb structures. Bringing the risk-management in-house results in a direct, proportional savings resulting from the safety efforts. They would receive less benefit if their risk were still pooled with others.

The way it works is to take the perceived risk (translated in dollar terms), add the reserve factor, add the cost of excess/reinsurance, subtract the interest/gains from investments of the reserves, add the desired profit level, and divide among the pool of insured. The perceived risk is an educated guess. If there is no competition, this merely sets the baseline. If there is competition, there may be "breaks" for customers that move from other carriers. If it's not profitable, carriers leave (allowing others to raise prices, ergo, supply and demand).

We, as a population of GA pilots, can affect the insurance premium by (a) absorbing more risk, and (b) reducing the risk level.

 

[sere]

I'll throw another hand grenade in this cesspool.

Part of the issue is that corporations, as they grow larger, tend to retain larger parts of the risk themselves (e.g. they self-insure). Yes, they maintain reinsurance (aka excess coverage), but the cost for claims paid out in self insurance is typically much lower than paying an insurance company for coverage.

Because insurance is a pooled-risk/pooled-payout situation, the removal of large portions of income - even with removal of the attendant risk - means that premiums must go up to the remaining folks that get coverage from the insurance company to maintain the same reserve ratio and profitability.

Aviation insurance is expensive & hard to get because we have a small pool of participants. Life insurance is relatively cheap and easy to get (at younger ages) because of a large pool of participants.

Supply & Demand.

Each year my insurance for my plane keeps going up as you know. The only help is that I have added various ratings, and certifications as well as building more and more hours. But once we reach a certain age they they go out of sight no mater how safe you have been thougt out your life. Insuring my dad on our plane after he turned 70 the rates more than doubled. The only was to get around the insurance company was to put the plane we owned together under my name only and let him fly it under the open pilot clause. I hate doing it that way but they have no justification for gouging pilots that way.

 

[Richard]

Sere, actually I believe they do have justification in establishing age related premium hikes. However, I do agree that most price hikes strongly appear to be arbitrary.

 

[SJP]

His point is invalid, his argument is wrong. If it were a simple matter of insurance rates going up, and if claims were truly declining, more doctors would be going bare.

I pulled my Medical Insurer's financial numbers.


Year - Premiums Payouts %ge paid
+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2000 | 21746 | 18884 | 86.8% |
+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2001 | 19940 | 17938 | 90.0% |
+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2002 | 15036 | 12452 | 82.8% |
+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2003 | 13235 | 10135 | 76.6% |
+------+-------+-------+-------+

I also pulled the ones from my Auto Insurer

Year Premiums Payouts %ge paid
+------+------+------+-------+
| 2001 | 7161 | 5264 | 73.5% |
+------+------+------+-------+
| 2002 | 8883 | 6229 | 70.1% |
+------+------++------+-------+
| 2003 | 11341 | 7640 | 67.4% |
+------+-------+------+-------+

I would say they bear out Dan's argument pretty nicely.

The number of malpractice suits doesn't seem to be climbing very fast. The average payout has increased, but not nearly as much as the PREMIUM increases the companies are charging to recoup the cost. Otherwise, we'd be seeing a flood of insurance companies posting dismal profits....and when was the last time you saw a poor insurance company ?

Does that make companies evil ? No. No more than it makes Dan's comments "leftist...crap". Companies exist to make profit, and as long as we have no options but to buy their services, we have no way to stop the rot.

 

[poadeleted3]

I pulled my Medical Insurer's financial numbers.


Year - Premiums Payouts %ge paid
+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2000 | 21746 | 18884 | 86.8% |
+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2001 | 19940 | 17938 | 90.0% |
+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2002 | 15036 | 12452 | 82.8% |
+------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2003 | 13235 | 10135 | 76.6% |
+------+-------+-------+-------+

I also pulled the ones from my Auto Insurer

Year Premiums Payouts %ge paid
+------+------+------+-------+
| 2001 | 7161 | 5264 | 73.5% |
+------+------+------+-------+
| 2002 | 8883 | 6229 | 70.1% |
+------+------++------+-------+
| 2003 | 11341 | 7640 | 67.4% |
+------+-------+------+-------+

I would say they bear out Dan's argument pretty nicely.

The number of malpractice suits doesn't seem to be climbing very fast. The average payout has increased, but not nearly as much as the PREMIUM increases the companies are charging to recoup the cost. Otherwise, we'd be seeing a flood of insurance companies posting dismal profits....and when was the last time you saw a poor insurance company ?

Does that make companies evil ? No. No more than it makes Dan's comments "leftist...crap". Companies exist to make profit, and as long as we have no options but to buy their services, we have no way to stop the rot.

You do have the option to not buy their service. If the risk of claims is as low as some say it is, drop your coverage and save your money. It should be a good risk.

 

[sere]

Sere, actually I believe they do have justification in establishing age related premium hikes. However, I do agree that most price hikes strongly appear to be arbitrary.

I would be interested is seeing this justification. I am sure that if it was broken down in age groups say from 20 to 30, 31-40, ect it would not justify a jump by 2.5 times it rate from 69 to over 70. But that is something I am open to if someone can show varified fact.

 

[woodstock]

You do have the option to not buy their service. If the risk of claims is as low as some say it is, drop your coverage and save your money. It should be a good risk.

in many cases, legally, you cannot opt out of insurance. legally you gotta have it and seems like they make the rates whatever they damn well please.

I bumped someone at a light a year ago. It was very minimal but we were both in a hurry, holding up traffic and so on... plus she had a little kid in the backseat (car seat) and I didn't want trouble so I gave her my insurance info instead of just offering to pay for it out of pocket.

the insurance company paid 600 bucks to fix the little ding, and immediately after jacked my rates 600 bucks a YEAR for the next three years. i.e. they financed my accident at a very high rate of interest. SOBs. 38 years old driving a 4 door Mercedes and I'm paying 1800 bucks a year. when I was 23 and driving a 5 liter mustang I paid 2 grand a year but I had a lead foot and a driving record to match it. something isn't right. my rates should be a LOT lower by now...

 

[Richard]

I would be interested is seeing this justification. I am sure that if it was broken down in age groups say from 20 to 30, 31-40, ect it would not justify a jump by 2.5 times it rate from 69 to over 70. But that is something I am open to if someone can show varified fact.

I do not have any case studies before me, I'm not thinking of a particular case, nor am I going to bother to look them up. But age related diseases such as heart problems become more pervasive as we age (duh). So if an increased risk for disease and such is not disputed the question becomes, "How will such and such disease affect one's ability to act PIC?"

At this point it becomes the insured's responsibility to prove they are not at risk. Refer to the Bob Hoover debacle.

My last exam, the AME wanted to inspect for hemorroids. Huh? He uses the scenario of an IFR app with vectors as an example of how the discomfort of 'roids could become an immense distraction and affect my ability to fly. And it seems I am in the at risk age bracket. Okay, I say, I'll just self-ground in compliance with 61.53 if I should experience that problem. The Dr's response was that means the system is relying on individuals to self report and when it comes to public safety that self reporting is unacceptable.

Okay, but what about the ins co? In the instance I provided the ins co simply responds to that increased risk by jacking the premium. Whether that is commensurate to the increase in risk I will not speculate but I'm sure they are giving themselves a favorable margin.

Also, the more one ages the less years he has left. That inverse relationship is probably enough to justify jacking the rates. The ins co is in the business of money extraction. Think of increased rates as amoritization of the anticipated amount received.

 

[poadeleted3]

snip

the insurance company paid 600 bucks to fix the little ding, and immediately after jacked my rates 600 bucks a YEAR for the next three years. i.e. they financed my accident at a very high rate of interest. SOBs. 38 years old driving a 4 door Mercedes and I'm paying 1800 bucks a year. when I was 23 and driving a 5 liter mustang I paid 2 grand a year but I had a lead foot and a driving record to match it. something isn't right. my rates should be a LOT lower by now...

I'm paying $2K a year for full coverage on two cars. But I don't think I've ever had an accident that got reported, and my last speeding ticket was almost 7 years ago. Ya just gotta learn how to speed, and your rates will go down

 

[Jeff Oslick]

The Dr's response was that means the system is relying on individuals to self report and when it comes to public safety that self reporting is unacceptable.

Sorry, couldn't let this one go by -

How the he!! does this guy think the system works?? That's why 3rd class medicals are only needed every 2-3 years!... That's why airline captains can call in sick to work...I'd find a different AME if I were you, this one sounds more than a bit "off" to me.

Jeff

 

[Ken Ibold]

re: insurance - maybe they are trying to make up in losses for their other sections - i.e. hurricane losses - although I'm sure that's unethical (e.g. raise driver rates to pay off their huge hurricane losses).

Keep in mind also that those premiums get invested in the hopes of making earnings. In the 80s and 90s, stock market gains worked to keep profits high, so the pressure was not as great to make money strictly from the premiums. They got spoiled thinking the good days would roll forever.

Remember that the executives' primary fiduciary duty is supposed to be to the stockholders, that is, management is charged with keeping the stock price ever climbing. Tough to do in a flat stock market and doubly tough to do if the company historically has relied on stock market earnings of its own to augment profit. Ergo, the premiums have to spike to make the balance sheet more attractive to stockholders and potential stockholders.

 

[sere]

I do not have any case studies before me, I'm not thinking of a particular case, nor am I going to bother to look them up. But age related diseases such as heart problems become more pervasive as we age (duh). So if an increased risk for disease and such is not disputed the question becomes, "How will such and such disease affect one's ability to act PIC?"

At this point it becomes the insured's responsibility to prove they are not at risk. Refer to the Bob Hoover debacle.

My last exam, the AME wanted to inspect for hemorroids. Huh? He uses the scenario of an IFR app with vectors as an example of how the discomfort of 'roids could become an immense distraction and affect my ability to fly. And it seems I am in the at risk age bracket. Okay, I say, I'll just self-ground in compliance with 61.53 if I should experience that problem. The Dr's response was that means the system is relying on individuals to self report and when it comes to public safety that self reporting is unacceptable.

Okay, but what about the ins co? In the instance I provided the ins co simply responds to that increased risk by jacking the premium. Whether that is commensurate to the increase in risk I will not speculate but I'm sure they are giving themselves a favorable margin.

Also, the more one ages the less years he has left. That inverse relationship is probably enough to justify jacking the rates. The ins co is in the business of money extraction. Think of increased rates as amoritization of the anticipated amount received.

I am under the impression that the reason that we get medicals every 1-3 years except ATP's who live at the AME's is to catch those medical problems. To the best of my knowledge diseases are not age restricted. I do agree that as we get older chance does go up. But as we get older the time between visits to our AME gets shorter too. As for the debacle that Bob Hoover went through the FAA should still be holding there head down in shame over that. You also state that it is the "insured's responsibility to prove they are not at risk". If that statement is a fact then my answer to that is all of us who have to do that and we do it by keeping our medical currant. I am sure we are not going to agree but I want to leave just one more thought here. If the insurance company prices themselves out of reasonable price how many pilots do you think are out there who drop all insurance and fly anyway. I can tell you that there is a lot of them and they are not all older pilots.

Thanks for your input.

 

[woodstock]

I'm paying $2K a year for full coverage on two cars. But I don't think I've ever had an accident that got reported, and my last speeding ticket was almost 7 years ago. Ya just gotta learn how to speed, and your rates will go down

but I haven't had a speeding ticket in a long time! grrrrrrrrrr. sigh.

 

[sere]

I do not have any case studies before me, I'm not thinking of a particular case, nor am I going to bother to look them up. But age related diseases such as heart problems become more pervasive as we age (duh). So if an increased risk for disease and such is not disputed the question becomes, "How will such and such disease affect one's ability to act PIC?"

At this point it becomes the insured's responsibility to prove they are not at risk. Refer to the Bob Hoover debacle.

My last exam, the AME wanted to inspect for hemorroids. Huh? He uses the scenario of an IFR app with vectors as an example of how the discomfort of 'roids could become an immense distraction and affect my ability to fly. And it seems I am in the at risk age bracket. Okay, I say, I'll just self-ground in compliance with 61.53 if I should experience that problem. The Dr's response was that means the system is relying on individuals to self report and when it comes to public safety that self reporting is unacceptable.

Okay, but what about the ins co? In the instance I provided the ins co simply responds to that increased risk by jacking the premium. Whether that is commensurate to the increase in risk I will not speculate but I'm sure they are giving themselves a favorable margin.

Also, the more one ages the less years he has left. That inverse relationship is probably enough to justify jacking the rates. The ins co is in the business of money extraction. Think of increased rates as amoritization of the anticipated amount received.

I did not now that diseases are age restricted. I do agree that as we get older there is more of a chance of having a medical problem. But is that not why we go to our AME's to renew our medical. I think you better find another AME as I think that one is nuts. Checking you for hemorrids is your general practice doctors job. And telling me that hemorrids is a problem on an IFR flight is almost funney. Next he will tell you that you should give up your drivers permit too. Now as for Bob Hovers debacle as you put it. The FAA should still be holding there head in shame over that one. If it is the older pilots responsibility to prove that they are not at risk I say that goes for all of us if that is true. I also believe that we do that everytime we renew our medical. I also believe that there is a reason that as we age the FAA shortens the time between visits to our AME. I don't believe we will agree on this subject. But I do want to leave one more thought. If insurance companies price themselves out of the market how many folks do you think will continue to fly without insurance? I can tell you there is a lot of them and they are not just the ones over 70 years old.

 

[Richard]

I did not now that diseases are age restricted. I do agree that as we get older there is more of a chance of having a medical problem. But is that not why we go to our AME's to renew our medical. I think you better find another AME as I think that one is nuts. Checking you for hemorrids is your general practice doctors job. And telling me that hemorrids is a problem on an IFR flight is almost funney. Next he will tell you that you should give up your drivers permit too. Now as for Bob Hovers debacle as you put it. The FAA should still be holding there head in shame over that one. If it is the older pilots responsibility to prove that they are not at risk I say that goes for all of us if that is true. I also believe that we do that everytime we renew our medical. I also believe that there is a reason that as we age the FAA shortens the time between visits to our AME. I don't believe we will agree on this subject. But I do want to leave one more thought. If insurance companies price themselves out of the market how many folks do you think will continue to fly without insurance? I can tell you there is a lot of them and they are not just the ones over 70 years old.

Did I imply disease was age restricted? I didn't mean to. And I don't think I disagree with you. I'm simply trying to see the problem from more than one side. And it is a problem.

I know several who fly uninsured. A couple have hangers full of treasures and one has very, very deep pockets. It's not that he has self insured or carries a bond, he flat out said he has no insurance for the purpose of flight. (anyone reading this so inclined, he's not in this state. I hope you never find him.)

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I know several who fly uninsured. A couple have hangers full of treasures and one has very, very deep pockets. It's not that he has self insured or carries a bond, he flat out said he has no insurance for the purpose of flight. (anyone reading this so inclined, he's not in this state. I hope you never find him.)

What's wrong with the above practice (from the injured's point of view)? Why would it matter if someone finds him? If he truly does have "very, very deep pockets" he's as good an insurer as anyone currently providing aviation insurance.

 

[bbchien]

My last exam, the AME wanted to inspect for hemorroids. Huh? He uses the scenario of an IFR app with vectors as an example of how the discomfort of 'roids could become an immense distraction and affect my ability to fly. And it seems I am in the at risk age bracket. Okay, I say, I'll just self-ground in compliance with 61.53 if I should experience that problem. The Dr's response was that means the system is relying on individuals to self report and when it comes to public safety that self reporting is unacceptable.

Hemmoroids are not a disqualifying medical condition. So, just what is he going to do with the information should he find hemmoroids? Get a new AME.

That having been said, if there is liver disease, the presence of hemmoroids is a very important clue to severity.

 

[sere]

What's wrong with the above practice (from the injured's point of view)? Why would it matter if someone finds him? If he truly does have "very, very deep pockets" he's as good an insurer as anyone currently providing aviation insurance.

I agree if someone does choose to have insurance that is up to them. If you own a plane free and clear it is up to the individual. No law stays that you must have insurance. And you can bet if you are self insured then you will never have a problem with filing a claim. LOL

 

[sere]

Did I imply disease was age restricted? I didn't mean to. And I don't think I disagree with you. I'm simply trying to see the problem from more than one side. And it is a problem.

I know several who fly uninsured. A couple have hangers full of treasures and one has very, very deep pockets. It's not that he has self insured or carries a bond, he flat out said he has no insurance for the purpose of flight. (anyone reading this so inclined, he's not in this state. I hope you never find him.)

No problem Richard. I can appreciate your stance of trying to see the other side of the issue. I never have a problem of someone questioning my opines. We are all different and come from various walks of life and points of view. That is one of the reasons that we have a great country.

With that said I still think you need to find another AME. If you are old enough to have worry about having Doctors checking your 6 like I am then I am sure you have enough of them doing so. Have a good one.

 

[SJP]

You do have the option to not buy their service. If the risk of claims is as low as some say it is, drop your coverage and save your money. It should be a good risk.

Under Michigan state law, I have to carry auto insurance. I don't have to carry medical, but if I dont, my auto insurance gets jacked up to cover it. Not much of an option really.

State mandated insurance = no real reason for the company to keep the prices down - we have to buy it whether it's $50 a month, or $500 a month.

 

[gismo]

I agree if someone does choose to have insurance that is up to them. If you own a plane free and clear it is up to the individual. No law stays that you must have insurance. And you can bet if you are self insured then you will never have a problem with filing a claim. LOL

That's true for aircraft hull insurance, but often not for liability. OTOH, liability coverage is generally the smaller part of the premium IME.

 

[corjulo]

I read what you wrote dan. I just think it's a load of BS. Insurance costs are going up, because claims are going up. It's that simple.

And what do you base that conclusion on? Fox News? Insurance industry reports? Please read the report. You may find the problem is more complicated then the standard "blame the lawyers" line.

I do believe in tort reform. But I want two things in exchange, A guarantee rates will drop for Doctors and the AMA must offer more disclosure on problem doctors.