Judge Rules JUA Money Off LImits

John Lynch's statement said (0.00 / 0)

This surplus money from the Joint Underwriting Association was included in the state budget only after careful consideration and in-depth legal review.

I wonder if Kelly Ayotte will agree to defend the use of JUA money during the appeal?  

---

by: Chuck Townsend @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 22:15:25 PM UTC

Various thoughts. (0.00 / 0)

* The larger picture: situations like this can be avoided in the future (say, January 2012) by having an honest discussion about our tax system.

* Doctors: not finding a whole lot of sympathy for them in this.  Not during these economic times and the pain that the budget  and the recession have brought folks who make a whole lot less than doctors. I would say that what they are gaining in keeping this money is being lost as positive PR at twice the rate.

* Kelly Ayotte: what role did she play in saying the taking of this $ was okey-dokey?

Social Media Director for Jackie Cilley for Governor. Follow her on Twitter & Facebook!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 22:39:08 PM UTC

A related point: (0.00 / 0)

This fund is intended to provide insurance to health care providers who cannot get affordable coverage from private insurers.

If it is building up hundred-million-dollar surpluses, doesn't that mean the private insurers are REALLY gouging their customers?

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 22:49:26 PM UTC

Which will come first? (0.00 / 0)

As Dean says "an honest discussion about our tax system,"
or single payer health insurance?

Both are essential, inevitable, and somehow impossible.

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 22:49:45 PM UTC

Republican response (4.00 / 2)

So, Sununu called the proposed use of JUA surplus an "attempted theft".

I wonder what Kelly Ayotte will say
about Sununu's comment today
about this case with JUA,
and the law she said was okay.  




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 00:06:55 AM UTC

Kelly will certainly be bereft (4.00 / 3)

at being accused of attempted theft
And at finding out her party chief
considers her a luckless thief.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:04:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This was NOT the state's money... (0.00 / 0)

It's the money of doctors who contributed to this fund. The state attempted to steal the money, the court stopped them.

The state is SOL on this one, and I have no sympathy for them.

[Full disclosure: I have no money in the fund]

---

by: Putney Swope @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 02:27:20 AM UTC

Not so clear. (0.00 / 0)

The fund is more complicated that that, as I understand it.

1. It took state law to establish the fund.
2. If the fund runs dry - as in did in 1985 - it is replenished by a tax an assessment on the private insurers of health care providers.
3. The law requires that the fund not charge doctors and hospitals less than private insurers are charging their clients. The state wanted it to be an insurer of last resort - not a price competitor.
4. If the money in this fund is "the money of the doctors who contributed," what about the profits of the private insurers? Does it remain theirs, after they get the benefit of policy coverage they bought?

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:55:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is an insurance fund (0.00 / 0)

Just because state law established it doesn't mean it is the state's money. Profits of the private insurers are the insurance companies. They couldn't operate without the doctors having malpractice insurance.

In the final analysis, if it looks and smells like a theft, it must really be a theft.

Kelly & Co. should have gotten a second opinion, just like patients do.

The real issue it that Lynch & Co. were desperate to balance the budget without a broadbased tax. This fund looked like an easy target.

---

by: Putney Swope @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:51:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, which is it? (0.00 / 0)

An insurance fund or an investment vehicle? If you buy a malpractice policy from a private insurer you have no expectation of getting a rebate should their investments go well or claims be low. All you expect is, that if the rates turn out to be too high, competition will drive them down next year.

That is exactly the experience of the client of this fund.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 22:15:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My understanding is that it is a reserve fund (0.00 / 0)

how that fits into your question I have no idea - I'm only a doctor.

If it is a reserve fund than the state is trying to steal money that is not theirs.

New Hampshire should try raising money the old fashioned way, through taxes and not through theft.

---

by: Putney Swope @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 00:47:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not really, as I understand it. (4.00 / 1)

The policy holders are guaranteed - if the insurance fun runs dry, an assessment is made against the private insurers, per state law. And the insurance pool is invested. So it is significantly different than what I usually consider a simple reserve fund.

I don't like New Hampshire's tax structure, but I don't believe this is theft. And I don't believe the doctors are entitled to a windfall after paying market-rate premiums.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 00:56:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You have adequately explained why this is the state's money (0.00 / 0)

Period.

If it is a windfall it should be taxed as income not STOLEN.  

---

by: Putney Swope @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 01:04:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]