Last login: Wednesday, February 15, 2012
I do not think insurance companies will make a dime from unwanted pregnancies. Those people would just continue to utilize the current access that they have now to contraceptives. I think the student's issue was the cost and who should pay. With the mandate, the insurance company will cut a check. However, it will be the policy holders that will pay. The insurance company is just a middle man, or book keeper if you will. The insurance company books X number of policy holders. The policy holders transfers the risk of potential financial loss to the company for a price. The good thing about being able to do this is that you know your damages during your policy period. If you know that your maximum out of pocket costs are $5000, you can lead your life with financial confidence knowing that a disaster is not going to bankrupt you. You have transferred your risk to the insurance company or book keeper. The insurance company or the book keeper determines their rates annually based on what costs they incurred from the previous year. Then a rate or premium is determined to cover the costs and then the book keeper is paid an administrative fee or what is called a profit.
Flag this comment
Incumbents take the credit for improving economies. Just as Obama will take credit his his improving economy. Mrs. Morrison should take credit for hers. Victoria is booming at unprecedented levels. We are at full employment. In fact there is already a labor shortage. Eagle Ford Shale, Caterpillar, etc. What more could you want. Victoria is paradise right now, so how could anyone say that she has not done anything. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Joe Bob, I doubt that is true, but I will go along with your statement. But that is what conservatives like for our government to do for us NOTHING!!!!. Mrs. Morrison has my support and in case you haven't noticed, running on the democratic ticket for local races is an excercise in futility.
This comment was removed by the user.
Sugar,I am sorry that you misunderstood. You are the only one that said that Pro-Bono work is at the expense of paying clients. You are going down the wrong rabbit trail. With this logic every lawyer who does pro-bono work is neglecting their clients.
I am not a lawyer, however, I know that the State Bar of Texas encourages people in their profession to volunteer/pro bono to improve the profession. I know that Jack's opponents are very involved in their community as well. But lawyers can only charge for the time they actually work. To clarify, if Jack did zero volunteer work, he could sign up more clients and bill more hours. Hope that helps.
SS396, I have never read anything more libel and slanderous about someone in your post. I have known Jack for about 13 years. He is the most blue collar type person I have ever met in this profession. You would never find him at one of those tuxedo dinners with his pinky in the air. Where you could find him is fishing and duck hunting with his kids and grand kids. Professionally is known by most attorneys as one of the best in town. He is board certified and attorneys around the state contact him for guidance. He is a volunteeer at heart. The Texas Family Law Foundation always looks for Jack to help the legislature when molding legislation. Jack sits on committees and gives public testimony in Austin on these matters. And it is not about the money. He volunteers. In fact these acts of volunteerism cost him money as he cannot meet with clients when performing these tasks for the Family Law Foundation. I can only speculate why you would spew this poison about this candidate, It is only a quess, but he must have mopped the floor with the attorney you hired.
Wriein, just a few words of inspiration. Next time someone lunges at you on here. Quote Matthew,bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) ...This should halt the tin hat diatribe vide.
Sometimes I think we worry to much about what the candidate says on the campaign trail about religion. We have to remember that they are politicians and are trying to get elected. I don't think Rick Santorum wants a papacy ruling America anymore than JFK. Politicians are either pandering or trying to quell fears. It is very interesting from a political standpoint the opposite things they did and are doing to get elected. JFK was going to be the first Catholic president. That was a little taboo at the time. People are afraid of someone that is different from themselves having influence over their lives. I think it is human nature. JFK had to go on the defensive and convince people he was not going to ask people to kiss his ring. Santorum is pandering. I don't know if he doesn't have any other lightening rod issues to run on that anyone would pay attention to. Or he is just pandering on peoples fears. He is trying to make a lightening rod out of government influenced contraception, etc. Politicians are either kissing babies or stealing their lollipops. I think that is why it is such an unpopular career path.
All this ranking on seniors. I don't like it. Can anyone explain to me why insurance rates are triple for kids between 16 and 24. Have you had the heart stopping experience of putting your teenager on your policy to see your total policy premium triple. Seniors rates are minimum compared with this age group. Because seniors have fewer and less expensive wrecks. The arguement to make seniors protect them from themselves is insulting. This is not the Soviet Union, where the government acts as loco parentes to certain groups of people. I think we should ask the seniors whether they want to drive or not. Or leave it up to their families, not the government.