At least they are consistent. North Carolina once again takes another barely invisible, baby step towards a nanny state. In the past, they've increased your health insurance rates by requiring coverage for chiropractic treatment (for some fun, see how that happened) and mental health parity. This time, they've taken aim at auto insurance.
Effective today, all North Carolina auto policies are required to have uninsured and under insured motorists coverage. Even though we're in a recession, now evidently is as good a time as any to add $17.00 (per vehicle) to some one's insurance premium in order to line the pockets of North Carolina's Trial Lawyers and Insurance agents.
They'll say it's not really a big deal (and for insurance agents it isn't - probably adding a measly $1.70 commission per effected policy). After all, 95% of those who have auto insurance, already have these coverages. But if that's the case - then why force drivers to add it? Shouldn't a citizen be allowed to save a little dough and gamble the same way they are allowed to gamble that they won't wreck or have their own car stolen? Of course, personal injury attorneys don't stand to gain thousands by forcing insureds to carry those coverages.
The saddest fact of this matter is that this little spike in premium will likely result in more North Carolinians driving around without insurance. It also means that some families will have to spend $17.00 on coverage they'd like to decline, money that could be used for food, to heat their home or anything else of their choosing.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The Real Problem
Back when NC State fans were souring on Herb Sendek and ready for a change, the best argument for keeping him was that unless you felt comfortable with Lee Fowler making the hiring decisions, you didn't want a change.
Well, sadly, Lee Fowler proved that argument a very good one against any change. Granted, Herb wasn't fired, but Fowler has proven had he know business hiring a basketball coach.
Forget the parade of coaches who publicly turned down the job, let's look at the man he hired. But not yet - let's look at the likely qualifications for the Head Coach of Men's Basketball at NC State:
*Previous successful experience as a head coach at a Division 1A school - preferably from a major or mid-major conference.
*Previous successful experience recruiting high school athletes to a major Division 1A program.
*A proven track record developing college basketball players and building a successful college basketball team.
*Previous successful experience as a Head Coach or Assistant Coach at an elite Major College basketball program.
It's understandable that a coach wouldn't meet all of these require - after all, when Roy Williams went to the Kansas Jayhawks he had never been the head coach of a major college basketball program. But any candidate should at least have one of these qualifications.
Lowe, of course, had none of them. He didn't even have a college degree. He did have extensive NBA experience - as both a head coach and an assistant. His head-coaching experience, couldn't be called successful - by any stretch. However, all 3 of those stints were with expansion franchises - doomed for failure for seemingly any coach. Sidney did - and still does love NC State. The fact that Lowe surrounded himself with a very experienced staff seemed to address his college shortcomings.
And here NC State is - looking like a team that is being led college coach who doesn't quite know what he's doing. But, NC State shouldn't get rid of Sidney.
Someone else needs to go first. This someone is a man who has insulted NC State fans who did nothing but question whether the basketball program was heading the right direction 4 years ago. A man who went on a national college football show to say an NC State wasn't on a hot seat, only to fire him later that same year. The same man who hired a coach who didn't meet any of the qualifications for a job: Lee Fowler.
Sidney needs a chance - Lee has had his. It's time for him to go.
Well, sadly, Lee Fowler proved that argument a very good one against any change. Granted, Herb wasn't fired, but Fowler has proven had he know business hiring a basketball coach.
Forget the parade of coaches who publicly turned down the job, let's look at the man he hired. But not yet - let's look at the likely qualifications for the Head Coach of Men's Basketball at NC State:
*Previous successful experience as a head coach at a Division 1A school - preferably from a major or mid-major conference.
*Previous successful experience recruiting high school athletes to a major Division 1A program.
*A proven track record developing college basketball players and building a successful college basketball team.
*Previous successful experience as a Head Coach or Assistant Coach at an elite Major College basketball program.
It's understandable that a coach wouldn't meet all of these require - after all, when Roy Williams went to the Kansas Jayhawks he had never been the head coach of a major college basketball program. But any candidate should at least have one of these qualifications.
Lowe, of course, had none of them. He didn't even have a college degree. He did have extensive NBA experience - as both a head coach and an assistant. His head-coaching experience, couldn't be called successful - by any stretch. However, all 3 of those stints were with expansion franchises - doomed for failure for seemingly any coach. Sidney did - and still does love NC State. The fact that Lowe surrounded himself with a very experienced staff seemed to address his college shortcomings.
And here NC State is - looking like a team that is being led college coach who doesn't quite know what he's doing. But, NC State shouldn't get rid of Sidney.
Someone else needs to go first. This someone is a man who has insulted NC State fans who did nothing but question whether the basketball program was heading the right direction 4 years ago. A man who went on a national college football show to say an NC State wasn't on a hot seat, only to fire him later that same year. The same man who hired a coach who didn't meet any of the qualifications for a job: Lee Fowler.
Sidney needs a chance - Lee has had his. It's time for him to go.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Statistically Speaking - Hurricanes vs. Pack
Stat Miami Rank Stat NCSURank Advantage
Scoring Offense 70 Scoring D 69 Even
Rushing Offense 59 Rushing D 92 Miami
Passing Offense 98 Passin D 41 NC State
Total Offense 96 Total D 75 NC State
Stat Miami Rank Stat NCSURank Advantage
Scoring D 37 Scoring Off 89 Miami
Rushing D 46 RushingOff 110 Miami
Passin D 20 Passing Off 40 Miami
Total D 28 Total Off 95 Miami
On paper, it would appear to be advantage Miami. However, the Wolfpack over the last 2 games, against 2 teams w/ winning records, the Pack in addition to not turning the ball over (don't worry, they're still dead last in this department) - they're passing game has taken off AND they are stuffing the run. Counting the last 2 games only, here's how the Pack would rank:
Stat Avg Rank
Scoring Offense 31.5 39
Rushing Offense 66.5 117
Passing Off 341 5
Total Offense 407.5 46
Scoring D 22 40
Rushing D 83 8
Passin D 264.5 102
Total D 347.5 41
The last 2 games have been pretty simple for the Pack. They stop the run, they get ahead early, they move the ball effectively through the air - and they don't turn it over. They win. The only thing that's a fluke is the drastic change over how the played the first 6 games of the season.
Against Miami - the keys will be the same. However, Miami has more talent than the Hoos or the Pirates. Coaching - that may be another story. However, if the Pack can stop the run and not lose the TO battle, you have to like their chances.
Scoring Offense 70 Scoring D 69 Even
Rushing Offense 59 Rushing D 92 Miami
Passing Offense 98 Passin D 41 NC State
Total Offense 96 Total D 75 NC State
Stat Miami Rank Stat NCSURank Advantage
Scoring D 37 Scoring Off 89 Miami
Rushing D 46 RushingOff 110 Miami
Passin D 20 Passing Off 40 Miami
Total D 28 Total Off 95 Miami
On paper, it would appear to be advantage Miami. However, the Wolfpack over the last 2 games, against 2 teams w/ winning records, the Pack in addition to not turning the ball over (don't worry, they're still dead last in this department) - they're passing game has taken off AND they are stuffing the run. Counting the last 2 games only, here's how the Pack would rank:
Stat Avg Rank
Scoring Offense 31.5 39
Rushing Offense 66.5 117
Passing Off 341 5
Total Offense 407.5 46
Scoring D 22 40
Rushing D 83 8
Passin D 264.5 102
Total D 347.5 41
The last 2 games have been pretty simple for the Pack. They stop the run, they get ahead early, they move the ball effectively through the air - and they don't turn it over. They win. The only thing that's a fluke is the drastic change over how the played the first 6 games of the season.
Against Miami - the keys will be the same. However, Miami has more talent than the Hoos or the Pirates. Coaching - that may be another story. However, if the Pack can stop the run and not lose the TO battle, you have to like their chances.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Evans Shows Significant Improvement
Just some thoughts on Daniel Evans thus far. I wasn't sure that our OL could play good enough to give the Pack a chance to win.
With Evans - you know what you'll get. He throws an accurate, easy to catch ball - he's good at quick reads and quick throws. He's not going to win any games relying on his arm or his legs to make plays. The staff did a solid job against FSU 2 weeks ago but he made a couple of bad decisions late in the first half and early in the 3rd quarter. Against ECU, he played about as good as he can play.
Statistically, here's a comparision between this year and last year:
2007: 7 TDs vs. 6 INTs.
2006: 6 TDs and 11 INTs.
2007: Completion % 63.4% - 27th out of the 120 QBs rated.
2006: Completion 53.1% - 95 out of 110 QBs.
2007 - QB rating is 68th out of 120.
2006 - 104 out of 110.
So Evans has improved pretty significantly thus far. The bad news is that last year, he started off good and struggled at the finish. But w/ 5 games left, he's surpassed his TDs from last year. More importantly, the more I become convinced that he can't do the job, the better he plays. So on second thought - he's still terrible.
With Evans - you know what you'll get. He throws an accurate, easy to catch ball - he's good at quick reads and quick throws. He's not going to win any games relying on his arm or his legs to make plays. The staff did a solid job against FSU 2 weeks ago but he made a couple of bad decisions late in the first half and early in the 3rd quarter. Against ECU, he played about as good as he can play.
Statistically, here's a comparision between this year and last year:
2007: 7 TDs vs. 6 INTs.
2006: 6 TDs and 11 INTs.
2007: Completion % 63.4% - 27th out of the 120 QBs rated.
2006: Completion 53.1% - 95 out of 110 QBs.
2007 - QB rating is 68th out of 120.
2006 - 104 out of 110.
So Evans has improved pretty significantly thus far. The bad news is that last year, he started off good and struggled at the finish. But w/ 5 games left, he's surpassed his TDs from last year. More importantly, the more I become convinced that he can't do the job, the better he plays. So on second thought - he's still terrible.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Auto Insurance vs. Health Insurance - for Hillary- Part 1
Hillary is unveiling her Universal Health Care plan and according to preliminary reports and this article, it's going to rely on the individual mandate:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care;_ylt=Ap79AAi7EvsMRwgrY71BSe.yFz4D
The "Individual Mandate" requires all individuals to purchase health insurance. The thinking is that mandatory insurance laws are fairly effective for auto insurance and worker's comp, why not apply it to health insurance. To be fair, Hillary isn't the only one making this mistake. Mitt Romney has touted his Massachuesetts plan which utilizes a similar theory.
Here are some reasons why these two types of insurance are too different to assume that health insurance can be handled in a similar fashion to auto insurance.
1) Not everyone has a car but everyone is going to have health insurance. Purchasing an automobile and putting gas in it requires money. A driver's license is also required. These factors already present a weeding out process. By requirining licenses and an automobile ownership, you're already limiting the pool. Universal Health Care does not. You have this coverage the moment you enter the US. I've got news for Hillary and advocates of plans like these - if you don't pay for auto insurance and you pay cash for a car and drive it off the lot - you don't have auto insurance.
2) Auto Insurance rates consider your "history." Hillary says that " companies would no longer be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions or genetic predisposition to certain illnesses. " Your rates are based on your driving history. That's reason most of us can afford insurance - we're rewarded for our good behavoir. If they simply divided the amount in claims paid and the cost of handling them by the #s of policyholders, alot of folks would be priced out of the market.
3) Auto Insurers Will Deny Coverage If You Don't Pay Your Premiums - This is a little like the first item but it's a key difference between the 2 policy lines. You pay your insurance premiums every year/every 6 months or every month. If you don't pay them, you will no longer have coverage. Your auto insurance company cancels a lot of policies. Just think if they couldn't cancel those policies. What if you had to pay for the short fall- what would that do your auto insurance rates? Hillary says that the details of how those who don't insure themselves haven't been worked out. She says there's a possibility that those who don't carry this insurance would be docked certain tax deductions, but we know this much. She won't be denying coverage or benefits.
4) Policies in Most States Have Limits to the Amount They Will Cover - Most auto insurance policies in most states have a "mandatory minimum" clause. Simply put, they will only cover up to a certain dollar amount. Anyone can tell you that an auto accident with severe injuries usually uses these limits up quickly with little left over for pain and suffering. If auto insurance companies had a responsibility for a limitless amount of coverage for all accidents - do you think most drivers could afford it?
There are certainly other key differences, but these are some big ones. Simply put, if auto insurace policies were required to cover every American, could never cancel someone, couldn't judge someone on their driving record and had to be responsible for damages with significantly higher limits - how many people could afford it?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care;_ylt=Ap79AAi7EvsMRwgrY71BSe.yFz4D
The "Individual Mandate" requires all individuals to purchase health insurance. The thinking is that mandatory insurance laws are fairly effective for auto insurance and worker's comp, why not apply it to health insurance. To be fair, Hillary isn't the only one making this mistake. Mitt Romney has touted his Massachuesetts plan which utilizes a similar theory.
Here are some reasons why these two types of insurance are too different to assume that health insurance can be handled in a similar fashion to auto insurance.
1) Not everyone has a car but everyone is going to have health insurance. Purchasing an automobile and putting gas in it requires money. A driver's license is also required. These factors already present a weeding out process. By requirining licenses and an automobile ownership, you're already limiting the pool. Universal Health Care does not. You have this coverage the moment you enter the US. I've got news for Hillary and advocates of plans like these - if you don't pay for auto insurance and you pay cash for a car and drive it off the lot - you don't have auto insurance.
2) Auto Insurance rates consider your "history." Hillary says that " companies would no longer be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions or genetic predisposition to certain illnesses. " Your rates are based on your driving history. That's reason most of us can afford insurance - we're rewarded for our good behavoir. If they simply divided the amount in claims paid and the cost of handling them by the #s of policyholders, alot of folks would be priced out of the market.
3) Auto Insurers Will Deny Coverage If You Don't Pay Your Premiums - This is a little like the first item but it's a key difference between the 2 policy lines. You pay your insurance premiums every year/every 6 months or every month. If you don't pay them, you will no longer have coverage. Your auto insurance company cancels a lot of policies. Just think if they couldn't cancel those policies. What if you had to pay for the short fall- what would that do your auto insurance rates? Hillary says that the details of how those who don't insure themselves haven't been worked out. She says there's a possibility that those who don't carry this insurance would be docked certain tax deductions, but we know this much. She won't be denying coverage or benefits.
4) Policies in Most States Have Limits to the Amount They Will Cover - Most auto insurance policies in most states have a "mandatory minimum" clause. Simply put, they will only cover up to a certain dollar amount. Anyone can tell you that an auto accident with severe injuries usually uses these limits up quickly with little left over for pain and suffering. If auto insurance companies had a responsibility for a limitless amount of coverage for all accidents - do you think most drivers could afford it?
There are certainly other key differences, but these are some big ones. Simply put, if auto insurace policies were required to cover every American, could never cancel someone, couldn't judge someone on their driving record and had to be responsible for damages with significantly higher limits - how many people could afford it?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Local Media Bias and QB Controversies
College football practice has begun and my local paper, The Winston Salem Journal has been covering the local schools. I don't mind a large amount of coverage on Wake Forest. They are the "hometown" team - it's only right that they should enjoy the majority of coverage on college football. Then, there's also the fact that they are defending ACC Champions. I wouldn't mind a good deal of coverage on App State - since the Winston Salem Journal likes to consider itself the voice of Northwestern NC - and they're a champion too.
Since last Wednesday there have been 5 articles on the Deacs - and that's fine. Of course, there's also been 5 articles on the Tar Heels. And here's where I get PO'd- there's been only one article on NC State during this same time span.
I could understand this discrepancy if it was UNC coming off a BCS bowl and NC State was coming off of last season - UNC isn't. They were miserable last year too.
I could understand this if there was a huge difference in the demand for football in Chapel Hill versus Raleigh. There isn't - NC State's Carter Finley Stadium is sold out for the 7th straight year in a row. Last year, in spite of an awful season, more people attended NC State football games than attended UNC football games. If you judge by those facts, there's more interest in NC State football than UNC football.
I do have to wonder why any paper that's covering the local teams - pays so much attention to UNC, but so comparatively little to NC State. NC State is the largest university in North Carolina after all, surely they merit similar preseason coverage.
Part of the problem is Bill Cole. He covers the TarHeel beat for the Journal, and if I was a Tar Heel fan - I'd love him. Like many writers that I've notice on the area who covers the Heels, he covers them as a fan. He has the latest scoop on Tar Heel recruiting and will often share it. Heck, this year in basketball recruiting, he managed to write an entire article on the Heels incoming class when they didn't even sign any new recruits!
A few years ago when the Pack had an early verbal from Mario Williams - the future 1st pick in 2006's NFL draft - UNC received a commitment from a high school player. Cole wrote that the verbal was the first one for the North Carolina ACC schools. I sent him an e-mail advising him that Mario Williams had committed to the Pack earlier. He did a retraction the next day - which proves he's a decent enough person. However, this points to a larger problem when someone covers a team that they favor over others. It's really only natural that theses biases would reveal themselves on occasion.
In this case, the bias is appearing on a pretty regular basis.
Speaking of NC State football, based on the first 2 scrimmages, it looks like the Wolfpack could be heading for another QB controversey. While Daniel Evans had solid #s the first scrimmage, his numbers weren't as impressive in the second one. Burke's #s improved from his first scrimmage - but won't likely strike fear in any defense. Beck continues to struggle w/ his completion percentage, while putting up good yards per pass. However, he has to be more accurate if he's going to get the job. If you look at the numbers, it's hard to be excited about the position on the field that has led to so much frustration for the Wolfpack nation the last 3 years.
Enter true freshman Russell Wilson. In yesterday's scrimmage he was 2 for 2 w/ 1 TD pass for 58 yards.
Their cumulative #s thus far :
Evans 13-22 yards 127 yards (5.77 yards per pass) 1/1 INT
Burke 12-24 92 yards (3.83 yards per pass) 0/2 INT
Beck 7-20 154 yards (7.5 yards per pass) 1/3 INT
Wilson 5-8 106 yards (13.25 yards per pass) 1/1 INT
I have no idea who Wilson was playing, whether he was just lucky or anything else about these scrimmages. Tom O'Brien and Dana Bible aren't known for risk taking - they're fairly conservative guys. It's more likely that NC State will win the ACC than it is that Wilson will start the first couple of games. However, right now, he has the best completion % and the best yards per pass of the 4 QBs. I'm pretty sure this also gives him the highest QB rating of the four candidates.
If nothing else, it looks like this QB search should include Wilson as a potential candidate.
Since last Wednesday there have been 5 articles on the Deacs - and that's fine. Of course, there's also been 5 articles on the Tar Heels. And here's where I get PO'd- there's been only one article on NC State during this same time span.
I could understand this discrepancy if it was UNC coming off a BCS bowl and NC State was coming off of last season - UNC isn't. They were miserable last year too.
I could understand this if there was a huge difference in the demand for football in Chapel Hill versus Raleigh. There isn't - NC State's Carter Finley Stadium is sold out for the 7th straight year in a row. Last year, in spite of an awful season, more people attended NC State football games than attended UNC football games. If you judge by those facts, there's more interest in NC State football than UNC football.
I do have to wonder why any paper that's covering the local teams - pays so much attention to UNC, but so comparatively little to NC State. NC State is the largest university in North Carolina after all, surely they merit similar preseason coverage.
Part of the problem is Bill Cole. He covers the TarHeel beat for the Journal, and if I was a Tar Heel fan - I'd love him. Like many writers that I've notice on the area who covers the Heels, he covers them as a fan. He has the latest scoop on Tar Heel recruiting and will often share it. Heck, this year in basketball recruiting, he managed to write an entire article on the Heels incoming class when they didn't even sign any new recruits!
A few years ago when the Pack had an early verbal from Mario Williams - the future 1st pick in 2006's NFL draft - UNC received a commitment from a high school player. Cole wrote that the verbal was the first one for the North Carolina ACC schools. I sent him an e-mail advising him that Mario Williams had committed to the Pack earlier. He did a retraction the next day - which proves he's a decent enough person. However, this points to a larger problem when someone covers a team that they favor over others. It's really only natural that theses biases would reveal themselves on occasion.
In this case, the bias is appearing on a pretty regular basis.
QB Controversey Part IV - More Snaps for Wilson!
Speaking of NC State football, based on the first 2 scrimmages, it looks like the Wolfpack could be heading for another QB controversey. While Daniel Evans had solid #s the first scrimmage, his numbers weren't as impressive in the second one. Burke's #s improved from his first scrimmage - but won't likely strike fear in any defense. Beck continues to struggle w/ his completion percentage, while putting up good yards per pass. However, he has to be more accurate if he's going to get the job. If you look at the numbers, it's hard to be excited about the position on the field that has led to so much frustration for the Wolfpack nation the last 3 years.
Enter true freshman Russell Wilson. In yesterday's scrimmage he was 2 for 2 w/ 1 TD pass for 58 yards.
Their cumulative #s thus far :
Evans 13-22 yards 127 yards (5.77 yards per pass) 1/1 INT
Burke 12-24 92 yards (3.83 yards per pass) 0/2 INT
Beck 7-20 154 yards (7.5 yards per pass) 1/3 INT
Wilson 5-8 106 yards (13.25 yards per pass) 1/1 INT
I have no idea who Wilson was playing, whether he was just lucky or anything else about these scrimmages. Tom O'Brien and Dana Bible aren't known for risk taking - they're fairly conservative guys. It's more likely that NC State will win the ACC than it is that Wilson will start the first couple of games. However, right now, he has the best completion % and the best yards per pass of the 4 QBs. I'm pretty sure this also gives him the highest QB rating of the four candidates.
If nothing else, it looks like this QB search should include Wilson as a potential candidate.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
NC Leglislators Vote To Raise Health Insurance Rates
No, this wasn't the headline for this article found in the Winston Salem Journal Friday, but maybe it should have been:
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351990787
Next time someone asks that basic question - how come my health insurance just keeps on costing more and more? Just point to this article. This is another case where regulation is increasing the type of treatment that the insurer must provide - and these things don't happen in a vacuum.
You can't demand that an insurer covers more losses and expect to pay the same rate.
It's not that insurance health insurance companies shouldn't offer increased coverage as an option - they should. Allowing insurers and customers different coverage options is the kind common sense solutions that would allow more people to afford insurance and would allow more policyholders to purchase insurance that was more taylored to their needs.
However, the state has no business mandating that it's covered - unless they believe that it's OK to raise rates.
What's worse is how this article presents the new legislation.
They present only the positive side of this bill - that health insurers will be forced to handle mental illnesses the same way that they handle physical ailments. There's a little blurb about the possibility of increased cost, but they quickly provide a retort to this from the bill's supporters.
If you're in North Carolina or one of the other 33 states that require "parity coverage" for mental illnesses, be sure to ask you legislator when he/she starts complaining about the cost of health coverage where they stood on this bill.
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351990787
Next time someone asks that basic question - how come my health insurance just keeps on costing more and more? Just point to this article. This is another case where regulation is increasing the type of treatment that the insurer must provide - and these things don't happen in a vacuum.
You can't demand that an insurer covers more losses and expect to pay the same rate.
It's not that insurance health insurance companies shouldn't offer increased coverage as an option - they should. Allowing insurers and customers different coverage options is the kind common sense solutions that would allow more people to afford insurance and would allow more policyholders to purchase insurance that was more taylored to their needs.
However, the state has no business mandating that it's covered - unless they believe that it's OK to raise rates.
What's worse is how this article presents the new legislation.
They present only the positive side of this bill - that health insurers will be forced to handle mental illnesses the same way that they handle physical ailments. There's a little blurb about the possibility of increased cost, but they quickly provide a retort to this from the bill's supporters.
If you're in North Carolina or one of the other 33 states that require "parity coverage" for mental illnesses, be sure to ask you legislator when he/she starts complaining about the cost of health coverage where they stood on this bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)