PDA

View Full Version : Bouska


I_actuate™
02-03-2005, 04:18 PM
Anyone else find this an extremely difficult read? I understand what's going on and can answer questions from previous exams, but the paper reads like it was edited by a lawyer.

or am I just a retard who failed english? don't answer that.

Examinator
02-04-2005, 09:48 AM
I didn't fail english, and yes this paper was difficult to read. The ideas aren't terribly tough, but the readability makes it tough.

BassFreq
02-04-2005, 11:15 AM
I did fail English (in 7th grade). I'm not partial to Bouska's writing style, but I had no problem understanding the paper at all.

Klaymen
02-04-2005, 11:44 AM
If you can't stand Bouska's article you might as well quit exams now, there are much worse things to read later on.

tommie frazier
02-04-2005, 01:25 PM
I liked the paper. I actually liked her writing style.

Brad Gile
02-04-2005, 02:56 PM
Anyone else find this an extremely difficult read? I understand what's going on and can answer questions from previous exams, but the paper reads like it was edited by a lawyer.

or am I just a retard who failed english? don't answer that.

If you are bemoaning the Bouska paper on exposures, you should see the monstrosity by Dorweiler (written in 1927?) that it replaced! :D

Brad

Abnormal
02-05-2005, 08:35 AM
you should see the monstrosity by Dorweiler (written in 1927?) that it replaced!

Amen. I still remember reading about "Team Insurance". For the benefit of all the youngsters out there this is not insurance on sports teams but is rather insurance on the teams of horses that pulled wagons through town. Somehow it didn't seem like overly useful material in the mid-80's.

In comparison, Bouska's paper was a breath of fresh air and, as such things go, is an easy read.

Examinator
02-09-2005, 09:58 AM
Speaking of this article, can anyone expand on the results of the Oregon WC study? Particularly, explain the bias/unbias found against medium/small empolyers?

asilem
02-24-2005, 10:08 AM
This Oregon study is mentioned in the section concerning hours-worked versus payroll. The idea was that a unionized company would have higher payroll and thus be paying higher premiums for their WC coverage. The concern was that this was unfair to these unionized / higher wage paying companies.

The study found no bias against the union / high wage paying employers among the small employers - I took this to mean that the higher rates being charged due to higher payroll were justified - that the higher premiums were not unfair to these small employers.

The study found that there was bias against the union / high wage paying medium sized employers. The loss costs per premium dollar were lower for these employers than other medium sized employers. I understood this to mean that the medium sized employers were being charged more than they should be - that their premiums were unfairly high given their experience.

Please someone let me know if I did not describe this correctly. This is my understanding.

I have a question on the Bouska paper - concerning the GL exposure base change for either the mercantile or the manufacturing group. Previously, they were using receipts and area/payroll and now they are using gross sales (page 18 of the article). What is the difference between receipts and gross sales? I know that this is not the main idea to take away from this section, but it's bothering me.

Thanks!

jk
02-24-2005, 11:45 AM
I have a question on the Bouska paper - concerning the GL exposure base change for either the mercantile or the manufacturing group. Previously, they were using receipts and area/payroll and now they are using gross sales (page 18 of the article). What is the difference between receipts and gross sales? I know that this is not the main idea to take away from this section, but it's bothering me.The same thing bothered me when I read the paper. She sure uses the words like they're interchangeable -- on Page 19 she talks about "the change from area to receipts (gross sales) . . ." and "the new receipts base" even though it's labelled "gross sales" on the chart. I have to assume that they're the same thing.

asilem
02-24-2005, 11:50 AM
Someone at my company was asking around the commercial department, and no one could really answer the question...

tommie frazier
02-24-2005, 01:19 PM
thanks to friends in high places, I went to the source on this.

gross sales vs receipts:

the response (after saying "I wrote that how many years ago?"):
it is likely that the intent was to mean the same thing. while possible that they aren't equal, they are likely certainly close to equal.

hope that helps.

asilem
02-24-2005, 01:24 PM
Thanks! I appreciate your help.

Examinator
02-26-2005, 11:36 AM
The study found no bias against the union / high wage paying employers among the small employers - I took this to mean that the higher rates being charged due to higher payroll were justified - that the higher premiums were not unfair to these small employers.

The study found that there was bias against the union / high wage paying medium sized employers. The loss costs per premium dollar were lower for these employers than other medium sized employers. I understood this to mean that the medium sized employers were being charged more than they should be - that their premiums were unfairly high given their experience.Does anyone have a rationale behind the findings of this study, then? For indemnity coverage, this makes sense. Payroll is higher, reimbursements are then higher, so premium for indemnity coverage should be higher. But it seems that medical costs shouldn't consistently vary directly with wages. Is it possible that people who make more money seek more expensive medical attention, thereby justifying the higher premium for BOTH indemnity and medical? And if so, why only for the smaller unionized/high wage employers (as there was no bias for the medium-sized employers).

asilem
02-26-2005, 07:04 PM
Actually, they found bias for the medium-sized employers but not for the small employers.

I think that maybe the thought was - with a union, there is an organization present to inform the workers of their rights with respect to WC claims. Being more aware of the rights under WC laws, they're probably more likely to file a claim. When there is no union, perhaps this information is not as readily available.