View Single Post
  #40  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:37 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 27,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydraskull View Post
Originally Posted by LOLAND
In a phone interview, Mr. Sharpe said that he had been instructed to use the 1971 mortality table by the Illinois Insurance Department. Even though it was old, he said, he considered it more realistic because it projected death rates out to age 110. The table from 2000 uses a different population sample and projects death rates out to age 120.

If La Grange projected life spans the way Mr. Palermo wanted, he added, it would “be collecting taxes to pay for pensions to people assumed to live to age 120,” a needless expense.



If I was trying to bamboozle lay people, this is how I would do it.



Ditto. This smacks of either ignorance or bamboozling. Either way, as an actuary, it's professional misconduct.

No qualified actuary would use this line of reasoning. We all know that just because a mortality table goes to age 120, that doesn't mean everyone lives to 120.
I'd offer at least one additional possibility: a reporter (or editor) condensing a story for space, or who didn't really understand the issues (s)he was reporting on. Assuming ignorance, bamboozling, or professional misconduct on a newspaper article is rather presumptuous IMO.

If I'm inclined to believe the best about the OP, I can see some weird ruling from the Illinois DOI and he is using an old table because he did some analysis and thinks the pensioners covered here aren't living that long, with the 120 year comments out of context or inaccurately summarized by the reporter.

If I'm inclined to believe the worst, he's representing that the DOI told him he's required to use the table he believes is most accurate and he's twisting that into "They told me to use the 1971 table" (because he has some reason to think it's most accurate).

This will be an interesting court transcript IMO, if it gets to that point and becomes public, but people saying "professional misconduct" based on a NYT reporter's understanding and reporting on a technical matter seem a little premature IMO.

Also, kudos to Mr. Palermo, who may be right or wrong in filing a complaint but is certainly above-and-beyond public officials I often see in terms of actually taking the time to ask questions and try to learn/understand. We need more public officials like that in many jurisdictions at all levels.
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.09892 seconds with 9 queries