I've seen that same argument time after time.
But, one thing still puzzles me:
If it's true, why, then, have so many insurers simply dropped all medmal coverage? They still do GL, they still do personal, and, if the article was correct, the bad investments and whatnot would make all lines unprofitable. Yet, it's only been medmal coverage that's been discontinued.
Businesses usually behave rationally. If the medmal business were actually profitable, they wouldn't walk away from it. So, this factor, at least, sort of militates against the Times' reason.
