SERFF Liberation ⁠4%

5/1/2009, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Status Quo Bias as the most egregious example at 10.4% saturation with 21 hits. Analysis detected 135 faulty-reasoning hits from 201 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 16.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠4% (21,157 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.70% of the article peer group.

The property and casualty insurance 
policies that most Americans buy depend on a system by which insurers 
file rates—the fees they charge for insurance policies—and forms—the 
language and forms insurers use to describe those policies to 
consumers. 
All 50 states and the District of Columbia have separate 
laws concerning these rates and forms. 
Increasingly, these rates and 
forms flow through a computer program called the System for Electronic 
Rate and Form Filing (SERFF), which is owned and operated by the 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). 
Nineteen states 
require that all filings go through SERFF. 
The 
paper explains the System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing’s 
structure and raises questions regarding its usefulness. 
The paper’s 
first section provides a broad overview of the “admitted” or “standard” 
insurance market, and describes why rate and form filing are essential 
to its continuation in its current form. 
The second section describes 
the history and function of SERFF. 
The third section discusses three major problems with SERFF. 
The fourth and final section proposes a series of solutions that would solve these problems. 
SERFF, 
as it currently exists, raises serious practical, equity, and legal 
questions—particularly relating to the delegation of taxing 
authority—and needs reform. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.5%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias3.0%This article: 8.0%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.5%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority7.5%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization2.5%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 5.0%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question5.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.5%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground5.5%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

201 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.5%attributed speech190writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 5 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 12 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageNational Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 12 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 15 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words100% of attributed speech33% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading

Loading

Loading

Loading


Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.