Demagoging Tsunamis => Insurance Co. siding w/ Environmentalists

Washinthing Times ^ | 6 January 2004 | Steven Milloy

[NCCarrs]

Below is excerpt of interest => whole article worth read, though:

Exploitation of tragedy is a sport played not only by environmentalists. Insurer Munich Re used the event to renew its call to fight global warming, which the insurance industry has recently begun blaming for natural disasters. Concerned about large payouts for natural disaster claims, insurance companies are very eager to establish global warming as contributing to those disasters, so they can sue deep-pocket businesses supposedly responsible for that global warming.

[NCCarrs]

When I was working way through grade school 25-plus years ago, we were told by the "Mother Jones" crowd / teachers that the greatest Ice Age every was coming, in addition to the Earth being overpopulated in a short 30 to 50 years!

Insurance is becoming mere extortion! Premiums increase year-to-year, whilst coverage / benefits decline at alarming rate => extreme inverse correlation between premium & benefits. What is quickly becoming "catastrophic coverage only" for many, is in reality a Ponzi Scheme by the Insurance Industry.

Their jumping on "Global Warmoing Bandwagon" is a troubling sign, and highlights how current culture has preference to shirk responsibilities whenever / however possible. If insurance companies prefer to maximize their ROI, they should become BANKS!

[Dallas59]

And eventually penalize YOU for operating an internal combustion engine....along with farting and breathing.

[JohnnyZ]

Insurance is becoming mere extortion!

Cry me a frickin river, if you want the product pay the price. You are welcome to go without insurance and have your house burn down and your dog bite somebody and pay the $1 million bill out of pocket.

Damn frickin liberals want something for nothing!

[kx9088]

In PA, it's illegal to go without auto insurance, so you don't have the choice to go without.

[JohnnyZ]

In PA, it's illegal to go without auto insurance

It's illegal to go without liability insurance because the people who go without and can't shell out a few hundred thousand make everyone else's insurance bill higher. And you probably don't even have to purchase liability insurance if you're willing to establish collateral to serve as your guarantee of payment if you hit somebody -- that depends on the state, of course.

[tiki]

I wonder what caused Krakatoa.

[NCCarrs]

You do pay, and have to keep paying higher premiums every year. My point is that if you "buy the product," the companies who sell you "the product," should pay what's promised!

I've bought many a premium willingly and under duress (Gov't mandates I buy auto insurance), and in 3/4 of cases where I've had to submit claims, I've received more grief for trying to collect what the policy said I was due. To resolve each to reasonable satisfaction, I've had to spend hours writing, calling and cajoling Ins Reps, for which I've had to forego more important activities, like work and spending time w/ family. I'm no liberal, only a customer who wants what he pays for WITHOUT super-secret clauses, riders, and other BS. I'm willing to except fact that Insurance is required to cover you against catastrophe; I want assure that when castrophe visits me or mine, I'll get what I've paid for on time over the course of owning the policy : - )

[massgopguy]

I had heard that the Germans were the largest underwriters in South Asia. They also have pledged a paltry amount towards disaster relief. I noticed that they got their ex-PM out of there fast enough. Did he want to get back in time to cancel their policies or was he in a compromising position.

[JohnnyZ]

My point is that if you "buy the product," the companies who sell you "the product," should pay what's promised!

You might need a company with better claims handling service. It's at least bad business practice and possibly illegal for a company to drag their feet on paying claims. But coverage will always be dependent on clauses and riders (endorsements), and believe me, they all have a purpose and are well-defined in common law. That's one reason policy language is as complex as it is -- it's already been interpreted by the courts, and if the wording were to be revised or simplified it could lead to a different (unintended) interpretation in a future lawsuit.

[NCCarrs]

Yeah, I keep looking, but it seems it truly is harder to get reliable insurance, especially health insurance. I get through work, but quacks in area accept it one day, then drop it next. Over past three years along, we've had to switch dentists 5 times and pediatricians 3 times. Luckily our main family doctor has honored the three different insurances we got.

Over this same period, our benefits have declined markedly, while in last 2 years alone, the cost to me has tripled. I'm not that old, but growing up we went to true "country doctor" who didn't take insurance and only charged $5 USD per visit. Over the 15 years we went to him, his fee tripled to $15 USD. He worked out of his home, had no fancy equipment, and wasn't terribly organized, but he sure could diagnose problems and produce cures. His analog is a Navy Corpsman => can do heck of a lot with not much, and they are damned good :- ) Enjoyed the chat!

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!