Taxpayers at risk in terror-insurance bill

The Washington Times ^ | October 24, 2002

[3AngelaD]

Bad legislation is worse than no legislation at all. That is the case with the terrorism-insurance bill that is now emerging from a conference committee on Capitol Hill. But the conference report has not been signed. So it is not officially a done deal. That means it can still be improved. And improvement is what it needs. Failing that, it needs to be killed until it can be improved.

[3AngelaD]

Once again, taxpayers' interests are sacrificed to the benefit of predatory lawyers.

[Free the USA]

bump

[MtnMover]

Why is it that we need terrorism insurance? Don't we have the best DoD, INS, ATF, CIA, DIA , FBI etc., agencies in the world? Let's stop terrorism before it occurs, then we don't need the insurance that we have already paid for and we won't be sending dollars to the collectors who attempt to legally extort money from the consumer based on fear. How about economic vitality insurance?

[3AngelaD]

Actually, this deals very narrowly with commerical real estate coverage, and the federal back-up program would only go into effect in the event of another catastrophic terror attack which caused damage in excess of $10 billion. Left alone, the private sector will develop a re-insurance market capable of insuring this risk without a federal program. Such a market has already started to form, but slows down everytime it appears as if Congress is going to act on the legislation.

[glc1173@aol.com]

"Terrorism insurance" is really only for Blue Nation's urban areas - at everyone's expense.

Does anyone think that Osama bin Laden is going to attack rural areas in Idaho? Does anyone really even think he's going to attack Salt Lake City?

[3AngelaD]

Exactly. It would be a windfall for the insurance companies which have already sold policies at much higher rates and stand to make a fortune if the federal government were to step in and pay such claims.

But the main idea is that the cost of insuring the high-risk buildings in say, New York, would be spread across the entire country and paid for, in part, by people in Idaho, specifically people in Idaho who own or rent commercial real estate. In crude political terms, this is a favor that the Senate leadership wishes to do for Senators Schumer and Clinton, and Senator Dodd. Why the House leadership is going along beats me.