OK, so tonight on Fox News Brit Hume

[vraiblonde]

Out of the $150,000 coverage policy we paid for for 3 years ($6000) a year, we received under $18,000.00, in essence, less than we hade actually paid in.

And that's the way these bastards work. Larry's folks have a house at Deep Creek and we were up there with some friends skiing and tubing. My girlfriend was in the tube and she took a nasty bump, resulting in a broken ankle. Her health insurance company haggled and haggled with her over covering the cost of repair, and actually suggested that she sue Larry's dad since it happened on his property. They were a bit disgruntled when she explained that Larry's dad doesn't own the whole lake and went through the exercise of trying to say that the tube was where the accident occurred, and that was his property.

And this was just the cost of setting her ankle and subsequent physical therapy!!


I agree with Pete - insurance companies are the Anti-Christ.

 

[nomoney]

And that's the way these bastards work. Larry's folks have a house at Deep Creek and we were up there with some friends skiing and tubing. My girlfriend was in the tube and she took a nasty bump, resulting in a broken ankle. Her health insurance company haggled and haggled with her over covering the cost of repair, and actually suggested that she sue Larry's dad since it happened on his property. They were a bit disgruntled when she explained that Larry's dad doesn't own the whole lake and went through the exercise of trying to say that the tube was where the accident occurred, and that was his property.

And this was just the cost of setting her ankle and subsequent physical therapy!!


I agree with Pete - insurance companies are the Anti-Christ.

I'm fighting our medical insurance now to pay for the "emergency" surgaries my son needed. I'm real glad I pay these bastards $500/mo

 

[2ndAmendment]

There are groups of people that band together to "self insure". We have a fairly large community here. We could form a corporation or LLC. If we can get 200 households (more would be better) and each put in $2000 to start (each household would designate a partner or stock holder) and $100 per year after that, we could self insure the average home. We could even buy catastrophic insurance for to cover the losses beyond our own assets. I think in the long run, we would save money. We could do the same thing for auto insurance. If we turn a profit, it would flow back to us, or we could get to a point where the assets were judged to be sufficient to sustain any loss. With the assets conservatively invested, the growth could even pay for the catastrophic insurance.

 

[Larry Gude]

Allstate...

Which way is it? did it devastate the company or did it merely mess up their 3rd quarter profits?

Insurance companies also have reinsurance to protect them from catastrophe's such as this. Insurance companies for insurance companies if you will.

So what you are saying is that insurance companies should be able to charge premiums, jack those premiums if you dare make a claim, only in the safest of areas and the government is left insuring the dangerous risk prone areas?

I am rethinking my opinion of emergency relief based on this discussion. Perhaps a risk ratio where the insurance companies underwrite a portion of catastrophic loss and the government underwrites part.

...for whatever reason chose to bail. As I said, the insurance business is not perfect. They are only required to have, what, 20% of the cash on hand that they are liable for. Tha tleaves them plenty of room to make money elsewhere...or get in trouble.

I like your idea of a ratio. If a company wants a larger piece then they need to be bigger in order to handle it.

Insurance is critical.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ideally...

Ehhh... not quite. Let's say that 200,000 of us put up that buck (just like the one you'll soon owe me), and one house burns down, costing say $150,000 to rebuild. We have all shared in the risk, and the insurance company has made $50,000. Now let's do it again next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, and no one's house burns down. The insurance company has now made $650,000. Now let's say in year five three houses burn down, costing $150,000 each to rebuild. Counting the year five premiums, the insurance company has brought in $100,000 over five years, paid out $600,000, and made $400,000. Not too bad.

But, in the real World, the insurance company decides that the $400,000 it made is not enough, so now they want all of us to pay $3 a year since three houses burned down and now their profits are taking a hit, not that they're going broke... just because they're not making as much money. The insurance companies are more than happy to take our money when things are good, but when things go bad, they don't want to lose any money and instead they up the premiums.

Insurance companies may not be the anti-Christ, but they are the worst bookies in town.

...there is enough competition to make it healthy. In the mean time, I am able to own a home and run a business at prices I can afford for insurance that, without, my home and business would be at risk(s) I could not survive otherwise.

 

[Larry Gude]

But Pete...

This is what makes me say insurance companies are the Anti-Christ. They do not skip a beat raising your rates for a claim but will wiggle and jerk you around to keep from paying.

with the technology today you cannot tell me that these insurance companies have not factored in hurricanes and losses. I just do not believe when Andrew hit FL the CEO with a stunned look on his face stammered "Holy Crap, a hurricane! We never factored in a hurricane

...they did NOT have flood insurance. They said they could NOT afford the additional $12,000.

In my opinion, they could not afford to NOT have it.

Insurance is REAL simple; You figure up what could happen that you could NOT handle on your own; flood, fire, tornado, etc and then you find out how much it would cost to insure it.

If your business can't afford to protect itself then you gotta find a way to afford it or simply accept that it's a simple matter of time before you are gone.


BTW: I LOVED Oakwood and I think it sux that it's gone.

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

so they can charge what they want

...they can't.

I pay $800 a year for the house and over $4,000 a month for the company. I promise you they'd like me to pay more.

I think $800 is peanuts for the house and the review we do every year for the company is fine tooth comb stuff and I leave the meeting satisfied that I am spending what I need to spend to protect the business and my livelyhood.

Maybe there needs to be more competition but, overall, I'm pretty happy.

 

[Larry Gude]

It says so...

Can someone please show me in the Constitution where the Federal government is given

...right up front: ...promote the general welfare.

I would argue that using the power of the treasury to help New Orleans and the Gulf coast area is a good and proper use of the Federal government.

 

[Larry Gude]

Write your congressmen...

I'm fighting our medical insurance now to pay for the "emergency" surgaries my son needed. I'm real glad I pay these bastards $500/mo

I do not wish to excuse insurance companies from their obligations. Raise hell, get help, call the local news. I'm serious.

Having said that, would you be better off without the insurance?

 

[Larry Gude]

And what if...

There are groups of people that band together to "self insure". We have a fairly large community here. We could form a corporation or LLC. If we can get 200 households (more would be better) and each put in $2000 to start (each household would designate a partner or stock holder) and $100 per year after that, we could self insure the average home. We could even buy catastrophic insurance for to cover the losses beyond our own assets. I think in the long run, we would save money. We could do the same thing for auto insurance. If we turn a profit, it would flow back to us, or we could get to a point where the assets were judged to be sufficient to sustain any loss. With the assets conservatively invested, the growth could even pay for the catastrophic insurance.

...something catastrophic happens, like those thugs that burned all those new houses? Or a LaPlata happens? How much is a $20,000,000 policy?

200 times 2,000 is $400,000.

Again, insurance is for what you CAN'T cover yourself. If nothing ever happens, then, hell yeah, at $100 a year, you are money ahead. Same with the car.

 

[SamSpade]

...right up front: ...promote the general welfare.

Oh we could spend a DAY or two discussing the meaning of that phrase. And people HAVE.

But it's understood from the Federalist papers, as I see it, that it refers to the common welfare - the welfare of ALL versus the welfare of individuals. So it may be within the government's raison d'etre to build roads that Sam Adam's beer company resides on, it ISN'T their job to bail out his company when it goes belly up or to pay his former employees money until they get new jobs. That's not promoting the general welfare, that's helping out individuals SPECIFICALLY. You can build parks and canals, secure the borders, fight piracy on the high seas and fight a war to stop the pressing of our citizenry into the British navy - but you don't give money to John Q. Public because his house fell down, because, for one thing, you cannot halt the inevitable corruption that will ensue.

This could be cause for another thread, but I'll leave that up to 2A.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...something catastrophic happens, like those thugs that burned all those new houses? Or a LaPlata happens? How much is a $20,000,000 policy?

200 times 2,000 is $400,000.

Again, insurance is for what you CAN'T cover yourself. If nothing ever happens, then, hell yeah, at $100 a year, you are money ahead. Same with the car.

I said "self insure". The group would only cover the group. Diverse geographic demographic give higher odds of no one event being catastrophic.

 

[Mol]

I’m sure if it was Hume’s or Hannity’s multimillion dollar house that was destroyed this wouldn’t even been a topic that was discussed!

 

[Larry Gude]

It is...

Oh we could spend a DAY or two discussing the meaning of that phrase. And people HAVE.

But it's understood from the Federalist papers, as I see it, that it refers to the common welfare - the welfare of ALL versus the welfare of individuals. So it may be within the government's raison d'etre to build roads that Sam Adam's beer company resides on, it ISN'T their job to bail out his company when it goes belly up or to pay his former employees money until they get new jobs. That's not promoting the general welfare, that's helping out individuals SPECIFICALLY. You can build parks and canals, secure the borders, fight piracy on the high seas and fight a war to stop the pressing of our citizenry into the British navy - but you don't give money to John Q. Public because his house fell down, because, for one thing, you cannot halt the inevitable corruption that will ensue.

This could be cause for another thread, but I'll leave that up to 2A.

..in my opinion, within the common good of the nation to help a distressed reagion. These people are citizens. They've bought, by and large, insurance. They are tax payers. They do not live in a vaccuum. Business, nationwide, is affected. Airline travel, gas and oil, so on and so forth. Individuals are affected; travel, family who may live there and so on.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...right up front: ...promote the general welfare.

I would argue that using the power of the treasury to help New Orleans and the Gulf coast area is a good and proper use of the Federal government.

That argument is the one used by the liberals. Are you changing your ilk? That argument does not stand in the face of the delegated powers. The federal government was to have only the delegated powers. All other powers were reserved to the states or the people (Ninth and Tenth Amendments). The "promote the general welfare" is used to bolster implied powers which the founders said did not exist.

 

[SamSpade]

I’m sure if it was Hume’s or Hannity’s multimillion dollar house that was destroyed this wouldn’t even been a topic that was discussed!

That definitely qualifies as the stupidest thing I've read on here in a long time. While people on here are decidedly conservative, political pundits are not sacred cows. And it adds nothing to the discussion, since the major participants on either side of the argument are all conservatives.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...
But it's understood from the Federalist papers, as I see it, that it refers to the common welfare - the welfare of ALL versus the welfare of individuals. So it may be within the government's raison d'etre to build roads that Sam Adam's beer company resides on, it ISN'T their job to bail out his company when it goes belly up or to pay his former employees money until they get new jobs. That's not promoting the general welfare, that's helping out individuals SPECIFICALLY. You can build parks and canals, secure the borders, fight piracy on the high seas and fight a war to stop the pressing of our citizenry into the British navy - but you don't give money to John Q. Public because his house fell down, because, for one thing, you cannot halt the inevitable corruption that will ensue.....

Exactly!

 

[Larry Gude]

Right...

I said "self insure". The group would only cover the group. Diverse geographic demographic give higher odds of no one event being catastrophic.

...my point was what if the 'group' happned to be a bunch of new home owners who banded together there prior, in that neighborhood those arsonists attacked?

I wasn't suggesting an obligation help people NOT in the group, just throwing up the hypothetical, which is what we insure, right?

 

[2ndAmendment]

...my point was what if the 'group' happned to be a bunch of new home owners who banded together there prior, in that neighborhood those arsonists attacked?

I wasn't suggesting an obligation help people NOT in the group, just throwing up the hypothetical, which is what we insure, right?

My original post said "We". I used to participate in a "self insured" medical group when I was not part of a group. Worked well.

A group that is not diverse, i.e., "a bunch of new home owners" in a subdivision is not diverse.

 

[Larry Gude]

I understand clearly the 'only' part...

That argument is the one used by the liberals. Are you changing your ilk? That argument does not stand in the face of the delegated powers. The federal government was to have only the delegated powers. All other powers were reserved to the states or the people (Ninth and Tenth Amendments). The "promote the general welfare" is used to bolster implied powers which the founders said did not exist.

...but we, the people, have moved to the point where we see FEMA as a good thing, OSHA as a good thing and so forth.

In time of emergency, civil war, Abraham Lincoln threw the Constitution out the window arguing that, in war, there is no point in observing the letter of Constitution in order to protect it if in doing so it will no longer exist in word or spirit. His faith was in that in times of peace the people would accept some rule bending and breaking for the noble cause and then expect a return to the letter when peace returned.

Jeff Davis and Co. the most hardocre interpreters of states rights of all time did the same things and sometimes worse.

So, in time of emergency, why wouldn't a nation rally it's massive power to assist a part of itself in distress that it can not handle on it's own?

It that makes me 'liberal' I can accept that.