Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No there should be no limits WITH a caveat. The caveat is that the market HAS TO BE both a FAIR MARKET and a FREE MARKET... this will drive down costs and save money for the consumer. As it is now, it is neither a fair market or a free market, so YES, there has to be limits on profit UNTIL the time comes when a fair and free market is in place. That means less government intervention, free competition, and proper business rules to ensure a FAIR market with some oversight. So my answer is Yes (right now) and No (hopefully later)...
I favor state regulation of the insurance industries. I also favor states being able to take over some insurance processes. For example, Florida has a big problem with insurance companies pulling out of the state after the big hurricanes a couple of years ago, and leaving incredible premiums for those still willing to ensure. In this case, I support the state taking over the responsibility for property insurance and creating a fund for catastrophic insurance payouts, with a very high deductible.
Perhaps its the sinus medication I'm on, but you must live on a planet populated by businesses, not people.
I live on a planet with both, where businesses are made up of people.
Quote:
About 10 years ago, I read a book written by a woman who was kidnapped by Aborigines in Australia. She lived with them for more than a year and came to understand that it was for a purpose. She had made a pledge to the group in a former life that she would promote the Aboriginal value system. In her book, a woman named Ooota--a woman who had never visited a city, driven a car, or had any experience with the modern world--made this astute observation: business seems to exist solely to be in business. In other words, from my now semi-Aboriginal viewpoint, business is man-made, a system by which we exploit resources and each other. It is not necessary for survival. To fashion it into an elaborate all-encompassing structure like you seem to be doing in your defense of it is rather disconcerting to me.
I bet that aboriginal woman didn't have any of that sinus medication that you're on. I bet she didn't have the computer that you're using right now, either, the plastic that it's made with, or the electricity grid that keeps it running.
So your question is a philosophical one. If you take the aboriginal point of view, you'd need to forego all the things that make modern life convenient and comfortable. If you want to do that, that's fine. But I think most people like things like pizza, telephones, education, grocery stores, and air travel.
Quote:
It is how life was intended to be..
I don't idolize the sort of tribal life that you do. Tribal native americans, africans, aboriginals, pacific islanders, etc., led difficult lives, with lots of war, disease, and famine. I personally don't want civilization to return to that. In that sense, I don't think you can make assumptions about "how life was intended to be..." I think that's up to the individual.
I favor state regulation of the insurance industries. I also favor states being able to take over some insurance processes. For example, Florida has a big problem with insurance companies pulling out of the state after the big hurricanes a couple of years ago, and leaving incredible premiums for those still willing to ensure. In this case, I support the state taking over the responsibility for property insurance and creating a fund for catastrophic insurance payouts, with a very high deductible.
But doesn't state insurance force the people inland (in, say, Orlando) to subsidize the insurance for the wealthiest people who live on the coast?
And wouldn't those sky-high premiums more closely represent the actual risk associated with building structures in an obviously risky area? I think it is fine for insurance companies to pull out of areas like Florida, where the state gets to determine the premium they charge. The only problem I have is when the insurance companies don't shell out the cash for claims - that's when the state should really go after them, IMO.
I'm wondering why the public would want to buy insurance (or anything else) from a company that makes way too much money.
I'm remeinded of a billboard on the freeway near Chicago, for a dealer who had the nunber one sales staff five years in a row. Now, when you are shopping for a car, do you want to negotiate with the best salesman, or the worst?
The Walton family's 90-billion dollar personal fortune works out to about $900 per household in the United States. Every family who has consistently shopped at WalMart has just given maybe two-thousand to the Walton family, considering that half the families don't shop at WalMart. And that's not even counting what they have given to all of the other WalMart stockholders. So why do so many people feel so good about giving so much of their money to one family?
No there should be no limits WITH a caveat. The caveat is that the market HAS TO BE both a FAIR MARKET and a FREE MARKET... this will drive down costs and save money for the consumer. As it is now, it is neither a fair market or a free market, so YES, there has to be limits on profit UNTIL the time comes when a fair and free market is in place. That means less government intervention, free competition, and proper business rules to ensure a FAIR market with some oversight. So my answer is Yes (right now) and No (hopefully later)...
Yes, but the companies do everything they can to make sure the markets arent fair and never will be. Look at the billions they drop in Washington to buy congressman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous
But doesn't state insurance force the people inland (in, say, Orlando) to subsidize the insurance for the wealthiest people who live on the coast?
And wouldn't those sky-high premiums more closely represent the actual risk associated with building structures in an obviously risky area? I think it is fine for insurance companies to pull out of areas like Florida, where the state gets to determine the premium they charge. The only problem I have is when the insurance companies don't shell out the cash for claims - that's when the state should really go after them, IMO.
what about the people that have lived her for a long time? when they moved here, they were told it was paradise, no, you dont need too much insurance, its cheap now and always will be, yada yada yada. should they lose everything now?
having said that, i agree that any new construction should have to pay a fair market rate. you want to build a 250 million tower on the beach? fine, but make sure everyone knows they arent going to be subsidized for it.
and, what happened to the idea of spreading the risk around? that seems to have fallen out of favor (look at Allstate)
and lets not forget, its not just home insurance. The medical industry has decided that sometimes YOUR life is just too expensive to save.
But doesn't state insurance force the people inland (in, say, Orlando) to subsidize the insurance for the wealthiest people who live on the coast?
And wouldn't those sky-high premiums more closely represent the actual risk associated with building structures in an obviously risky area? I think it is fine for insurance companies to pull out of areas like Florida, where the state gets to determine the premium they charge. The only problem I have is when the insurance companies don't shell out the cash for claims - that's when the state should really go after them, IMO.
State insurance would only be catastrophic, so the weighting could be towards those with more risk (higher funding per value). Not paying out appropriately for claims is certainly a problem, but so is withdrawl from certain classes of coverage (property in Florida's case).
what about the people that have lived her for a long time? when they moved here, they were told it was paradise, no, you dont need too much insurance, its cheap now and always will be, yada yada yada.
The coast is, and has always been, unstable and risky. This is not something new. In the 20's, 30's. etc., a lot of these beach towns were pretty much wilderness. Myrtle Beach didn't exist in 1930, the SC, GA, and FL coasts were mostly undeveloped. Life was harder back then, and bearing the risk wasn't worth it.
So by inhabiting the hurricane-prone coast of the southeast (I do also, btw), you are defying all common sense we've accumulated over the past several hundred years, in exchange for the desirability of living "at the beach."
If someone told you it was paradise, and that insurance wasn't necessary, then that was their opinion. Buyer beware. In reality, inhabiting a structure near the ocean is risky, yet people do it anyway because it is a luxury.
Quote:
should they lose everything now?
I don't know. You'll have to be more specific about who "they" are, and what they are losing.
Quote:
having said that, i agree that any new construction should have to pay a fair market rate. you want to build a 250 million tower on the beach? fine, but make sure everyone knows they arent going to be subsidized for it.
Why just new construction? Why not apply it to all structures, based upon how risky of a location they're in?
Quote:
and, what happened to the idea of spreading the risk around? that seems to have fallen out of favor (look at Allstate)
I'm all for spreading the risk among people who are equally risky. I think coastal homeowners in the Carolinas should be there to "absorb the risk" around to other areas that are similarly risky, like Florida or the Gulf Coast.
What I don't agree with is someone in a low-risk area bearing the cost of the high-risk. Maybe in health insurance, but not in property insurance. That's just my opinion.
I like the idea of a common risk pool among the coastal states, but doubt that you would see the cooperation necessary between the states (insurance regulators) to pull that off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
