I can see how the optional nature of the plan would help prevent low risk states from subsidizing high risk states, but how are low risk consumers within an otherwise high risk state prevented from subsidizing higher risk consumers within that state?
This still looks too close to socialization to discourage high risk behavior such as building in CAT prone areas.
Let’s put the US Postal Service, the IRS and the MN Association of Bridge Inspectors in charge of the P&C insurance industry. And we can also create an oversight board consisting of Al Sharpton and reps from CAIR, NOW, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and La Raza to ensure that women and minorities are represented in every single solitary decision made by the US Department of Insurance. In fact, we should make it a cabinet-level secretariat answerable only to the president and the interested “community activists.” That’ll solve everything.
Barney Frank knows less about business than Barney the dinosaur. I can see about
20 things wrong with this proposal just in
the minute it took me to read it.
If this proposal ends up with private investors offering the CAT coverage at market determined prices, how is that going to save money? Why would those prices be materially lower than those offered by the current re-insurance marketplace (which can also issue CAT bonds).
I don’t see the efficiency gains here. If the prices quoted to the CAT fund by investors are greater than the governments think available, how will they pass that cost back to consumers? How do they decide how the cost is allocated?
It seems to me that just deregulating pricing of the insurance industry would accomplish much of the same only more efficiently and cheaply. That has been the whole root cause of this problem as government suppression and cross-subsidization of rates has encourages construction in risky areas.
Actuary, stop making sense. The point is not to improve any aspect of the insurance industry, it is to expand government power and control.
When a business does something, people usually construe it to be in the business’s interest. But when government does something, people don’t think of it in terms of the government doing it in its own interest. Sometimes businesses or trade associations/unions will spin their actions as being in the concumer’s interest, and we instantly scoff and realize that these entities act only and ever in their own interests.
When government is acting outside of its constitutionally-mandated sphere of power, it coaches its actions as being in the interests of business, the consumer, the working family, etc, but this is spin. Always see extra-constitutional government activity as flowing from a self-interested entity and not an altruistic, benevolent and benign institution, and you will see things more clearly, glasshoppah.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I can see how the optional nature of the plan would help prevent low risk states from subsidizing high risk states, but how are low risk consumers within an otherwise high risk state prevented from subsidizing higher risk consumers within that state?
This still looks too close to socialization to discourage high risk behavior such as building in CAT prone areas.
Let’s put the US Postal Service, the IRS and the MN Association of Bridge Inspectors in charge of the P&C insurance industry. And we can also create an oversight board consisting of Al Sharpton and reps from CAIR, NOW, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and La Raza to ensure that women and minorities are represented in every single solitary decision made by the US Department of Insurance. In fact, we should make it a cabinet-level secretariat answerable only to the president and the interested “community activists.” That’ll solve everything.
Barney Frank knows less about business than Barney the dinosaur. I can see about
20 things wrong with this proposal just in
the minute it took me to read it.
If this proposal ends up with private investors offering the CAT coverage at market determined prices, how is that going to save money? Why would those prices be materially lower than those offered by the current re-insurance marketplace (which can also issue CAT bonds).
I don’t see the efficiency gains here. If the prices quoted to the CAT fund by investors are greater than the governments think available, how will they pass that cost back to consumers? How do they decide how the cost is allocated?
It seems to me that just deregulating pricing of the insurance industry would accomplish much of the same only more efficiently and cheaply. That has been the whole root cause of this problem as government suppression and cross-subsidization of rates has encourages construction in risky areas.
Actuary, stop making sense. The point is not to improve any aspect of the insurance industry, it is to expand government power and control.
When a business does something, people usually construe it to be in the business’s interest. But when government does something, people don’t think of it in terms of the government doing it in its own interest. Sometimes businesses or trade associations/unions will spin their actions as being in the concumer’s interest, and we instantly scoff and realize that these entities act only and ever in their own interests.
When government is acting outside of its constitutionally-mandated sphere of power, it coaches its actions as being in the interests of business, the consumer, the working family, etc, but this is spin. Always see extra-constitutional government activity as flowing from a self-interested entity and not an altruistic, benevolent and benign institution, and you will see things more clearly, glasshoppah.