Hmm, let’s see. To sue to subvert a valid contract, or to negotiate to subvert a valid contract…. The bottom feeder lawyers are not going to go for the second option.
In the coming months the President should make a national speech warning all citizens to make appropriate additions to their insurance policies before spring time. The President should address people in areas prone to floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, landsides, etc. that insurance protection is the only way they will be financially restored in the future. The U.S. government will no longer bail-out those who choose not to protect their property and livelihood correctly.
This announcement would serve several purposes. Insurance companies and independents will have a larger pool of dollars to average against losses. There will be more price competition based on true market factors. Those who cannot afford or choose not to purchase coverage will be forced to relocate out of catastrophic areas.
The article is correct in pointing out that insurance is a contract. Forcing carriers to pay for claims not covered by the contract (and not accounted for in the premium development) will increase the rates for everyone and reduce the number of carriers in the area.
If the government wants to bail out those without adequate coverage, so be it. Politicians should not expect carriers to do any more (or any less) than dictated by the contract. Alan.
The issue here, in this particular case, is one of affordability. It is true that insurance policies are there as a protection to the homeowners. However, we have to look beyond the immediate cut and dry image that you propose to paint and study the demographics of its people. Most individuals there could barely keep up with their homeowners coverage, let alone paying for additional policies to cover them in the event of a catastophy. Before we rely so heavily on a President who reluctantly took off early from his vacation,to inestigate the situation, we need to look at the situation as a whole. The U.S. government is there to protect its people, be it from foreign attacks or natural disaters. Help those who need to be helped!
No that is not the job of the federal government. To defend against enemies foreign and domestic…. If you cannot afford insurance on your home or car you cannot really afford the home or car, now can you? And that is my point, if they can not afford this coverage then why do I have to pay for it? (I am a taxpayer) It is time for the government to go back to being the help of last resort for unforseen circumstances. Floods and hurricanes are predictable, terrorists attacks are not! Since the government is authorized to defend us(we the people) against enemies foreign and domestic that is what they should do. Not to bail out, no pun intended, people who over extend themselves!!!
If you can not afford to own a home and insure it properly then there are 2 easy choices.
1. RENT from someone who can or
2. MOVE to somewhere that is truly affordable.
I am sympathic to the loss that everyone suffered but I am not in favor of the government rebuilding another city under sealevel with my tax dollars and insurance companies folding to cover losses that were not insured. This sets a bad presidence.
Final note – we are one nation under god (which ever invisible guy you believe in) – with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL. It doesnt say anything about INSURANCE.
If people (or politicians) want socialism – vote it in, dont legislate it in ….
If the insurance companies pay for losses not covered by their policies, they will subject themselves to shareholder and (other) policyholder lawsuits by reason of neglecting their duties as professional managers and fiduciaries. Isn’t this what the Spitzer mess was all about, anyway?
The insurance industry has managed in most areas where ther is significant exposure to get gov’t to take the risk i.e the nat’l fllod insurance program. In Fl, it has also shifted the coverage for serious wind risks to a public ins corp and has a state created fund to cover their losses above a certain level in hurricanes period. I expect that Miss will follow suit after the dust settles and the insurers threaten to quit writing coverage.
If i’m not mistaken, it was the Federal Government that bailed out the S&L’s, the Airline industry, and untold Foriegn Countries. Why would this situation be any different?!?! Help me out. Cause i’m confused
Well, while we are approving a new Chief Justice, lets look at the constitution even though Uncle Sam refuses to do the same. People get to make choices in this country, to put money in an S&L, or a bank, or to insure properly or not, or to invest in poorly run companies, etc. But if these choices turn against them, it is their fault! Not mine or yours or Uncle Sam’s!! A friendly reminder…the government only takes money(from us), it does not have any money.
In my original statement, I am pretty sure I made this a future position, not past. What is done is done. Please read the first post to this article.
Since the future will be changed not the past the government will be operating according to the Constitution. We live in a free country with many choices and decisions to be made. I hope to make mostly good decisions, but I have made some foolish ones, and you know what? They were my fault and I had to accept responsibility for them, just like a accepted responsibility for my good choices.
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.
Hmm, let’s see. To sue to subvert a valid contract, or to negotiate to subvert a valid contract…. The bottom feeder lawyers are not going to go for the second option.
In the coming months the President should make a national speech warning all citizens to make appropriate additions to their insurance policies before spring time. The President should address people in areas prone to floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, landsides, etc. that insurance protection is the only way they will be financially restored in the future. The U.S. government will no longer bail-out those who choose not to protect their property and livelihood correctly.
This announcement would serve several purposes. Insurance companies and independents will have a larger pool of dollars to average against losses. There will be more price competition based on true market factors. Those who cannot afford or choose not to purchase coverage will be forced to relocate out of catastrophic areas.
Please make this announcement President Bush!!!
The article is correct in pointing out that insurance is a contract. Forcing carriers to pay for claims not covered by the contract (and not accounted for in the premium development) will increase the rates for everyone and reduce the number of carriers in the area.
If the government wants to bail out those without adequate coverage, so be it. Politicians should not expect carriers to do any more (or any less) than dictated by the contract. Alan.
The issue here, in this particular case, is one of affordability. It is true that insurance policies are there as a protection to the homeowners. However, we have to look beyond the immediate cut and dry image that you propose to paint and study the demographics of its people. Most individuals there could barely keep up with their homeowners coverage, let alone paying for additional policies to cover them in the event of a catastophy. Before we rely so heavily on a President who reluctantly took off early from his vacation,to inestigate the situation, we need to look at the situation as a whole. The U.S. government is there to protect its people, be it from foreign attacks or natural disaters. Help those who need to be helped!
No that is not the job of the federal government. To defend against enemies foreign and domestic…. If you cannot afford insurance on your home or car you cannot really afford the home or car, now can you? And that is my point, if they can not afford this coverage then why do I have to pay for it? (I am a taxpayer) It is time for the government to go back to being the help of last resort for unforseen circumstances. Floods and hurricanes are predictable, terrorists attacks are not! Since the government is authorized to defend us(we the people) against enemies foreign and domestic that is what they should do. Not to bail out, no pun intended, people who over extend themselves!!!
If you can not afford to own a home and insure it properly then there are 2 easy choices.
1. RENT from someone who can or
2. MOVE to somewhere that is truly affordable.
I am sympathic to the loss that everyone suffered but I am not in favor of the government rebuilding another city under sealevel with my tax dollars and insurance companies folding to cover losses that were not insured. This sets a bad presidence.
Final note – we are one nation under god (which ever invisible guy you believe in) – with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL. It doesnt say anything about INSURANCE.
If people (or politicians) want socialism – vote it in, dont legislate it in ….
If the insurance companies pay for losses not covered by their policies, they will subject themselves to shareholder and (other) policyholder lawsuits by reason of neglecting their duties as professional managers and fiduciaries. Isn’t this what the Spitzer mess was all about, anyway?
The insurance industry has managed in most areas where ther is significant exposure to get gov’t to take the risk i.e the nat’l fllod insurance program. In Fl, it has also shifted the coverage for serious wind risks to a public ins corp and has a state created fund to cover their losses above a certain level in hurricanes period. I expect that Miss will follow suit after the dust settles and the insurers threaten to quit writing coverage.
If i’m not mistaken, it was the Federal Government that bailed out the S&L’s, the Airline industry, and untold Foriegn Countries. Why would this situation be any different?!?! Help me out. Cause i’m confused
Well, while we are approving a new Chief Justice, lets look at the constitution even though Uncle Sam refuses to do the same. People get to make choices in this country, to put money in an S&L, or a bank, or to insure properly or not, or to invest in poorly run companies, etc. But if these choices turn against them, it is their fault! Not mine or yours or Uncle Sam’s!! A friendly reminder…the government only takes money(from us), it does not have any money.
In my original statement, I am pretty sure I made this a future position, not past. What is done is done. Please read the first post to this article.
Since the future will be changed not the past the government will be operating according to the Constitution. We live in a free country with many choices and decisions to be made. I hope to make mostly good decisions, but I have made some foolish ones, and you know what? They were my fault and I had to accept responsibility for them, just like a accepted responsibility for my good choices.