Well, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the insurance industry, Bill S 467 was passed. This is the bill that guarantees taxpayer aid if the aggregate industry losses reach $50 million in 2006, and $100 million in 2007, as a result of terrorist attacks. If the companies remain solvent, they would be required to repay the bailout, however.

I cannot leave my house to drive somewhere without being properly insured, and that insurance costs me approx 10% the value of my car per year, even though I have had no accidents or tickets in the last thirty years. Now, they want me to bail them out if terrorists cost them too much money.

One more case for banning lobbying from the halls of congress.

Insurance companies operate what should go down in history as some of the biggest and best scams of all time.

From the scam of healthcare and HMO's to the BS that insurance fraud is the main cause of high rates. They pull it off better than Pat Robertsons 700 club!

I've never understood how the state can require car insurance as a law, but the state doesn't regulate what insurance companies can charge or how they handle a claim.

Yeah, it's insane in Alaska, for my little 4 door it's 240 a month and thats for crappy coverage, if I had what I wanted with a low deductable, It'd be nearly 400 a month. Mind you my car was only 15k. But because of state laws I have to have car insurance.

Could you supply more information? The summary (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=s109-467) I am reading just states that the Senate Bill is being extended, and that the aggregate is being doubled. I do not see where this points to bashing HMOs, auto insurance rates, or life policies. That may be valid as a separate discussion, but not in relation to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

Insurance carriers and policies are in place to protect us financially from our fears...of harm, of loss, of death and dismemberment,... it's important not to "kill the messenger" when it comes to estimating the coverage costs of an unforseen catastrophy. If terrorists bombed your community- you would EXPECT that there would be insurance in place to accept claims and restore damages. Providing more money for this purpose, and extending the need- as we are still at war- doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

What information am I missing here?

What information am I missing here?


What you are missing is that if ANY insurance company becomes insolvent due to an attack/disaster the US Government will bail them out and make sure they remain in a profitable position, not break even, not even that the government will pick up the tab on those damaged and trying (remember the keyword is trying) to settle the claim and that the insurance company will become insolvent and fade away.

Now, the "trying" I said is this: If there were to be another significant terrorist attack I would bet my life that the insurance industry, true to form, would spend more time in an attempt to weasel out of paying a claim based on some ridiculous interpretation of their policy.

"Hi I am filing a claim for the terrorist attack that damaged my business and house"

Sorry, we are not paying that claim as we are in need of proof that it was in fact a terrorist that set off that "dirty bomb".

But it was a terrorist attack, the holy shmoly brotherhood claimed responsibilty for it. And we are invading East Oblivion to attack their organisation.

Well, it is only considered a terrorist attack by the Government. We consider it an act of God as the perpetrators have stated they were told to do it by God. Your policy does not cover acts of God.

Selling insurance is gambling. Under no circumstance should the American taxpayers be responsible for the insurance companies "gamble" turning out to be a looser.

Do not forget that if you are a victim of a terrorist attack, your awarded claim from the insurance company will be reduced due to your culpability; i.e., if you had not been at that specific time and place you would not have been harmed, therefore you are partially at fault.

I went through this when my ex-wife was rear-ended at 55 mph while making a left hand turn on a county highway; the other woman was clearly at fault and admitted she had not been paying attention, but it was deemed partially my ex's fault for being there making the turn. (You have to have insurance to leave the house in your car, but if you leave your house in your car you are partially at fault if anything happens.)

I posted the starting post after reading about this bill in the paper because I was simply further disgusted by the legalized strongarming by the insurance industry, and the lobbyists who reinforce the corruption of our government.

I've been rear ended before and was never told I was partially at fault. Is that something specific to your state Byl?

Was she turning left over a double yellow?

Hmmm had a bad run of Blackjack in Vegas a few years back. Think I could get the Senate to bail me out.

/agree on ridding the world of the position of Lobbyist.

Fandros

I've been rear ended before and was never told I was partially at fault. Is that something specific to your state Byl?

Not sure if it was something specific, but it came out in the settlement that way, and when I challenged the attorney he said it was standard in accidents that the injured party is always considerd 10% at fault.

I have attorneys in the same category as lobbyists, btw.:devil

Insurance companies should recieve no aid whatsoever, if they take a loss, its a bad roll of the dice.

We buy insurance to "Protect" ourselves in case of disaster, its a gamble *we* take as well as the insurance company.

How does it make sense that I have to pay for insurance and *potentially* pay taxes, that go towards paying my insurance claims!?.
Its like paying twice for the same coverage incase something actually does happen.

Insurance is just another form of gambling.

I've always held true to the insurance industry being legalized gambling. I went without car insurance for a very long time, even when it was manditory. After calculations, including a minor fender-bender, I was ahead by a substantial amount, including the fine for driving without insurance.

I currently have the minimum coverage on my car at a cost of about 450 bucks a year. I'm older now and simply enjoy the peace of mind that if I do indeed get pulled over for a broken tail light, I will retain my driver's license and vehicle.

It really has nothing to do with whether or not I get into an accident. I don't speed and I drive cautiously. I also live in a small town in California where the idiots are fewer.

To the point of the thread, I'm actually surprised that insurance companies will actually cover a terrorist attack, period. They wouldn't cover floods until they were forced to, if I remember correctly. Act of God, and all.

They just haven't found a loophole yet. Give them time, if it's not a sure bet that they will profit, their lawyers will find a way to get them out of it. Wait, they just did. Nevermind then.

I haven't been following this. What areas of the industry are claiming they need losses subsidized due to 9/11? It's hard to believe any of that was very far outside their standard deviation, if any.

Does this subsidy cover all disasters or only terrorism?

Does this subsidy cover all disasters or only terrorism?

The bill is to cover losses due to terrorism, and those monies must be repaid provided the insurer remains solvent. Basically, the folks in congress have said "if you (the insurance industry) lose x number of dollars in 2006 and/or 2007 resulting from terrorist acts, we will loan you money from the tax payers to keep you afloat and you must repay it if you do not go bankrupt".

It's probably like the flood insurance situation. The only reason the government offers that is because they've decided it's cheaper to subsidize that and send a check than it is to offer relief aid to the uninsured.

It could be the same thing here too. If the whole thing were to collapse, it would cost untold amounts of money in the long run. Same with keeping the airlines afloat.

I wonder if this would still have happened if the government hadn't established the expectation that individuals who lost someone in a terrorist attack would all get money.

A bit of a derail here... but I've always wondered if an insurance company declares damage an "Act of God", can you then sue the Church? Especially with nutjobs like Falwell saying that he's changed the course of hurricanes with the power of prayer, I think there might be a case there. =)

A bit of a derail here... but I've always wondered if an insurance company declares damage an "Act of God", can you then sue the Church? Especially with nutjobs like Falwell saying that he's changed the course of hurricanes with the power of prayer, I think there might be a case there. =)

Now there is an idea the ACLU might get hold of and give us all a chuckle!

Man, expecting the government to come to the rescue if your business can't pay out the customer.... TERRIBLE IDEA! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdic)

aye 'max, I thought the airlines were the only ones who could constantly run their business into the ground and expect saving from Uncle Sam.


Fandros

Though how many banks (at least the ones on a comparable level) fail vs. Airlines?

In the case of an insurance bailout, the government would only be providing a subsidy if the insurance companies ran out of money because they had to pay people out in case of a cataclysmic event of some sort. They wouldn't be bailing out a company that simply failed to thrive. They'd, in effect, be paying the checks that go to the Joe Average's of the world who's be expecting a check from Allstate when their house got incinerated in a bomb blast.

It's why I think it's more akin to the FDIC.

I accept the argument that if it's the sort of business that can't survive without government protection that it might need retooled -- hey, I'm a registered Libertarian, you don't to get me on the no subsidies bandwagon -- but we're not so much seeing a bailout of the COMPANY, but a bailout for a potential massive payout to PEOPLE.

We consider it an act of God as the perpetrators have stated they were told to do it by God.

What's funny is even the states cant get this right. I spent 10 years working contracts (from the paper side to the hands on) for various state's D.O.T.'s.

We had a job flood in San Antonio in 1999. When I left town, I was called back and told if I wasn't on site, they would start charging us fines for being late (even though the job in question was under water). We fought that and won.

In NC a tornado came through and ripped up a section of a project. Poles pulled out of the ground, trees ripped up, etc... We were told it wasn't and "act of God" and were forced to repair it at our own cost.

Insurance is the biggest legal racket in this country.