Since you insisted, I’ll reply one more time to your idiocy.
[quote]Fonebone wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Why won’t you see the problem with your arguement here? The insurance correlation is a good one.
No it isn’t. It shows an utter absence of critical thought.[/quote]
I assume you’ll explain why later in the post.[quote]
The key difference, in this case, is that business does it for profit. That’s all. The government still provides a service, right? So business really has more incentive to screw you, I mean make more profit. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I am not going to respond to this. It is a waste of my time. Maybe you could just explain to me why profits are bad. Really, I would like to hear all about it.[/quote]
Not going to respond? What? I thought you had all the answers. Does the government provide a service or not? It’s not a difficult question.
I never said profits are bad, but nice use of putting words in my mouth to change the subject. Profits gooood.[quote]
It’s nice that you read your prospectus, so few do these days.
It was a 10-K, but it’s still sweet of you to notice 
[/quote]
Damn. Still no explaination on the utter absense of critical thought thing. I’ll keep looking.[quote]
Did they include that the reserves are REQUIRED by the federal government? How much did they bring in in premiums? You left that out?
That’s because both points are irrelevant. [/quote]
Incoming premiums are IRRELEVANT? If their revenue comes from 90% premiums and 10% investment income, that’s hardly irrelevent. Oh wait, there’s more[quote]
- Even if it is the law, a prudent insurance company understands that, if it is going to be in business for more than a year, it needs reserves. Many major insurance firms have been in business for going on 150 years, which suggests to me that they have an idea of how to manage their money.
I wonder if our resident insurance expert knows whether this predates the law? You don’t stay in business that long by “screwing your customers”, as you imply above.[/quote]
They either know how to manage their’s or take your’s, or both. Probably some of both. Maybe you don’t know this, but insurance companies have sort of a reputation for screwing people. Hmmm.[quote]
- How much did the federal government bring in on their expertly-managed investment portfolio? Why, I think it was about $0.[/quote]
Now, this really is irrelevant. Not at all on topic.[quote]
How exactly did you think those insurance reserves are created? You, the consumer, are the Magical Ass that lays the Golden Turds. Now, maybe your tired of being screwed on both ends and that’s understandable, but don’t pretend this is a one-sided thing.
Well, I think they are created out of the prudent management of the Company’s revenues (which, as we have established, includes premium revenues and investment income). The premiums are the price of the service being provided you, the consumer. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it!
In the free market, there is a thing called competition. It is the dynamic by which companies in like industries are forced to provide the best possible service to their customers, or lose them. The difference between a consumer and a taxpayer is the consumer has a choice (i.e. can take his golden turds to the company down the street). For an example of how the absence of competition impacts the way business is conducted, go spend a day at your DMV. [/quote]
Umm, this actually helps prove the analogy. You Mr. Taxpayer also have a choice. You can take your Golden turds elsewhere also. Please!!
I’m still looking for the lack of critical thinking stuff. Be patient.[quote]
Are you really too dense to see the difference between a private, mutually agreed-upon contract and coerced taxation, or do you just enjoy playing games? [/quote]
The differences in the case of insurance aren’t as vast as you seem to think. While I do enjoy playing games, the analogy still stands. There are more than enough similarities.[quote]
You’re out of you element on this one. You’re deluded to think that your premiums are based only on your individual risk factors. Keeping on the subject of homeowner’s insurance, do you think that homeowner’s in Alaska are going to have their premiums affected because of losses incurred from Katrina?
They are, count on it. Insurance companies can’t continue to pay claims without adjusting premiums accordingly. Do you think you’ll EVER pay enough in homeowner’s insurance premium to cover the rebuiling of your home? Not likely. You’re paying to rebuild everybody else’s home.
Sorry, slick, but you are wrong again. Insurance premiums are regulated at the state level (and sometimes even differ within states) based on something called the “claims ratio”.
If a company who does business in both Florida and Alaska wants to raise premiums in AK as a result of some disaster in FL, it needs to justify the increase to the AK state insurance commissioner, and this is not easy to do. The increase has to somehow relate to conditions in AK. Otherwise, no dice.
And I’ll take the knowledge of my relative with over 20 years in the business over some Internet bozo any day. Thanks Mom!!
[/quote]
You’re asking your Mommy for this information? How old are you? Sorry, back to topic. Mommy’s right about the state insurance commission. However, it’s not that hard to justify rate hikes, maybe it is in Florida(they actually are one of the more consumer protective states).
Insurance companies have two options when a catastrophe strikes, raise rates or go out of business(once the reserves deplete). Now they can’t raise rates enough for people who choose to live in disaster prone places(i.e.Florida), homeowner’s simply wouldn’t be able to afford insurance. So to mitigate this, they raise them everywhere, and the people in disaster prone places benefit, even though they still pay higher premiums than the norm, just not as high.
Follow? That’s the reality of business.
Even if your statement was 100% true, who in your voluntary taxes paradise would pay this insurance commissioner to protect you? Ooops, another example of your extorted tax dollars doing some good.[quote]
So, other than the for-profit vs. not-for-profit thing, if fail to see were the analogy doesn’t hold up.
Well, that and the piss-poor financial management skills of government (interesting how you didn’t speak to this at all in your response, when it was the core of my post), absence of competition and incentive to provide quality service, and the coercive nature of taxation. Would you like to keep trying?[/quote]
No, I think I did alright the first time, but thanks for letting me clarify a few things.
The CORE of your post was the Magical Ass thing? That’s the ONLY mention of the government’s financial management ability in hole(I mean whole) thing.
Could you explain the UTTER ABSENSE OF CRITICAL THOUGHT thing one more time? I must have missed it. Damn public schools.