Insurance Companies - Katrina

[xtc]

Some insurance companies have been getting their clients affected by Katrina to sign waivers stating that flooding not wind had destroyed their homes. They get $3000 in exchange for this. Basic home insurance doesn't cover flooding.

It is so bad that the Attorney General of Mississippi is suing the insurance companies.

Is it just me or are these insurance companies morally reprehensible and repugnant?

My source for this was CNN TV

ARTICLE (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/15/news.update/)

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by xtc]

[ElanthianSiren]

You'll get no argument from me. I hate the way insurance works in this country or doesn't.

-M

[Back]

Agreed. Insurance companies are like the mob. The etract money out of you your whole life on the bet that you will fall on hard times. Then when you do, they weasel out of everything they can. WE NEED TO BURN THEM TO THE GROUND!@@!!!!

[Androidpk]

I agree whole heartedly.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Backlash
Agreed. Insurance companies are like the mob. The etract money out of you your whole life on the bet that you will fall on hard times. Then when you do, they weasel out of everything they can. WE NEED TO BURN THEM TO THE GROUND!@@!!!!

Wouldn't matter, I'm sure their insurance covers arson damage, since their lawyers can actually read the damn policies.

Insurance should be simpler.


Name ___
Address ___

Do you want to insure: __Car __House __Dog

Thank you, have a nice day.

Jorddyn, thinks actuaries are evil

[Warriorbird]

I think my distaste for the insurance industry has been one of the largest components of my law school desire.

[AnticorRifling]

I've known my insurance agent for since I was like 16. He coached baseball, I go to church with him, we sit next to one another in choir, etc. Whenever I go to insure anything he's like read this line here...that's why this policy sucks, throw that away and let's look at this policy heh.

But yes, on a whole, the industry is shoddy at best.

[Warriorbird]

Agents can be fine well-meaning people. Insurance companies aren't.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Agents can be fine well-meaning people. Insurance companies aren't.

Agreed.

[Sean of the Thread]

Insurance companies are just that.. COMPANIES. They make money.

[Warriorbird]

Exactly... which leads to my previous statements.

:grins:

Absolutely disgusting. Though it is the fault of people for signing the waivers. I'd never do such a thing.

- Arkans

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Insurance companies are just that.. COMPANIES. They make money.

Four of the top five carriers LOSE money on insurance. Thats right...they pay out more in losses than they take in in premiums. Good try though.

[HarmNone]

HarmNone :flamed: Insurance companies

[Sean of the Thread]

Well I phrased it wrong. It is their intention to make money.. they are not a charity.

[Sean of the Thread]

Btw my old health insurance company put me $40,000 in debt by fucking me over.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by xtc
Some insurance companies have been getting their clients affected by Katrina to sign waivers stating that flooding not wind had destroyed their homes. They get $3000 in exchange for this. Basic home insurance doesn't cover flooding.

It is so bad that the Attorney General of Mississippi is suing the insurance companies.

Is it just me or are these insurance companies morally reprehensible and repugnant?

My source for this was CNN TV

ARTICLE (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/15/news.update/)

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by xtc]

Wind driven rain is what you want, not just wind. Homeowners policies cover damage by wind and wind driven rain, but not flooding. Lets face it, thats a tough thing to insure, hence why there is government subsidized flood insurance. Before you get mad at the insurance companies, why would you NOT buy flood insurance if you live BELOW sea level.

The companies are not trying to cheat anyone, the intent of their policies was to cover damage to the homes from fire, wind driven rain, trees falling, etc. If you wanted FLOOD coverage, you buy FLOOD insurance; makes sense, no?

And there are good agents/brokers, but a lot of shitty ones too. Its usually not the underwriters and the execs who cheat you, its the brokers who don't know what coverage they are getting you. Paying claims is a good thing for insurance companies; if we never paid claims, no one would buy insurance.

If you're gonna label people in the industry vultures, label the brokers and the lawyers, not the underwriters and their companies. When something bad happens, and we pay out, you lose, and we lose (more than you). Brokers get a nice piece of commision and never risk a dime while the attorneys make the same every time you and the companies fight...

That said, I don't know about this 3k for a waiver crap...but insurance from a reputable company I guess. I see this stuff in the industry all the time, the insured ends up choosing a carrier purely on premium, instead of on coverage, service and reliability. They usually pay the lower premium, have a company stiff them, then come back to us. Or worse yet, buy a policy from one of those other companies, only to have that company fold and then no one to pay the loss.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Btw my old health insurance company put me $40,000 in debt by fucking me over.

Lets hear it Xyelin, how?

Haha Janarth is like an insurance spokesman.

But yeah.. I hate insurance companies. It's why I have a great lawyer.

- Arkans

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Janarth

Originally posted by Xyelin
Insurance companies are just that.. COMPANIES. They make money.

Four of the top five carriers LOSE money on insurance. Thats right...they pay out more in losses than they take in in premiums. Good try though.

LOSE money? Every year, year after year? And they're still in business? I don't think so.

Though, I'll agree that the vast majority of their profits are not from writing policies - they're from holding/investing the money they take in from policies until they have to pay it back out.

Why do you suppose they originally deny so many claims that they eventually pay out? Hold all the money for an extra month or so, and they can make some sweet interest off the float.

Jorddyn

[Janarth]

By the way, someone said they hated actuaries...why? all they do is determine our rates; they are real smart math people who crunch numbers, figure out the odds, and make pricing guidelines so insurance companies just break even based on premium in vs losses paid.

Underwriters write the policy, claims analysts decide to deny/pay your claims, and brokers get rich off the damn process :p

[Warriorbird]

Funny stuff, Janarth.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Janarth

Originally posted by Xyelin
Insurance companies are just that.. COMPANIES. They make money.

Four of the top five carriers LOSE money on insurance. Thats right...they pay out more in losses than they take in in premiums. Good try though.

LOSE money? Every year, year after year? And they're still in business? I don't think so.

Though, I'll agree that the vast majority of their profits are not from writing policies - they're from holding/investing the money they take in from policies until they have to pay it back out.

Why do you suppose they originally deny so many claims that they eventually pay out? Hold all the money for an extra month or so, and they can make some sweet interest off the float.

Jorddyn

Yeah, lose money. Learn what you're talking about before you make these accusations. Almost all insurance companies haver a loss/premium ratio over 1. They make money by investing the premium, making a percentage, and just beating the odds. Very few carriers make an underwriting profit.

And where do you get this "they deny all these claims". Its a simple concept, you bought homeowners insurance, if you read the policy, there is a line under "Exclusions" which says, this policy does not cover any claim arising out of, related to, etc, flood damage. Done deal, thats what you buy flood insurance for. If thats too complicated for you...

I'm sure there are some legitimate bad faith claims out there, but the entire industry is not corrupt. Its just like with any other industry, few bad apples.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Janarth
The companies are not trying to cheat anyone, the intent of their policies was to cover damage to the homes from fire, wind driven rain, trees falling, etc. If you wanted FLOOD coverage, you buy FLOOD insurance; makes sense, no?


I don't want flood insurance. I don't want cancer insurance. I don't want "freak earthquake occurs in Iowa" or "some rare disease where I need a transplant" insurance.

I want homeowners insurance, and I want health insurance.



By the way, someone said they hated actuaries...why? all they do is determine our rates;

You answered your own question :D

Don't they also determine what should and should not be covered, and what should require an additional policy?



Jorddyn

[Warriorbird]

Four of the top five carriers LOSE money on insurance. Thats right...they pay out more in losses than they take in in premiums. Good try though.

I'd really be curious to see the documentation for this.


they deny all these claims

From, y'know, reality?

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Arkans
Haha Janarth is like an insurance spokesman.

But yeah.. I hate insurance companies. It's why I have a great lawyer.

- Arkans

Insurance companies are in a business where we take in and pay out money. Our loss/premium ratio is usually right around 1. Now take the lawyers who make oodles offa no risk frivolous lawsuits. They are the real winners.

I'm not a spokesman, I'm just insulted you think ALL insurance companies are entirely evil, corrupt and immoral. I work for the biggest, and I'm none of that, nor are the people I work with. We are extremely fair...we don't hide things.

[Warriorbird]

I mean, not like companies like AIG hide things or anything.

:whistles:

Or Conseco.

Insurance is an honest industry!

If a non mutual company's profit/loss ratio were that low... you'd be gone in a heartbeat.



[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

If they the lawyer gets money.. Hey, go him. As long as he's making sure I get a fair shake. Insurance companies, in my experience, never want to give a fair shake to anyone.

- Arkans

[ElanthianSiren]

When most people cannot get medical coverage, and especially the ones who need it most cannot get it, you're damn right I'm going to fault insurance companies.

-M

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
I don't want flood insurance. I don't want cancer insurance. I don't want "freak earthquake occurs in Iowa" or "some rare disease where I need a transplant" insurance.

I want homeowners insurance, and I want health insurance.



By the way, someone said they hated actuaries...why? all they do is determine our rates;

You answered your own question :D

Don't they also determine what should and should not be covered, and what should require an additional policy?

Jorddyn

Adjusters determine the value, claims analysts do that, analyze the claim and decide if its covered. Actuaries determine our pricing, underwriters write the policies (and nudge the pricing a little bit).

Jordyn, sure, I could sell you a policy that insured everything under the sun. You wouldn't pay the premium. You'd tell me its too much. Yet, there are thousands of policies out there, and year after year, loss/premium is ~1. You get what you pay for, if you want flood coverage built into your homeowners, expect your price to jump.

My company has a motto: we can underwrite anything. I'll insure anyone for anything, but you can be sure that, over a long period of time, I'm gonna charge premiums that just about cover our losses (maybe a bit less/bit more).

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Janarth
Yeah, lose money. Learn what you're talking about before you make these accusations. Almost all insurance companies haver a loss/premium ratio over 1. They make money by investing the premium, making a percentage, and just beating the odds. Very few carriers make an underwriting profit.

As I said, they still make money.


And where do you get this "they deny all these claims".

Personal experience. Similar things happening to friends and family members. Claims are denied, and as soon as they are challenged, they pay.

I'm not about to waste my time digging up historical data on lawsuits for you.

Its a simple concept, you bought homeowners insurance, if you read the policy, there is a line under "Exclusions" which says, this policy does not cover any claim arising out of, related to, etc, flood damage.

My entire point is that I should be able to buy homeowners insurance, and have it cover my home, without 3 pages of small print legalese explaining everything that is not included.



Done deal, thats what you buy flood insurance for. If thats too complicated for you...

You must fit in perfectly in your industry.


I'm sure there are some legitimate bad faith claims out there, but the entire industry is not corrupt. Its just like with any other industry, few bad apples.

Insurance companies have as the same reputation as lawyers. Perhaps, if they want a better image, they should consider why they have a poor one in the first place.

Jorddyn

[Janarth]

Alright...guess what, my company has no stake in Katrina. We don't offer homeowners there because its not profitable (I'm 99% sure on this).

If flood coverage was part of homeowners in a place like New Orleans, it would be too expensive for most people to pay and us not to lose on. We gotta charge enough to offset our losses (like I keep saying, its about equal...even the biggest insurance company in the world is no Microsoft...we don't have 40 billion sitting in the bank).

So...its unprofitable to cover flood insurance, if a carrier is not gonna offer that aspect, ya prefer them to not offer the other parts of homeowners at all? Or would you rather see "little tiny type" as you put it that lets them charge a lower rate (corresponding to the less coverage) that at least gets you protection from fire, theft, etc?

[SnatchWrangler]

I had a long reply before Janarth had posted, but I didn't feel like dealing with the flames so I deleted it.

Janarth is right, do some research.

If you wanted something simple like "Health Insurance" and "Homeowners Insurance" everyone would be paying out the ass for it, because it would have to be all inclusive for everyone. It's a poorly thought out argument.

Insurance companies are a business. They have to protect themselves, their gov't allowed profit margins are very slim, and they have to pay back dividends to policyholders when they make more than that % specified profit margin.

You know why you rarely ever receive dividends on your insurance policies? Because the carriers very rarely come close to making that small percentage they're allowed.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Insurance companies have as the same reputation as lawyers. Perhaps, if they want a better image, they should consider why they have a poor one in the first place.

Jorddyn

If we have such a bad rep, why do people continue to buy from us. Not all insurance companies have a bad rep. I have a good relationship with most of my insureds.

I'm sure there was a legitimate reason your claim was denied, you just didn't bother to read your policy. If it was denied contradictory to your policy, you would have/should have sued for bad faith.

[Janarth]

Thank you SnatchWrangler. He brings up another point, filed rate plans. All our admitted paper has rate plans the government sets/knows about. I have a minimum and a max (with a bit of wiggle room) I can charge on admitted paper. I can't say, ooh, I like them, friend of Hanks, 5 dollars a year for 10 M x of nothing...and, they're from new orleans, 5 million!

[Warriorbird]

Insurance companies have a bad rep. They rank right above lawyers as far as trust from the American public goes. Sure, on raw losses/premiums you may pay out more in claims... that doesn't somehow guarantee that claims are denied for "good reasons." Most times insurance is poorly explained and people usually don't know the resources that are available to them for recourse. The company pawns that blame off on the brokers, but really, they back that sort've thing up themselves in their customer service strategies (like Janarth is now).

Collossal abuses, such as those practiced by Conseco (in the slightly distant past) and AIG in the recent past (Blue Cross too, in my state at least), tinge the entire industry, honest or not, as well.

The slow payment of claims often does just as much damage as non payment of claims, too.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I mean, not like companies like AIG hide things or anything.

:whistles:

Or Conseco.

Insurance is an honest industry!

If a non mutual company's profit/loss ratio were that low... you'd be gone in a heartbeat.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

waddya mean "non mutual company"?

[Warriorbird]

Mutual companies versus stock companies was my implication.

I guess what it comes down to is this. Companies act to pay the least amount possible for claims. This is natural. That leads to the feelings from people about the industry.

[Sean]

I think I'm more amused by the arguement of hey if only this poor people in NO had forked up and paid another premium for another type of insurance it would have been 'all good'.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, I have had issues where BC/BS primary care refused to cover hospital visits (I had the best coverage at the time, which covered 100% on all hospital visits and most of my prescriptions).

Once, they did not cover 100.00 of bloodwork I had done. It only took several calls to their customer service department and hours of waiting before they did. That is crap. If I pay you for service, I don't want to have to deal with people before you fork over the money. Most people are not going to wait hours on the phone over 100 bucks. I'm willing to for the distinct opportunity to chew someone out on the other side.

-M

[Warriorbird]

And as far as rates go? Sure, your initial rates are capped. Doesn't mean you can't drop a 400% premium increase on somebody.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Tijay
I think I'm more amused by the arguement of hey if only this poor people in NO had forked up and paid another premium for another type of insurance it would have been 'all good'.

Thats not my feeling at all. First off, my company put a million down, right away, and matched all contributions employees made. I don't know the extent of those contributions, but you better believe I sent my 100 bucks in the form of 4 25 dollar wall mart cards to be distributed to refugees so they can buy items they need.

I'm sorry this disaster happened. But its not like we're all making out like crooks. Its really not. We run a business, we charge a premium for a service that in the end, averaged across all our services, comes up about equal to the same thing we pay out. Insurance companies are not raking in hundreds of millions of dollars while people in New Orleans starve. Its just not true.

As for the comment, you're saying, why weren't they covered. Because the money has to come from somewhere, you understand? Say an insurance company had given everyone in the affected area flood coverage for 10 bucks a policy. Where would you get the 100 billion to rebuild (or whatever the estimates are). The insurance company would be down the drain (like a lot of carriers end up going without smart underwriting).

Now, say they charge fairly for that coverage...they charge enough to take in about 100 Billion from the people who bought the flood insurance. Could all those people together somehow generate 100 Billion dollars?

The sad thing is the money has to come from somewhere, and the insurance companies don't have it, cause they didn't collect the necessary premiums to cover the risk because the people couldn't afford to pay those premiums.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And as far as rates go? Sure, your initial rates are capped. Doesn't mean you can't drop a 400% premium increase on somebody.

Um, yeah it does.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Btw my old health insurance company put me $40,000 in debt by fucking me over.

Sex changes are not covered by your health insurance.. so they didn't really fuck you over.

:P

[Janarth]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Actually, I have had issues where BC/BS primary care refused to cover hospital visits (I had the best coverage at the time, which covered 100% on all hospital visits and most of my prescriptions).

Once, they did not cover 100.00 of bloodwork I had done. It only took several calls to their customer service department and hours of waiting before they did. That is crap. If I pay you for service, I don't want to have to deal with people before you fork over the money. Most people are not going to wait hours on the phone over 100 bucks. I'm willing to for the distinct opportunity to chew someone out on the other side.

-M

I'm not sure what to say...in the end you got the money; I wish you didn't have to go through the effort. If you really think insurers are ripping you off, self insure.

[Warriorbird]

Um, yeah it does.

Want to explain that to some of my former customers? Just because an increase is ridiculous doesn't mean it won't be legal.

[Warriorbird]

If you really think insurers are ripping you off, self insure.

I do, apart from auto insurance, which I have no choice on in my state.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Janarth

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Actually, I have had issues where BC/BS primary care refused to cover hospital visits (I had the best coverage at the time, which covered 100% on all hospital visits and most of my prescriptions).

Once, they did not cover 100.00 of bloodwork I had done. It only took several calls to their customer service department and hours of waiting before they did. That is crap. If I pay you for service, I don't want to have to deal with people before you fork over the money. Most people are not going to wait hours on the phone over 100 bucks. I'm willing to for the distinct opportunity to chew someone out on the other side.

-M

I'm not sure what to say...in the end you got the money; I wish you didn't have to go through the effort. If you really think insurers are ripping you off, self insure.

It's a nihil point. I can't get coverage through insurance because i have a pre-existing condition. Back then, I had a group plan based on an employer, though I still had the condition.

I've gone through this with BC/BS too many times to believe it was a fluke. Sorry, I'd love to believe insurance isn't scamming people, but they are.

-M

[Janarth]

You former customers? Are you in the industry?

On admitted paper, the government sets the rates, you can't go outside them, period.

Unadmiitted paper, different matter. But generally unadmiited paper is only used for risks that don't fit on admitted. IE...admitted rate cap is 500k in premium for that policy,. say 5 mil x 500k. I KNOW they had two claims in the last year over a million, I'm not gonna sell that policy for 500k in premium and then turn around and fork out a million dollars. So what do I do...I don't write the policy. Then the company says, no one will write us a policy, then it goes to non-admitted, and I can charge what I want.

Supply and demand still governs though...its a soft market right now. I work in E&O, and Chubb, Ace, AIG, Zurich, etc are all pushing each other to give the lowest premium that will offset the risk.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Tijay
I think I'm more amused by the arguement of hey if only this poor people in NO had forked up and paid another premium for another type of insurance it would have been 'all good'.

It's no different in New Orleans than it is anywhere else. Homeowners insurance doesn't cover flood damage. I have a separate flood insurance carrier because my house is 10 feet above sea level.. and a mile from Old Tampa Bay. Living close to the coast most of my adult life.. I knew this from the first day I bought a home.

[Warriorbird]

Formerly in the industry. I think the worst issues as far as that goes come in things like Medicare supplement insurance. I've seen premium increases as high as 700% (not actually on customers I had, mind you). Positively crazy stuff.

I wasn't dealing with standard health insurance, but life, disability, long term care, and Medicare supplement.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

It's a nihil point. I can't get coverage through insurance because i have a pre-existing condition. Back then, I had a group plan based on an employer, though I still had the condition.

I've gone through this with BC/BS too many times to believe it was a fluke. Sorry, I'd love to believe insurance isn't scamming people, but they are.

-M

If we're scamming everyone, where are the profits. Seriously, we're ripping you off, making millions, where are they? Show me the money! Its just not there.

When Hurricane Andrew hit, 9 insurance companies went bankrupt. Yeah...we're fucking those poor people in who get wiped out by hurricanes...and also going out of business.

My heart goes out to those people...but its not the insurance companies fault. Seriously, pass the blame somewhere else.

[Alfster]

Originally posted by Tijay
I think I'm more amused by the arguement of hey if only this poor people in NO had forked up and paid another premium for another type of insurance it would have been 'all good'.

How can someone not know that flood damage is not covered under home insurance? I don't even own a home nor do I plan on owning one for a long time, and I know this.

[Warriorbird]

If we're scamming everyone, where are the profits?

Heh. Study New York vs AIG much?

:grins:

Heard about BC/BS's ridiculous North Carolina profits as a non profit?

They're there. You may not be getting them, mind you, but they're there. Going out of business can be a way of avoiding paying the piper.

[xtc]

I have chosen just one insurance company (at random) to refute the claim that insurance companies don't make money. I chose one of the biggest in Canada.

Manulife Insurance NET INCOME:

$2 Billion dollars for 2004.


Insurance companies rarely pay money back on a yearly basis because most aren't mutuals or co-ops any more. It is easy to keep profit as well. Spend the money on the firm so there is less profit on the balance sheet and less to pay out to policy holders on a yearly basis.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Alfster

Originally posted by Tijay
I think I'm more amused by the arguement of hey if only this poor people in NO had forked up and paid another premium for another type of insurance it would have been 'all good'.

How can someone not know that flood damage is not covered under home insurance? I don't even own a home nor do I plan on owning one for a long time, and I know this.

That isn't the argument. The insurance companies are fearful of having to pay out claims. Many homes may have been destroyed by wind not flood. This is in Mississippi (not Louisiana) that the article talked about.

If these people weren't entitled to make an insurance claim why would the insurance be offering waivers in exchange for $3000 a piece?

[xtc]

More evidence insurance companies make money:

[b]"Despite soaring costs, Canada's insurance companies made money every year between 1993 and 2003.b]

LINK (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/insurance/)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Um, yeah it does.

Want to explain that to some of my former customers? Just because an increase is ridiculous doesn't mean it won't be legal.

Not sure about other states, but insurance companies have to go before the state in order to invoke any large increases for insurance. They have to be approved by some government official.

[Warriorbird]

The issue is that when a company's in trouble the state will generally approve such increases. They can also authorize increases based on an area with high claims and so on. It's not nearly as even as some folks make it out to be.



[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Janarth
I'm sure there was a legitimate reason your claim was denied, you just didn't bother to read your policy. If it was denied contradictory to your policy, you would have/should have sued for bad faith.

I fell down the stairs and broke my leg. My claim was denied because, according to the insurance company, the people who owned my apartment complex said it never happened. Nowhere in my policy did it say I needed corroboration from them, I guarantee you.

They paid after a nice call from our company attorney.

I guess the entire point that I'm trying to make is that you're extolling the virtues of the insurance companies, all while insulting my intelligence and maintaining a snide tone. That is typical of the "service" that I have received whenever I've tried to make a claim. Is it really any wonder that the reputation of your industry leaves something to be desired?

Jorddyn, done, last word is yours if you'd like

[SnatchWrangler]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I've gone through this with BC/BS too many times to believe it was a fluke. Sorry, I'd love to believe insurance isn't scamming people, but they are.

-M

Dealing with Property & Casualty and Life Insurance Carriers are a completely different entity than dealing with Health Insurance. I've worked pretty extensively in both fields...I'm not going to argue with on Health carriers. They're ball busters. Especially when you're on a group health plan.

[SnatchWrangler]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Um, yeah it does.

Want to explain that to some of my former customers? Just because an increase is ridiculous doesn't mean it won't be legal.

Not sure about other states, but insurance companies have to go before the state in order to invoke any large increases for insurance. They have to be approved by some government official.

I can only imagine she's referring to Health insurance premiums since they are reviewed and changed annually.

[HarmNone]

Health insurance is the real demon, as I see it. However, there are a number of culprits involved. It's not only the insurance companies.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Janarth

If we're scamming everyone, where are the profits. Seriously, we're ripping you off, making millions, where are they? Show me the money! Its just not there.

When Hurricane Andrew hit, 9 insurance companies went bankrupt. Yeah...we're fucking those poor people in who get wiped out by hurricanes...and also going out of business.

My heart goes out to those people...but its not the insurance companies fault. Seriously, pass the blame somewhere else.

It is the insurance companies fault when they try their best to weasel out of paying when they damn well should be.

We all know about how many insurance companies have been shown to have automatic rejections for claims and will only pay when challeneged repeatedly.

For these companies down in Katrina's wake to try to claim that they do not have to pay because of water damage is such a blatant lie that it floors me.

Insurance companies suck. I'm sure not every person employed by them are evil and don't take it personally, but the companies are heartless and will squeeze their customers for every penny possible and do their darndest to pay as little as they can.

Don't worry, insurance companies are not alone, lawyers suck too.

[Tromp]

I like the Incredible's (animated movie) version of how an insurance operates. It was pretty funny although not reality.

[Tromp]

Originally posted by Tromp
I like the Incredible's (animated movie) version of how an insurance company operates. It was pretty funny although not reality.

[SnatchWrangler]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
It is the insurance companies fault when they try their best to weasel out of paying when they damn well should be.

And all those borderline claims that if they were to pay would drive everyone elses premiums up across the board, then you'd be bitching about how much they're ripping you off in premium payments for something you'll probably never need.


For these companies down in Katrina's wake to try to claim that they do not have to pay because of water damage is such a blatant lie that it floors me.

What's so difficult understand? Flooding wrecked a city that was below sea level. Flood Insurance is not covered in Homeowners Insurance. This isn't rocket surgery here...


Insurance companies suck. I'm sure not every person employed by them are evil and don't take it personally,

Gee, thanks.


but the companies are heartless and will squeeze their customers for every penny possible and do their darndest to pay as little as they can.

Where do you come up with this stuff from? You're from New Jersey of all places...you should fucking know how they operate here. Why only a few years ago P&C carriers where running over each other trying to get out of the state because they were getting absolutely killed financially. The state acknowledged the problem, and one of the few decent things McGreevey did was work to fix it.

Once again, the carriers' profit margin is regulated by the state. In New Jersey, it's 4% (not sure it varies by state). They have to pay back anything more than that. But since they rarely ever come close to a 4% profit, you're rarely seeing those dividend checks.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
For these companies down in Katrina's wake to try to claim that they do not have to pay because of water damage is such a blatant lie that it floors me.


As tragic as it is for anyone to lose their home to a hurricane, if the insurance policy doesn't cover flooding, how is this the insurance company's problem?

[ElanthianSiren]

I think it may be their problem because they can't delineate between which homes were flooded out and which were damaged due to wind (in Mississippi), so you could make the argument that all houses were blown over by wind. They're trying to stem what they see as a "loophole", if I understand the situation correctly.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Skirmisher
For these companies down in Katrina's wake to try to claim that they do not have to pay because of water damage is such a blatant lie that it floors me.


As tragic as it is for anyone to lose their home to a hurricane, if the insurance policy doesn't cover flooding, how is this the insurance company's problem?

As far as I can figure from the article. The issue is what did cause the damage to the homes.

If a home was destroyed by wind and then water flooded into the remainder of what was left isn't it the wind not the water that destroyed the home, as such it should be covered under basic home owners insurance.

I think the insurance companies are worried that they are liable for a lot of the damages or they wouldn't getting people to sign waivers in exchange for $3000.

[CrystalTears]

You can usually tell if a house fell or was extensely damaged due to wind or to water damage. I figured that's why they have inspectors come to the house when you file a claim.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by SnatchWrangler
And all those borderline claims that if they were to pay would drive everyone elses premiums up across the board, then you'd be bitching about how much they're ripping you off in premium payments for something you'll probably never need.
I saw plenty of video of homes down there that looked far from borderline.



What's so difficult understand? Flooding wrecked a city that was below sea level. Flood Insurance is not covered in Homeowners Insurance. This isn't rocket surgery here...

I guess this is exactly where insurance companies start to lose what respect they may have had. There was an incident in NY i think six months ago where a street had a water main break and due to the level, something like a whole block ended up having their basements filled with lovely NYC tapwater..

The insurance companies were denying payment to those homeowners as they claimed the damage came from flooding and was therefore not covered.



Gee, thanks.

You're welcome.



Where do you come up with this stuff from? You're from New Jersey of all places...you should fucking know how they operate here. Why only a few years ago P&C carriers where running over each other trying to get out of the state because they were getting absolutely killed financially. The state acknowledged the problem, and one of the few decent things McGreevey did was work to fix it.

Once again, the carriers' profit margin is regulated by the state. In New Jersey, it's 4% (not sure it varies by state). They have to pay back anything more than that. But since they rarely ever come close to a 4% profit, you're rarely seeing those dividend checks.
I know I pay a huge premium compared to most people for insurance on my old car.

I know my insurance company has never had to pay a dime in coverage for any accident caused by me.

I know how my parents are killed by medical malpractice before they can even begin to budget for anything else.

I know that much.

And something else I know. I worked for banks for many years and heard MANY people criticise them yet somehow always managed to remember the criticism was of the company, not ME personaly so relax and unless you see me refer to you by name dont assume i am attacking you and jump all over me.

[Skirmisher]

If the wind blows the roof off and then rain can come in, how is that not covered?

[SnatchWrangler]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
I saw plenty of video of homes down there that looked far from borderline.

My reply was in regards to your comment of:

"It is the insurance companies fault when they try their best to weasel out of paying when they damn well should be."

You weren't speaking of specific examples. How do you know the destroyed houses you're looking at pictures of are being denied coverage? You made a blanket statement, that's what I responded to.



I guess this is exactly where insurance companies start to lose what respect they may have had. There was an incident in NY i think six months ago where a street had a water main break and due to the level, something like a whole block ended up having their basements filled with lovely NYC tapwater..

I would think the Insurance carrier's argument would be that the City should be paying for it...


I know I pay a huge premium compared to most people for insurance on my old car.

We have a condensed population here, more cars per square mile than any other state in the country. That's one reason. We have/had a large problem with insurance fraud. That's another reason. This isn't the insurance carrier's fault.


I know my insurance company has never had to pay a dime in coverage for any accident caused by me.

I know how my parents are killed by medical malpractice before they can even begin to budget for anything else.

Then move to a different state if your auto insurance is so expensive. It's a product of the region you live in. Auto insurance rates have gotten insanely better over the past 18 months with the addition of new carriers actually wanting to work in NJ again.

You are comparing apples to oranges. They may both be fruit, but auto insurance (property & casualty) and medical coverage (health insurace) are completey separate entities. Many major carriers don't even deal with both lines.


And something else I know. I worked for banks for many years and heard MANY people criticise them yet somehow always managed to remember the criticism was of the company, not ME personaly so relax and unless you see me refer to you by name dont assume i am attacking you and jump all over me.

I don't think you're criticizing me. I think you're labeling the entire industry incorrectly. Do some insurance agents/brokers/salespeople suck? Absolutely. I work with some of them. I just think of all the big businesses out there (energy, oil, accounting firms, law firms, Wall St., tobacco, credit industry, etc.), the insurance industry doesn't deserve to be on the list with them.

[Warriorbird]

For an interesting note.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-091405health_lat,0,4868032.story?coll=la-story-footer

[Tromp]

Originally posted by AIG PERSON
[quote]Originally posted by AIG PERSon
I just think of all the big businesses out there (energy, oil, accounting firms, law firms, Wall St., tobacco, credit industry, etc.), the insurance industry doesn't deserve to be on the list with them.

Oh come on! They totally are in that group when it comes to medical insurance. Take a poll on this board and I bet at least 70% will say insurance companies should be lumped in with the other ones.

[Edited on 9-19-2005 by Tromp]

[Janarth]

So...I must admit I was a tad in doubt about the morality of some of our industry (but not my company, let alone my group), so I did some inquiring/researching/digging.

All P&C is admitted, no such thing as nonadmitted. That means the premium has to fit within a range set by the state. And no, you can't raise it 700% next year, their is language which specifies a max increase (usually less than 25%, sometimes 20%). Its all overseen by ISO too; they can't even carve back in (provide coverage for) flood even if they wanted to in flood zones.

The same applies for flood insurance. Now, filed rate plans (for admitted paper) are based partly on loss history. This means its entirely possible for a carrier to have what would seem high rates, but be within guidelines because the risk is so high (like...who wants to cover NO against flood insurance...its below sea level).

I don't know why All State and those guys are doing the waiver thing, but...the consenses from the people I talked to (EVP, SU, other underwriters) was that this was one battle with the state we're (the industry) is actually going to win fairly easily (we usually lose on policy language).

So, brings me back to my original point. The money has to come from somewhere. I'm sorry some of the people there could not afford flood insurance, but it was expensive for a reason (because of disasters like this). I hate hearing about homes wrecked, lives lost, etc but why should these companies hand out money for nothing...

That said, I challenge someone to find a homeowners denial of coverage by AIG. Why, we don't write any...

Janarth, content is knowing he is not evil, nor part of an evil corporation

[Tromp]

All I can say to that is Greenberg.

[Warriorbird]

:shrugs: I noted that the 700% increase was in Medicare supplement... which is very definitely not homeowner's. With that said... AIG...ethical? Ha.

[Edited on 9-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Tromp
All I can say to that is Greenberg.

Do you even know/understand what he was accused of?

[Skirmisher]

Please fix your quoted material.

It makes it look like I said those things beneath my name when I did not.

Thanks.

Edited to add:

Thanks for fixing it

[Edited on 9-19-2005 by Skirmisher]

[Tromp]

Originally posted by Janarth

Originally posted by Tromp
All I can say to that is Greenberg.

Do you even know/understand what he was accused of?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7480911/

[Tromp]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Tromp

Originally posted by SnatchWrangler
[quote]Originally posted by Skirmisher
I just think of all the big businesses out there (energy, oil, accounting firms, law firms, Wall St., tobacco, credit industry, etc.), the insurance industry doesn't deserve to be on the list with them.

Oh come on! They totally are in that group when it comes to medical insurance. Take a poll on this board and I bet at least 70% will say insurance companies should be lumped in with the other ones.






Please fix your quoted material.

It makes it look like I said those things beneath my name when I did not.

Thanks.

Sorry bout that. I changed the original post for you.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Tromp

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7480911/

Meh, he gave his wife a small fortune. Probably wouldn't save him anyway, I think SOX makes him personally responsible for the accuracy of financial registration statements and that includes stuff held by your wife.

I was asking because people seem to highlight on that, when thats not at all what the heart of the problem Spitzer had with him is; its the reinsurance deals and how we accounted for the premia.

I still think he's in charge of AIG anyway....

[Odysia]

Its a simple concept, you bought homeowners insurance, if you read the policy, there is a line under "Exclusions" which says, this policy does not cover any claim arising out of, related to, etc, flood damage. Done deal, thats what you buy flood insurance for. If thats too complicated for you...


I've got to agree with you.

As much as I'm sure the insurance companies are trying to find ways to avoid paying out all of the policy holders in Louisiana and Mississippi, those homeowners should have understood that they lived below sea level and needed FLOOD insurance. If they didn't understand the policy, then get a lawyer to explain it.

A home is a most expensive investment. I would be more careful to make sure that I had the correct type of insurance for the location my home was built.

Just like every person living in Los Angeles and any other area prone to earthquakes should have the approptiate insurance.

[Tromp]

Originally posted by Janarth

Originally posted by Tromp

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7480911/

Meh, he gave his wife a small fortune. Probably wouldn't save him anyway, I think SOX makes him personally responsible for the accuracy of financial registration statements and that includes stuff held by your wife.

I was asking because people seem to highlight on that, when thats not at all what the heart of the problem Spitzer had with him is; its the reinsurance deals and how we accounted for the premia.

I still think he's in charge of AIG anyway....

My reference to Greenberg was mainly for the book cooking and the reinsurance deals which was used to dispute your statement that insurance companies shouldn't be lumped in with the "other" industries.

Greenberg is an extremely powerful man. Nothing will happen to him plus he'll probably get a govt. position.

[Janarth]

The "book cooking" you reference has to do where premia show up from reinsurance deals, as reserves or loans. Its also a very subjective thing. Insurance companies are supposed to account for the money in one way if there is a "reasonable risk" and another way if there isn't.

I think this one is gonna go the same way as Marsh collecting kickbacks, also known as commission; its been done forever, its acceptable business. It needs slightly more regulation, but because of the media stuff they will go overboard and transparency will now be a pain in our ass.

[Warriorbird]

its been done forever, its acceptable business

That definitely speaks to why folks have issues. Seriously, working for the company or no, you have to accept that they aren't viewed very well. The "kickbacks" were far from commission.

[Apotheosis]

I am glad for the transparency, I don't care how much "disruption" or "red tape" it causes. Fuck ripping off taxpayers.

[Warriorbird]

:shrugs: It isn't like it's a sin for you to work there, Janarth. I've worked for some companies with ethical issues and bid reputations too (Tyco). Trying to whitewash it doesn't do you any favors though.

Heck, I'm strongly considering trying to get into JAG after law school. In parts of my family that's like, I dunno, massacring the Younglings in the Jedi temple or something. The rest'll support me though.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

its been done forever, its acceptable business

That definitely speaks to why folks have issues. Seriously, working for the company or no, you have to accept that they aren't viewed very well. The "kickbacks" were far from commission.

Yes, they are commission and very acceptable. Its been done since...whever Lloyds started. Carriers, as part of the cost of doing business, give some of the premium to the brokers. Every quote I give, which the client ultimately sees, has a figure right next to "Commission: ". We turn around and give the broker that percent of the premium. Its all very out in the open, and sure enough, Spitzer dropped it and everyone is still doing it. Now, the bid rigging on the other hand...but that was orchestated by Marsh, a BROKERAGE, not a carrier. They don't assume any risk at all, just make money off of the placement of risk.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
:shrugs: It isn't like it's a sin for you to work there, Janarth. I've worked for some companies with ethical issues and bid reputations too (Tyco). Trying to whitewash it doesn't do you any favors though.

Heck, I'm strongly considering trying to get into JAG after law school. In parts of my family that's like, I dunno, massacring the Younglings in the Jedi temple or something. The rest'll support me though.

I have very real reservations and strong feelings about furthering things like Enron and Tyco. If I had direct knowledge of that kinda thing, I would be the corporate deep throat and quit my job (if I wasn't fired first for alerting the authorities). I'm being totally serious; I don't want to contribute to that.

I also think ignorance ain't bliss; I might now know, or even have any reason to think about, some of the stuff that goes on, but I can get to the bottom (or as close as I am allowed) of allegations already in the media.

[Janarth]

Originally posted by Yswithe
I am glad for the transparency, I don't care how much "disruption" or "red tape" it causes. Fuck ripping off taxpayers.

Um...the Marsh fiasco, Spitzer started on commission, which really had NOTHING to do with taxpayers. He eventually got them for bid rigging, which had NOTHING to do with taxpayers. AIGs finite reinsurance deals and how they were accounted only affected the people who purchased stcok based on our financial statements...not the common taxpayer.

I don't know where this rant turned into "help the taxpayers". If you want to help the common man, why are you in the process of dismantling the world's biggest brokerage which resulted in the firing of a LOT of people and the tanking of its stock?

If you had bought 1000 shares of AIG stock five months ago, you'd have made $20,000 if you sold it today :) I think, if anything, Spitzer has helped the rich get richer...I don't think the common person has a lot invested in the stock market.

[Edited on 9-20-2005 by Janarth]

[Warriorbird]

Now, the bid rigging on the other hand..

Well... I may not be as up on it as you... but even though it was orchestrated by a brokerage I thought AIG employees were aware at the time.