It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
DSK wrote:
Don't complain about your high insurance costs or your being
uninsurable. And don't expect taxpayers to pay the bill so you can
build a new house after your is destroyed by a hurricane. *You*
chose to purchase a house in hurricane alley. You knew the risks and
you are now paying the price.
NOYB wrote:
I don't mind paying the price. It's not the cost that I'm complaining
about. It's the fact that there is no insurance company willing to
write a new policy for a boat over 30' long valued at more than
$100,000...unless that boat is a 2002 or newer.
Isn't that complaining about cost? All you have to do is go buy a new
boat. If you pre-2002 boat is truly perfect, then all you have to do is
get a custom builder to crank out an exact replica. Money doesn't solve
everything, but it can easily solve problems like that.
The problem with insurance companies is that there is no federal
oversight (thanks to the McCarron-Ferguson Act), and they're not
subject to anti-trust legislation. It's the only industry that has
that has the benefit of such an unlevel playing field. Congress has
the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
And not so very long ago, the Republican battle cry was "Deregulation!"
So these things come & go in cycles.
The entire problem spills over directly to health insurance too.
Corporations, labor unions, and the US government can buy their
insurance in a state that has affordable premiums and cheap coverage,
and provide that coverage for members no matter where they live.
Small businesses have no such luxury, because Senate Democrats have
managed to stall a vote on the Small Business Health Fairness Act.
That's right, I knew you'd find a way to blame the Democrats. But hey,
as long as *you* do it, it's not partisan hackery!
I'm pleased to report that we are involved in slowing down passage of S.
545, aka the Small Business Health Fairness Act.
Of course you (unions) are. Unions already have the priviledge to buy
insurance across state lines.
There's nothing wrong with the basis concept, but there are plenty of
problems with the Bill's proposed implementation.
1. The Act exempts association health plans from state laws and
regulations, and therefore eliminates consumer protection and coverage
requirements.
Bull****. I'd bet that your insurance doesn't conform to Maryland's
insurance regulations, because your union purchases it in a state with
less regulation.
You'd lose your bet.
2. The insurers would have no incentive to cover preventive care or many
expensive procedures if the law did not require them to do so.
Then regulate them at the Federal level so that they can't cherry-pick
which states to do business in.
3. AHPs open the door for cherry picking.
Bull**** again. The insurance companies already cherry pick which states
have the least regulation, and sell most of their products there.
AHP's would eliminate cherry-picking, not increase it.
I suspect my knowledge of the health insurance industry from the insurer's
POV is a bit more sophisticated than yours.
Oh goody! You're speaking from the insurer's and the union's point of view.
No wonder you're opposed to AHP's. They'd help small businesses (and the
60% of the workers in this country employed by small businesses), but
they're no good for insurance companies, labor unions, or corporations
because it might affect their bottom line if there was actual competition in
the health insurance market.
All one has to do is look at the list of the folks who oppose AHP's, and it
becomes evident just why they oppose them. And it's not for any of the
smoke and mirror reasons that you stated above.
Right...expertise from the dentist with the highly leveraged, overpriced
house on which he can't park a boat trailer and the boat he can't insure.
Bingo!
|