Insurance early warning?
 

I can give you an excellent example- HP buying Compaq, a
move which threw tens of million$ down a rat-hole and helped
neither company. Voted down by HP stockholders, of which I
was one at the time.




Mys Terry wrote:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HPQ&t=5y



And your point is? That chart doesn't go back far enough to
see the huge drop in HP stock value.

When I sold our shares in disgust (which apparently many
other people also did) it was over $125/sh

Today's price $32.43/sh wow!

If you look at this chart
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HPQ&t=my

you will see the drop.

DSK

Insurance early warning?
 

Mys Terry wrote:
HP bought Compaq in 2001.

Please point out on the chart you referenced, where HP EVER reached
$125 between 1965 and this afternoon.


You know what a stock split is?


Yet another DSK lie.

Wrong

DSK

Insurance early warning: ? for USAA Dave
 

Hi Dave:

Thank you for such a fast reply.

I'm off to make a phone call to usaa. I have my fingers crossed.

Thanks again.
Bob

Insurance early warning?
 

I can give you an excellent example- HP buying Compaq, a
move which threw tens of million$ down a rat-hole and helped
neither company. Voted down by HP stockholders, of which I
was one at the time.


Dave wrote:
Doug, that transaction was approved by the stockholders.

Actually, it wasn't. Read the minutes of the stockholders
meeting.

At one point I had saved HP quarterly report & meeting
notes, to use as lesson materials for a group of people I
discuss such things with. But in our recent household
downsizing, I threw all that stuff (along with a lot of
other material) away.

This is really a long long ways away from the actual topic
of this thread, and I intend to drop it (having proven my
point to those who can understand it).

DSK

Insurance early warning?
 

You know what a stock split is?



Mys Terry wrote:
Yes


Wrong

If you did, then you'd easily have seen that the charted
price of ~ $80/sh before a split represents an actual stock
value of $160/sh

Oops

Better get out another sock puppet, this one ain't doin' so good

DSK

Insurance early warning?
 

Ya gotta lookit them funny little triangles on the chart. The stock split 2
for 1 in October of 2000. At the time it was trading, on a post-split basis,
at $80 per share. That would have put it at about $160 per share pre-split.


Mys Terry wrote:
Doug said it was trading at $125 a share, which never happened.


Quick! Call up Edward D. Jones & Co and tell them they've
made a horrible mistake, paying me over $125 per share for
my Hewlett-Packard stock holding! Hurry before the statute
of limitations runs out!

DSK

Insurance early warning?
 

Doug, that transaction was approved by the stockholders.


Actually, it wasn't. Read the minutes of the stockholders
meeting.




Dave wrote:
I'd be happy to read the minutes of the stockholders' meeting to confirm,
but minutes of stockholders' meetings are not generally available to the
public. In fact about the only way one can read them is to be a stockholder
and go to the next annual meeting, where the minutes of the last meeting are
generally available for inspection. How did you get a copy of the minutes?


Because I was a stockholder at the time. My impression was
that a synopsis of the minutes was made available to the
public by the SEC after some amount of time had passed, but
that may be outdated.


HP's press release of April 17, 2002 (Exhibit 99.1 to Form 8K filed on April
18, 2002) says:

"The preliminary vote tally, prepared by the independent inspectors of
election, shows that HP shareowners voted in favor of the merger by a margin
of approximately 45 million shares. Moreover, shareowners not affiliated
with the Hewlett and Packard families and their foundations voted for the
merger by a margin of roughly 2:1."

Hmm, that's a surprise.

IIRC the measure was passed by the directors allied with
Carly Fiorini issuing themselves new stock after a challenge
to their proxies was made by individual stockholders &
institutional investor's reps. Some of those challenged
proxies were undoubtedly included in the count you cite. At
the physical shareholder's meeting, sentiment was
overwhelmingly against the merger.... by "overwhelming" I
mean at least 10 to 1 among common stockholders.

In any event, the whole thing stank, it was a clear case of
driving the company off a cliff, and I got out while the
getting was good.

Regards
Doug King

Insurance early warning?
 

News f2s wrote:
"prodigal1" wrote in message
...

News f2s wrote:


As for those who have been criticising the profit motive of
insurers (and suggesting public insurance) earlier in this
thread, most of them did not understand the business model.

Au contraire mon frère,


Ah. French. Strong believers in the (old soviet idea) that the
state can always do things better.

No, just a polyglot. A belief in the importance of public oversight of
free market activities is not exclusively associated with the "old
soviet". A perusal of the USA Patriot Act might provide some
eye-opening reading.

I understand the business model perfectly.


I did say 'most', so you're allowed to differ in your views.


What I don't understand is the lemming-like response of
consumers of insurance products. The product marketed by
private companies don't meet the consumer's needs, yet for some
inexplicable reason the consumer continues to purchase a
poor-quality good.


It's called persuasive marketing.

okay, we're you grinning when you typed that?

By all means let public insurance compete with private
insurance. But you need some safeguards to make sure that that
cash flow doesn't disappear into the public spending maw.
Because it's going to have to be re-paid! By whom? The
taxpayer.


Nonsense.


Why nonsense? If I accept that your one public example is well
run, that does not prove that what I said is nonsense. It merely
means that (in this instance) appropriate safeguards are in place.

It's nonsense because you advance as a priori the idea that somehow
private industry -in this case- insurance, sets standards of operation
that are to be used as reference points for quality.

Publicly run insurance companies such as the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia are profitable entities. These
profits reduce the pressure for increases in property tax rates
in BC. Roads, schools and hospitals are not a "public spending
maw". Private insurance companies have outlived any usefulness
they may have had to their customers.


I would hazard a guess that private insurance had set the
standards which public insurance had to improve on. And I would
hope that private insurance is still available to compete with the
public products. If not, you have a classic monopoly problem - no
checks on costs, no incentive to innovate and improve.

Guessing "private insurance had set the standards" is being pretty
generous. I think we can imagine how low those standards might have
been. Private insurance for autos has not been sold in BC for over 30
years. Curiously though, even after a landslide victory in the last
provincial election which sees now a rather right-wing government in
power, no attempt has been made by that party to privatise the ICBC.
Evidently the monopoly condition is enjoyed by the customers i.e, the
voters.

The fact that the public insurance business is used to finance
infrastructure development may (or may not) be a good investment.

I'm trying to imagine how investment in infrastructure _could_ be a bad
investment.

I'm sorry I called it a 'public spending maw'. This finance
reduces the public borrowing requirement - improves the balance
sheet. This is a popular wheeze with governments and companies
alike. Disguise the debt.

True, it _can_ reduce public borrowing requirements.
but we digress
Roger opens the insurance can of worms, and I, as the owner of a 40 year
old boat, who has had unsatisfactory experiences with private insurers
wanted to raise a question that few in the US seem capable of
conceiving. I am no more wrong than my critics in here deem themselves
correct.
Safe boating!

Insurance early warning?
 

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:26:38 GMT, Mys Terry
wrote:

I know all of this Dave. It's just way more fun to wind him up.

You've got too much time on your hands. Go cruising.

Insurance early warning?
 

"prodigal1" wrote in message
...

big snips, areas of differing beliefs noted

Roger opens the insurance can of worms, and I, as the owner of a
40 year old boat, who has had unsatisfactory experiences with
private insurers wanted to raise a question that few in the US
seem capable of conceiving. I am no more wrong than my critics
in here deem themselves correct.

Fascinating response - no I'm not being sarcastic. We obviously
differ in our attitudes about the efficacy of state ownership of
businesses. Also, the insurance market in Europe is obviously very
different from that in US or Canada. I'm aware that in the USA
there were some serious cartel issues a year or two ago, and that
these affected (particularly) the property and product liabilities
of major corporations, but I would not have expected them to
affect the fragmented car insurance market.

My big surprise is to discover that BC only offers public
insurance for cars. Is this because private insurance is forbidden
by law? or because of competitive pricing?

If competitive pricing, then BC is not making a profit (by
international accounting standards) on its car insurance
activities. Otherwise there would be others around trying to chip
away some of the business.

If law is preventing private competition, then in addition there's
no incentive to improve the product.

Either way, I wold expect the consumer to lose out.

As you can see, I'm a rampant free marketeer. No apologies for
that!
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

Insurance early warning?
 

In article , says...


Wayne.B wrote:

Getting insurance on older boats has been an issue for quite awhile
but now it is getting worse, a lot worse in places like Florida and
the Gulf Coast. It's not just boats either, houses also. Our home
insurance just doubled last week and we've had no claims.

Why is it that no one ever suggests that it's time to bring parasitic
entities such as "insurance companies" to heel? _Long_past_time_ for
public insurance I think. Something that meets the needs of the insured
rather than the greed of the stockholders of the insurance companies.

I could not agree with you more. But it's not going to happen. The totally
parasitic health insurance industry made a $130 billion profit last year
while rejecting one third of all claims. Too much of that money is goiung
to bribe Congress isntead of reducing costs and improving health care.

Insurance early warning?
 

In article ,
says...


On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:53:44 -0400, prodigal1 said:

Why is it that no one ever suggests that it's time to bring parasitic
entities such as "insurance companies" to heel? _Long_past_time_ for
public insurance I think. Something that meets the needs of the insured
rather than the greed of the stockholders of the insurance companies.

Why is there always some genius in a group who seems to think that 1000
members of the govment employees' local union are going to do a better job
than people with a profit motive? Such economic ignorance never ceases to
astound me.

Have you checked out Medicare lately? You need to learn more about the
nature of bureaucracy and the efficiency of government provided services
compared to thos provided by so called free markets. To start with, the
head of Medicare is not being paid $100 million a year.

Insurance early warning?
 

In article ,
says...


On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:09:32 -0400, prodigal1 said:

There are places in the world
where this works very well. People get the coverage they want, at rates
they find acceptable AND profits go toward public services like schools,
roads, hospitals... What's not to like?

Hey, I've got a bridge across the East River that would make a great
investment for you. Of course, you have to let the politicians set the
rates.

That strikes me as an unresponsive response.

The essence of insurance should be one risk pool, no cherry-picking. Only
government does that.

Insurance early warning?
 

In article ,
jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcomREMOVETHIS says...



"prodigal1" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:17:04 -0400, JimH wrote:

Public insurance translated means government run insurance.............no
thanks.

I'm presuming you're American (osudad) and have never had any experience
with public insurance, so I have to ask myself on what your rejection of
the idea is based.

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient. The one exception is the Post
Office.

A, The Post Office is a government corporation. It cannot cherry pick its
customers and must deliver everything to everywhere without profit incentive.
It is a service.

B. Social Security and Medicare are highly efficient. They are not bloated
bureaucracies. Indeed, most government is not bloated and inefficient.
Medicare's overhead is 2%. Private insurance companies have overhead of 15% to
20% while racking up huge profits for shareholders and obscene compensation
for officers while carefully picking their risks and then denying some 30& of
claims. Why do we owe the insurance companies a living?

C. To govern is to serve. Keep that in mind. Government is not a business and
cannot be run like a business. The business of business is profit, not the
well-being of the customers. That is the essential conflict of the insurance
business.

Insurance early warning?
 

In article ,
jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcomREMOVETHIS says...



"prodigal1" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:17:39 -0400, JimH wrote:

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient.

ahhh...if only life were so black and white...
no Jim, I'm not an American, and --apparently unlke you-- I have had
experience with both public and private insurance, and I can tell you from
experience that the private system is not to be preferred. You keep
paying your premiums and I'll continue looking for a better way.


Socialist? Me thinks so. ;-)


So what's wrong with that if it works?

Insurance early warning?
 

"Gogarty" wrote in message

The essence of insurance should be one risk pool, no
cherry-picking. Only
government does that.

Really? You must be a high risk person.

As a low risk person I like being cherry picked. Much cheaper for
me . . .
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

Insurance early warning?
 

Dave wrote:

I guess news of Alaska's bridge to nowhere hasn't made it to Canada.


A former notoriously wasteful provincial gov't here once borrowed money
from oil rich Alberta do do just that.
The premier ended up being appointed to the Senate.

Insurance early warning?
 

Dave wrote:
You really don't understand how shareholder meetings work, Doug.

Why yes, I'm sure.

Always a good way to make a point, insist the other guys
doesn't know what he's talking about. Especially when he was
there personally.


... Anyone who
goes to a shareholder meeting thinking that what is said there is likely to
affect the outcome of the vote is simply clueless. It's the fight for proxy
votes that precedes the meeting that is significant.

Correct. And in this case, the directors voted their proxies
against the expressed (in many cases written) intent of the
shareholders... in other words, they voted proxies that they
didn't really have.

Owners of common stock *do* have the right to vote their
shares. I don't understand the court case or what "facts"
were found to support the directors, but the intent of the
majority of shareholders was quite clear.

And oddly enough, the shareholders were right. HP took a
nosedive right off a cliff.

There are a few other cases I can point to, for example the
Coca-Cola CEO and CFO $100 mil+ stock awards of a few years
ago... voted down by the shareholders, passed by the directors.



.... (I know. I've
been an inspector of elections at meetings of a large public company.)

In other words, you know how to circumvent the process?

... Votes
cast at the meeting represent just a small adjustment to the totals.

Sure. In many cases, perhaps most, the Board of Directos
hold a majority of common stock among themselves. In that
case, the public (individual & institutional) shareholders
are just along for the ride. Some surprisingly large
corporations are this way.


... The
people who you see showing up are the ones who want to put on a show, not
the ones who hold the large share positions.


Uh huh.

When the reps of American Funds, Putnam, and Vanguard all
show up and say publicly that they are NOT granting the
usual proxies to the directors on shares held by their
funds, that's a rather different scenario... there was a big
insurance company that chimed in, don't remember which one.

The HP fight was a clear example of a BS decision IMHO. You
can talk about how it was legal, and maybe it was. That
doesn't make it right.


The one exception I've seen is Carl Icahn, who both has financial clout and
shows up at meetings.

Never met him, he seems like a bit of a predator to me.

Anyway, the real issue is that the top echelon corporate
officers are kleptocrats. They rake in huge amounts of money
whether their business decisions are good or bad. So what's
the motivation to produce? Isn't that supposed to be the
strong point of market capitalism?

Regards
Doug King

Insurance early warning?
 

Correct. And in this case, the directors voted their proxies
against the expressed (in many cases written) intent of the
shareholders... in other words, they voted proxies that they
didn't really have.


Dave wrote:
Doug, having been involved for some 35 plus years in shareholder meetings of
public companies I simply can't credit what you're saying here. If that were
true, the dissidents would have won in the DE court. They didn't.

Perhaps I should have said that they voted proxies that they
*shouldn't* have really had.

... So either
you're talking through you hat or you have some secret knowledge that nobody
bothered to pass along to the Chancellor. I regard this last possibility as
remote.


Agreed. However, this is what I mean... and you will
undoubtedly know a heck of a lot more about it than I...
stock voting proxies are very commonly granted and the
directors vote them as though they held the stock. But the
owner of that stock retains the right to vote it. Now, are
there all kinds of nit-picky details about the process? I
bet so. Are there enough little tiny-print unknown rules
about the grant of proxies that the directors can vote
proxied against the wishes of the owner, and make it stand
up in court?

Yes, obviously.



First understand that the intent of the _majority of shareholders_ is
irrelevant. It's the intent of _holders of a majority of shares_ that
counts.

Correct. And I thought I made this clear in my earlier post.

... Most of those shareholders don't show up at the meeting. You are
apparently basing your conclusions on what shareholders said at the meeting.

No, I'm apparently basing my conclusion on the tally of
shares voted by their owners at that meeting, which did in
fact constitute a majority of shares ooutstanding at the
time. Whether the directors got around this with some kind
of proxy trickery, or simply issuing themselves more stock
to gain a majority, or just bribing the court, I don't know
and don't care. It was a BS decision.

Ever see the movie "Animal House?"

Anyway, I voted with my dollars and am well out of it. But
it is a situation that bothers me a lot as it is repeated
over and over, on a smaller scale, in almost every company
I've ever held stock in. And it is usually harmful to the
company and to the economy.

That's the problem with democray, isn't it... the darn
people just won't vote the right way!

DSK

Insurance early warning?
 

Now, are
there all kinds of nit-picky details about the process? I
bet so. Are there enough little tiny-print unknown rules
about the grant of proxies that the directors can vote
proxied against the wishes of the owner, and make it stand
up in court?

Yes, obviously.


Dave wrote:
Not at all "obviously." Not true in fact.

Well, here's where we part ways.

While it is not capable of being proven (and certainly
*never* to your satisfaction) that the holders of majority
shares of HP did not want the Compaq buy-out, it was made
obvious in several venues. The directors circumvented the
will of the stockholders. Whatever method of trickery they
employed is not important, nor does the courts sanction make
it right... that only makes it legal.

It is self-evident that a majority of Hewlett-Packard stock
holders did *not* want to buy Compaq, because shortly after
it happened, the ratio of HP stock for sale to HP stock buy
orders plummeted. Coincidentally, so did the value of the
stock... funny how that works. Even after a few years of
"recovery" it's still less than half what it was.

So, when you're saying that it's impossible that the
majority shareholders voted against... or would have voted
against, had their votes been actually counted... the Compaq
buy-out, you're saying that the laws of supply & demand has
been temporarily suspended in this instance. Maybe the court
approved that too? I mean, doesn't water flow up hill if
your ideology demands that it do so?

DSK

Insurance early warning?
 

... you're saying that the laws of supply & demand has
been temporarily suspended in this instance. Maybe the court
approved that too? I mean, doesn't water flow up hill if
your ideology demands that it do so?

Dave wrote:
The laws of supply and demand tell you that if there is an increase in the
number of shares held by people who want to sell, and there is not a
corresponding increase in the number of shares demanded by people who want
to buy, the price will decline.

Yep

.... That's all they tell you. It is certainly
not a fair conclusion that the shares held by people who wanted to sell
represented a majority of the outstanding shares.

And when the price goes from $80 to about $15 (both prices
split adjusted) a share?

You're tapdancing on a very wobbly plank, Dave.

But like I said, if your ideology demands that you say water
flows up hill, you say it vehemently and try to prove it
with all your lawyerly wiles. I guess that can be a good
characteristic. But the fact remains that water does not
flow up hill.

DSK

Insurance early warning?
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...

The laws of supply and demand tell you that if there is an
increase in the
number of shares held by people who want to sell, and there is
not a
corresponding increase in the number of shares demanded by
people who want
to buy, the price will decline.

Yep

.... That's all they tell you. It is certainly
not a fair conclusion that the shares held by people who wanted
to sell
represented a majority of the outstanding shares.

And when the price goes from $80 to about $15 (both prices split
adjusted) a share?

You're tapdancing on a very wobbly plank, Dave.

Well, this has been a fascinating debate. I've enjoyed listening
in, and I'm really glad you've shifted the debate from personal
attack to digging for the causes of difference. I've learnt a lot.
I guess it should have had a thread title of 'corporate
governance'. On balance, I guess I understand Dave's points a
little better - but thanks guys,
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

Insurance early warning?
 

we've been trying to insure our boat for liability only and can not get
it without an out of water survey. It seems people with recked boats
from the canes are geting liability insurance and then letting calling
their boat in as a reck to get the insurance to clean it up. FL charges
the reg owner big bucks if you leave a boat sitting after it is recked.

Insurance early warning?
 

Da Kine wrote:
we've been trying to insure our boat for liability only and can not get
it without an out of water survey. It seems people with recked boats
from the canes are geting liability insurance and then letting calling
their boat in as a reck to get the insurance to clean it up. FL charges
the reg owner big bucks if you leave a boat sitting after it is recked.

THANK YOU Da KINE

AT LAST........... SOMTHING ABOUT INSURANCE!

So far we have Allstate as a real bargin. About $300-340 for reasonable
coverage for boats 27'-39'

Any other owners out there who have insurance recomendations?
Bob

Insurance early warning?
 

News f2s wrote:

I guess it should have had a thread title of 'corporate
governance'.

JimB

Hello Jim B:

I gotta know, from which university did you retire?
Inquiring Bob

Insurance early warning?
 

"Bob"
I gotta know, from which university did you retire?
Inquiring Bob

I haven't retired from life yet . . .
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

Insurance early warning?
 

News f2s wrote:
Well, this has been a fascinating debate. I've enjoyed listening
in, and I'm really glad you've shifted the debate from personal
attack to digging for the causes of difference.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

I apologize for going on at such length about the issue of
corproate kleptocracy. It's an important issue but this is
supposed to be a boating forum after all... maybe it's on
topic in consideration of how one affords a boat?


... I've learnt a lot.
I guess it should have had a thread title of 'corporate
governance'. On balance, I guess I understand Dave's points a
little better - but thanks guys,

Hey any time ;)

Regards
Doug King

Insurance early warning?
 

Don White wrote:

A former notoriously wasteful provincial gov't here once borrowed money
from oil rich Alberta do do just that.
The premier ended up being appointed to the Senate.

Are you referring to the bridge to PEI?

Insurance early warning?
 

In article ,
says...


Sure. In many cases, perhaps most, the Board of Directos
hold a majority of common stock among themselves. In that
case, the public (individual & institutional) shareholders
are just along for the ride. Some surprisingly large
corporations are this way.

Wrong. In many cases, perhaps most, the directors own very few shares or nonbe
at all. Case in the paper today about a former Ford company where the CEO's
compensation soared 50% while the stock tanked 39% and the chairman of the
compensation committee owns not one share.

Insurance early warning?
 

In article ,
says...

I apologize for going on at such length about the issue of
corproate kleptocracy. It's an important issue but this is
supposed to be a boating forum after all... maybe it's on
topic in consideration of how one affords a boat?

One affords a boat the same way working stiffs afford monster trucks.
You gotta have it, you have it. Regardless.

(Living on Social Security with 37 foot sailboat)

Insurance early warning?
 

In article . com,
says...



Da Kine wrote:
we've been trying to insure our boat for liability only and can not get
it without an out of water survey. It seems people with recked boats
from the canes are geting liability insurance and then letting calling
their boat in as a reck to get the insurance to clean it up. FL charges
the reg owner big bucks if you leave a boat sitting after it is recked.

THANK YOU Da KINE

AT LAST........... SOMTHING ABOUT INSURANCE!

So far we have Allstate as a real bargin. About $300-340 for reasonable
coverage for boats 27'-39'

Any other owners out there who have insurance recomendations?

Boat US. Had Allstate once because they carried our home insurance. But I
got the impression they knew from nothing about marine. Looked into
swithcing to Geico, which carries our car insurance. But they know from
nothing about sailboats and could not touch our Boat US premium by several
hundred dollars. Their service has been excellent. We had a major casualty
(fire) two weeks after we bought the policy and they paid with never a
quibble. Our premium increased only 10% and that for only two years when
it fell back to the no claims level.

Insurance early warning?
 

By the way, it has been a pleasure to follow this somewhat off-topic
thread without having to wade through torrents of invective, vulgarity,
insults, scatology, homophobia and just plain bad manners. Try
alt.politics for fulsome displays of all the above.

Insurance early warning?
 

Gogarty wrote:
By the way, it has been a pleasure to follow this somewhat off-topic
thread without having to wade through torrents of invective, vulgarity,
insults, scatology, homophobia and just plain bad manners.
snip..




...and that's just Fred's contribution.....

Insurance early warning?
 

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:52:00 -0400, Gogarty wrote:

In article ,
jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcomREMOVETHIS says...



"prodigal1" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:17:39 -0400, JimH wrote:

I take it your not an American...........otherwise you would know that
whatever our Government touches turns corrupt or bloated with
beauracracy........and most inefficient.

ahhh...if only life were so black and white... no Jim, I'm not an
American, and --apparently unlke you-- I have had experience with both
public and private insurance, and I can tell you from experience that
the private system is not to be preferred. You keep paying your
premiums and I'll continue looking for a better way.


Socialist? Me thinks so. ;-)


So what's wrong with that if it works?

no no, you're missing it...
life is black and white
capitalism = inherently good
socialism = inherently bad
with us = not agin us
not with us = agin us
etc...

now isn't that simpler?

Insurance early warning?
 

JimH wrote:


Public insurance translated means government run insurance.............no
thanks.

In British Columbia we have mandatory 3rd party automobile liability
insurance through the government insurance company ICBC.

You can also purchase comprehensive or collision insurance through
them, or a private company. Last time I got a quote, the private
company was MORE money than the government run one. And I've got a
very good driving insurance record.

Why not have an government insurance agency, with a larger pool of
insureds to help lower the premium? Excess profit in the government
agency means premiums get lowered the next year. A larger
organization like ICBC seems to be more efficient than 15 smaller
companies.

When I lived in the US, 1/3 of our doctor's office was taken up by
people dealing with all the health insurance companies. It seemed
very inefficient.

There seems to be a tendency in the US to really fear many forms of
government programs.

Evan Gatehouse

Insurance early warning?
 

Dave wrote:
On 11 Apr 2006 12:45:45 -0700, "Bob" said:


Boat: 39.3', 1979, solid glass hull
Insured Valued: $69,000
Enviornmetal clean up $500,000
Liability: $500,000
Medical: $25,000 per incident
Area of operation: PNW, Out about 100 miles.
Premium/year: $304


That sounds like a helluva deal. Practical sailor just ran a comparison, but
I don't think they showed anything near that low. Rates seem to go up as you
go south, both because of hurricanes and because of more months in the
water.

Who's your carrier?

No kidding, that sounds low.

In BC, Canada:

40' fiberglass catamaran, 1987
Insured value: $55K
Liability: $2M
Area: BC Coast
Premium: 774

Are you sure you have an agreed value policy, and not an "Actual Cash
Value" policy?

Evan Gatehouse