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.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:58:12 -0500, Richard J Kinch wrote:

prodigal1 writes:

Those who engage in ad hominem populate my killfile.

Heheh. For minute on my fuzzy display I thought you wrote, "populate my
kibble".
Heh...well for some whose thinking is just a little too fuzzy I do tend to
sharpen my teeth on them for a few minutes before dumping them into the
bin.
...time for a new monitor eh?

"prodigal1" wrote in message
news
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. ;-)

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, I understand the business model perfectly. 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. FUD merchants and other
apologists for this scam suggest finding another marketer of an equally
flawed product. Bizarre. I think someone is injecting a constant
low-level dose of LSD into drinking water systems in the US.

Insurance is a
cash flow business.

obviousness snipped

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. 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.

Fees paid to board members in that capacity are pretty small in light of the
liabilities they undertake and the time many spend.

Bull****.

WTF can any one person do that's worth 200 million dollars?


Dave wrote:
Is there a company that pays directors' fees of $200 million?

Ah well, "fees" is something different, so that's all right
isn't it? Did I start out by referring *only* to "fees?"


.... Directors' fees generally run in the range of $1,000 to
$2,500 per meeting for 12 meetings per year. No pay at all for meeting
preparation and one on one discussions with the CEO and CFO.


Aww, poor babies.

When CEOs pocket hundreds of millions for directly violating
a vote of the shareholders, and damaging the company
besides, then what incentive could they possibly have to
make any positive contribution, much less millions worth?
The incentive is to kiss butt until you get into a position
start grabbing the loot, then twist arms to maximize your
take. And that's exactly what is happening to the U.S. economy.

DSK

"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.

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. Personally, I'm scared stiff
that certain incidents could remove a vast amount of my wealth and
tie me up in court for a few years. So I buy insurance . . . third
party for driving boats, cars . . . also for medical insurance
while travelling in USA. It may be your opinion that this is a
poor quality good. I hope you have the financial resources to
handle any third party claims which may arise due your actions.

Each person will make their own judgements about the degree to
which they wish to self-insure. I, too, think that many people
don't recognise a lot of poor value products. Not just in
insurance, but in the whole range of products available to any
consumer. Fine. That's the market place.

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.

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.

The fact that the public insurance business is used to finance
infrastructure development may (or may not) be a good 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.
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

DSK wrote:
Fees paid to board members in that capacity are pretty small in
light of the
liabilities they undertake and the time many spend.


Bull****.

WTF can any one person do that's worth 200 million dollars?



Dave wrote:

Is there a company that pays directors' fees of $200 million?


Ah well, "fees" is something different, so that's all right isn't it?
Did I start out by referring *only* to "fees?"


.... Directors' fees generally run in the range of $1,000 to
$2,500 per meeting for 12 meetings per year. No pay at all for meeting
preparation and one on one discussions with the CEO and CFO.


Aww, poor babies.

When CEOs pocket hundreds of millions for directly violating a vote of
the shareholders, and damaging the company besides, then what incentive
could they possibly have to make any positive contribution, much less
millions worth? The incentive is to kiss butt until you get into a
position start grabbing the loot, then twist arms to maximize your take.
And that's exactly what is happening to the U.S. economy.

DSK


Those CEOs are the ones who should be treated as traitors. In the long
term, they are as much a dander to the US & Canadian economies as any
terrorist.

Don White wrote:
*correction*

Those CEOs are the ones who should be treated as traitors. In the long
term, they are as much a *danger* to the US & Canadian economies as any
terrorist.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:20:03 -0400, DSK said:


When CEOs pocket hundreds of millions for directly violating
a vote of the shareholders


Dave wrote:
What ever are you talking about here?

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.

There are other examples, but that the biggest and most
publicly known.



... A shareholder vote
against the board's proposal is a very unusual event.

That's true, but it's not unusual enough. For another
example, every single mutual fund in which we own shares has
amended their charter to loan money overseas. If I wanted to
be in that business, one presumes I would have invested in
it instead of a specific mutual fund which was supposed to
concentrate it's investments elsewhere.

The raw fact is that you can make more money with a gun than
by selling a good product, and in it's current incarnation
"market capitalism" is a race to the bottom. Corporate
"leadership" that pushes toward legalized robbery as a means
of boosting profit, while pocketing all that profit & more,
is not productive.

In short, you're on a really wobbly plank here Dave. Of
course you are ideologically on the side of the corporate
thieves, but do you ever wonder how "conservatism" got you
there?

Regards
Doug King

Dave wrote:

I insure my 27 year old boat with USAA.

Hello Dave:

You do?!?!

Tell me about it. I am very interested. When I was going through the
survey, loan, insurance dance for some reason I remember calling USAA
and talking it over with them and getting a smile and a sorry Charlie.

What kind of boat do you have?
What region do you keep you boat?
What type of survey did they require?
Did you use a secret handshake or something?

I wonder where I got the idea USAA would not carry my boat. I have
their car insurance. Great service and incredible cheep road service .
I think a few bucks per year?
I'll be waiting for your reply before giving them another call.
THANKS!
Bob