It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:30:56 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I'd like to see the insurance industry regulated the way that public
utilities like power companies are regulated.

As in many states, Florida does regulate insurance companies.

But the Feds have no regulatory control. They're exempt from the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act!




"Insurance companies are private businesses that must make a profit to
survive and fulfill their ability to pay claims filed by insureds. It is a
highly regulated, carefully controlled profit, however. Rates for nearly
all lines of insurance must be approved by the Office of Insurance
Regulation. The maximum allowable rate of return is generally 5 percent,
with 2 to 3 percent returns more typical on an actual basis. Excess profit
laws exist in several lines of insurance requiring automatic rate
rollbacks when the maximum approved profit level is exceeded. They have
been rarely activated."



That's precisely the problem. Companies just decide that they're not going
to do business in the states that create tougher regulations...which leaves
the government impotent in helping the people.

Now if there were uniform Federal standards instead of individual state
standards, the companies couldn't cherry-pick which states that they want to
do business in.


That's the idea behind Association Health Plans (a.k.a. Small Business
Health Fairness Act).

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
It's insurance! Or lack thereof. In Florida, it is now impossible
to
insure a boat over 30' long valued at more than $100,000 if the boat:

a) doesn't have a trailer

and/or

b) is more than 5 model years old (2001 and older are uninsurable if
they're
over 30 feet and valued at more than $100,000)


I just applied for quotes from NBOA, Boater's Choice, Progressive,
and 2 or
three others. All said the same thing: no dice.

Progressive was willing to write my boat for $100,000 coverage (it's
valued
at $113k though) to the tune of $4500/year.

I'm with Boat/US, and insured for $113,000 for just under $3000/year.
I was
looking to save some money, and it's apparent that that isn't going
to
happen.


Read this thread on thehulltruth.com to understand how bad it is in
Florida
now:

http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/t...114956&start=1


Guys cannot get financing on boats because they can't insure them.


Sorry to hear about your insurance difficulties. Nothing similar is
happening in this area of the country- so I'm willing to bet it has a
lot to do with the $$$$$$$$$ in losses the boat insurance companies
suffer whenever your several hurricanes per year blow through.
Sort of like trying to buy fire insurance on a house 50-feet from a
blast furnace.

Those rates sound astronomical to insure a $100k boat, but it makes
some sense to evaluate local risk rather than just "average" it out
against everybody in the country- whether they live in a hurricane
zone
or not.

Yup. Sounds fair. Just like the rest of the country's tax dollars
shouldn't have to pay for security against terrorist attacks in cities
like NY, Seattle, LA, Chicago, etc.


There is no comparison between people choosing to live in hurricane
alley and folks living in large cities that terrorists chose to target.


Sure there is. I have a much lower chance of being the victim of a
terrorist attack than someone living in NY...and NY'ers have a lower
chance of getting hit by a Cat 3 or higher hurricane. And guess what?
The risks are directly related to where we each chose to live.




And folks living in Hawaii have a lower chance of seeing snow in January
than those living in Alaska. And guess what, the risks are directly
related to where we choose to live.

So what does snow have to do with insurance? Nothing, just like insurance
has nothing to do with taxes.

BTW: How many terrorist attacks were there in New York last year? How
many hurricanes were there in Florida last year? How about 2004? 2003?
2002?

How many Cat 3 or greater Hurricanes hit Naples since 1960? One. How many
terrorist attacks occurred in NY in the same 46 year period?

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

On 24 Aug 2006 07:41:02 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On 24 Aug 2006 07:13:21 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Gene wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:40:35 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Gas may also do it. Took the boat out today, and filled up at $2.92 gallon
at Costco and put $99 in the boat. $3.19 for diesel and $75 for that this
evening.


You may want to look a bit further for the real problem:

as of yesterday, 87 octane at Sam's and Costco was $2.61
--


Anybody notice that as of today, the amount of oil coming out of Prudoe
Bay has been cut in half AGAIN? Sure seems a tad odd that when the
price per barrel starts coming down, a new problem arises to push it
back up!

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS...p.pipeline.ap/

Well, I wasn't going boating this week anyway. By next week it'll be fixed
and the price will be back to normal.
--
So, how come you're not out there fishing??

Spending too much time trying to learn how to hit a golf ball. I'll be
moving the boat down to the Rappahannock River in a couple weeks so the
kids can use it also.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
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!

Senator Nelson (D-NE) is one of the plan's cosponsors. But the rest of his
party voted in May to oppose invoking cloture, thereby obstructing a vote on
the issue. The vote to invoke cloture was 56-43...but 60 votes were needed
to bring it to a vote.


I'd like to see the insurance industry regulated the way that public
utilities like power companies are regulated.


As I've said before, NOYB, you're not really a conservative. You're a
socialist dressed up to party in a theocratic dictatorship suit.

Good, so I defy labels. It makes it harder for you to dismiss my argument
as purely partisan rhetoric.

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

"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,

545 is the House version. It passed overwhelmingly.


The Senate version is S.1955. It has 56 votes in favor of it, but Democrats
used a procedural loophole to block the vote on it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-1955

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:26:02 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

It's insurance! Or lack thereof. In Florida, it is now impossible
to
insure a boat over 30' long valued at more than $100,000 if the boat:

a) doesn't have a trailer

and/or

b) is more than 5 model years old (2001 and older are uninsurable if
they're
over 30 feet and valued at more than $100,000)
Hmmmm. So here's a scenario for you.

I have a custom made trailer for my Contender which is used to haul
the boat twice a season for a wash and wax. It also doubles as a
winter storage trailer - just put it on, park it and shrink wrap.

The only problem is if I wanted to take it from the yard, I would need
a special permit because it's over-width for the highway. So I
couldn't just pick it up and move it away from the coast if a storm
approached or whatever.

If that boat was a, say 2000, would it be covered?

No. A 2000 wouldn't be covered unless it was valued under $100,000. A
2002
would be covered, but the premium for a $100,000 boat is nearly
$5000/year.


I have no place to store a trailer unless I'm willing to pay $150/month
storage fee. Even if I pulled the boat, where would I put it? And I'd
need
something that could tow upwards of 12,000 lbs that is 10'6" wide.





No room on the lot of that million dollar house to stash a boat trailer?

Incredible.

Bwaaahaa!! He got hosed in the housing bubble. Along with an interest
only loan!

My house appraised in July, 2005 for 50% more than I paid for it in March,
2004. The house next to mine is the same size, but sits on the end of a
canal (less desirable) and is listed for $1.59 million. They won't get
that, but if they lowered it to $1.2 million it would sell tomorrow.

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

"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.

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Statistically, we have as high or higher probability of getting a
hurricane up here in MA this year as Jupiter does.


Right. But I bet that you don't have the same problem getting boat
insurance up there.



No, but I can't buy (or afford) coverage to go south of Norfolk if I were
inclined.
Also, insurance companies have not had billions of dollars of claims up here
in the past 3 years.

Eisboch

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

Could be. Of course, for 40 years down here in Naples, there hasn't
been a problem. Two bad years, and the insurance industry panics and
starts raping folks. Perhaps they should have been saving the money
they collected on those high premiums for a rainy day.

Florida is a big state. I remember reading that the area in which we
had property (Jupiter) had not had a direct hurricane hit in over 100
years at the time we bought.
Three years following our purchase, we got direct or near direct hits
three times.

Statistically, we have as high or higher probability of getting a
hurricane up here in MA this year as Jupiter does.


Right. But I bet that you don't have the same problem getting boat
insurance up there.




So...move...sell your boat...pay the premium.

Nope, nope, and already doing that.

As I said in my first post, this doesn't affect people like me who are
already insured. It affects new buyers...which will kill the boating
market. Reread the title. This isn't a personal bitch session. It affects
tens of thousands of people, and could end up affecting an entire industry
and the folks whose jobs rely upon that industry.

It's not fuel prices that's going to kill the boat market
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
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.

We were talking about health insurance and AHP's. I guarantee you that I
have a better grasp of that issue than a public relations guy spewing out
the company line for a labor union.