" 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.







Nor should our tax dollars pay for the cleanup in New Orleans.




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.

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.

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. What is a better example of interstate
commerce than an insurance company headquartered in Hartford, CT selling an
insurance product to a guy down in Florida?

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.

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

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

That's pricless. Gore the right ox, and suddenly even the staunchest of
conservatives is calling for more government regulation of private
industry. :-)

All the comparisons about terrorist threats being greater in NY,
Seattle, Chicago or what not don't have anything to do with why your
boat insurance is so high and whether or not it should be so high based
on the risk you choose to run by living where hurricanes are
commonplace. Your boat insurance premuims aren't underwriting losses
suffered by terrorist attack in large cities, and if there is some sort
of insurance premium one can pay to be insured against loss by
terrorism- none of that money if going into a fund to buy new boats for
Floridians who get smashed up by a hurricane.

The insurance companies should not be forced to sell you cheap
insurance, or even accept ridiculous levels of risk if they don't want
to. Falls under the category of free enterprise, don't you know.

I'd like to buy insurance against getting one year older next birthday-
but there isn't anybody willing to write it at any price because it is
a certainty that if I live to my next birthday I will indeed be a year
older. Rather than call for government regulation forcing people to
sell policies that don't make any sense, I think I'll just adapt to
getting older.

Seriously, it's a darn shame that you guys are having trouble buying
boat insurance down there- but no company should be forced to make
suicidal business decisions just to make boating more convenient in the
hurricane zone.

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

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

That's pricless. Gore the right ox, and suddenly even the staunchest of
conservatives is calling for more government regulation of private
industry. :-)

All the comparisons about terrorist threats being greater in NY,
Seattle, Chicago or what not don't have anything to do with why your
boat insurance is so high and whether or not it should be so high based
on the risk you choose to run by living where hurricanes are
commonplace. Your boat insurance premuims aren't underwriting losses
suffered by terrorist attack in large cities, and if there is some sort
of insurance premium one can pay to be insured against loss by
terrorism- none of that money if going into a fund to buy new boats for
Floridians who get smashed up by a hurricane.

The insurance companies should not be forced to sell you cheap
insurance, or even accept ridiculous levels of risk if they don't want
to. Falls under the category of free enterprise, don't you know.

I'd like to buy insurance against getting one year older next birthday-
but there isn't anybody willing to write it at any price because it is
a certainty that if I live to my next birthday I will indeed be a year
older. Rather than call for government regulation forcing people to
sell policies that don't make any sense, I think I'll just adapt to
getting older.

Seriously, it's a darn shame that you guys are having trouble buying
boat insurance down there- but no company should be forced to make
suicidal business decisions just to make boating more convenient in the
hurricane zone.


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.

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.

"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."

From:

http://www.flains.org/public/ht_irate.html-ssi

"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).

NOYB wrote:


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


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.


Hey there, whoever you are, get the heck off the computer and stop
forging NOYB's id.
NOYB is a conservative. To hear him calling for increased government
control and for the FEDGOV to ride roughshod over local control and
states' rights would be as shocking as, well,........learning that
Pluto isn't really a planet!


It doesn't make any sense for boat insurance companies to "average" the
risk of loss against all policies in the country. It makes more sense
for an individual's boat insurance premiums to reflect, as accurately
as possible, his or her personal risk of loss.

We had a similar situation here in Washington with health insurance. A
few years ago, the state legislature passed a law that said any company
writing health insurance in Washington could not refuse coverage to any
individual. The insurance companies could set the rates to reflect the
risk, of course, but they couldn't actually refuse anybody because they
presented too great a risk. Net result: A lot of insurance companies
just stopped writing health insurance in Washington, period. After all,
what sort of premiums
can be charged to cover the cost of caring for some of the AIDS
patients who require many thousands of dollars in prescriptions each
month just to delay their certain death?

It's the same reason that you have trouble buying full coverage
mechanical insurance on a boat these days. Time was that if you blew up
your 5000 hour diesel engines the insurance company would scratch out a
check for $40,000 to offset your "loss". Not typical anymore. The
premiums charged cannot even begin to offset the almost certain "loss"
that every boat will eventually experience. The only reason you can buy
boat insurance from any carrier at any price in FLA is that some boats
will survive a hurricane, and most boats don't have to ride out a
hurricane in a specific location every year.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
We had a similar situation here in Washington with health insurance. A
few years ago, the state legislature passed a law that said any company
writing health insurance in Washington could not refuse coverage to any
individual. The insurance companies could set the rates to reflect the
risk, of course, but they couldn't actually refuse anybody because they
presented too great a risk. Net result: A lot of insurance companies
just stopped writing health insurance in Washington, period.

Now imagine that the Federal gov't passed the same law about not refusing
coverage to an individual. The insurance companies couldn't just move to
another state to do business. They'd have to find a way to make it work.



After all,
what sort of premiums
can be charged to cover the cost of caring for some of the AIDS
patients who require many thousands of dollars in prescriptions each
month just to delay their certain death?


Every group health insurance policy is already required to accept an
individual despite pre-existing conditions. And it's a federal government
law that sees to that.






It's the same reason that you have trouble buying full coverage
mechanical insurance on a boat these days. Time was that if you blew up
your 5000 hour diesel engines the insurance company would scratch out a
check for $40,000 to offset your "loss". Not typical anymore. The
premiums charged cannot even begin to offset the almost certain "loss"
that every boat will eventually experience. The only reason you can buy
boat insurance from any carrier at any price in FLA is that some boats
will survive a hurricane, and most boats don't have to ride out a
hurricane in a specific location every year.


Good. So spread the risk over an even bigger population.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:31:10 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
roups.com...
We had a similar situation here in Washington with health insurance. A
few years ago, the state legislature passed a law that said any company
writing health insurance in Washington could not refuse coverage to any
individual. The insurance companies could set the rates to reflect the
risk, of course, but they couldn't actually refuse anybody because they
presented too great a risk. Net result: A lot of insurance companies
just stopped writing health insurance in Washington, period.

Now imagine that the Federal gov't passed the same law about not refusing
coverage to an individual. The insurance companies couldn't just move to
another state to do business. They'd have to find a way to make it work.



After all,
what sort of premiums
can be charged to cover the cost of caring for some of the AIDS
patients who require many thousands of dollars in prescriptions each
month just to delay their certain death?


Every group health insurance policy is already required to accept an
individual despite pre-existing conditions. And it's a federal government
law that sees to that.






It's the same reason that you have trouble buying full coverage
mechanical insurance on a boat these days. Time was that if you blew up
your 5000 hour diesel engines the insurance company would scratch out a
check for $40,000 to offset your "loss". Not typical anymore. The
premiums charged cannot even begin to offset the almost certain "loss"
that every boat will eventually experience. The only reason you can buy
boat insurance from any carrier at any price in FLA is that some boats
will survive a hurricane, and most boats don't have to ride out a
hurricane in a specific location every year.


Good. So spread the risk over an even bigger population.


A while back one of our beloved group members had a day filled with
misfortune. Someone suggested that maybe the misfortune was just a little
'bad karma'. The person making the suggestion was jumped on by the same
folks who seem glee-filled at the thought that you may have some misfortune
with your home or boat.

Here's hoping everything works out for you, NOYB, even if you *do* post too
much political crap!

I wonder if you could find a farmer somewhere who may store that trailer
for you? Picking up an additional $50 a month, or so, may be something he'd
do for the little room it would take.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:31:10 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
groups.com...
We had a similar situation here in Washington with health insurance. A
few years ago, the state legislature passed a law that said any company
writing health insurance in Washington could not refuse coverage to any
individual. The insurance companies could set the rates to reflect the
risk, of course, but they couldn't actually refuse anybody because they
presented too great a risk. Net result: A lot of insurance companies
just stopped writing health insurance in Washington, period.

Now imagine that the Federal gov't passed the same law about not refusing
coverage to an individual. The insurance companies couldn't just move to
another state to do business. They'd have to find a way to make it work.



After all,
what sort of premiums
can be charged to cover the cost of caring for some of the AIDS
patients who require many thousands of dollars in prescriptions each
month just to delay their certain death?


Every group health insurance policy is already required to accept an
individual despite pre-existing conditions. And it's a federal government
law that sees to that.






It's the same reason that you have trouble buying full coverage
mechanical insurance on a boat these days. Time was that if you blew up
your 5000 hour diesel engines the insurance company would scratch out a
check for $40,000 to offset your "loss". Not typical anymore. The
premiums charged cannot even begin to offset the almost certain "loss"
that every boat will eventually experience. The only reason you can buy
boat insurance from any carrier at any price in FLA is that some boats
will survive a hurricane, and most boats don't have to ride out a
hurricane in a specific location every year.


Good. So spread the risk over an even bigger population.


A while back one of our beloved group members had a day filled with
misfortune. Someone suggested that maybe the misfortune was just a little
'bad karma'. The person making the suggestion was jumped on by the same
folks who seem glee-filled at the thought that you may have some
misfortune
with your home or boat.

Here's hoping everything works out for you, NOYB, even if you *do* post
too
much political crap!

I wonder if you could find a farmer somewhere who may store that trailer
for you? Picking up an additional $50 a month, or so, may be something
he'd
do for the little room it would take.

As I said before, this thread isn't about me or my predicament. I'm fully
insured, and not worried about any financial hardship any time soon.

Of course there are a bunch of folks here on rec.boats who would love to see
me fall flat on my back once or twice, but unfortunately for them that's not
going to happen.

I started this thread because I thought it would be a good
conversation-starter about how the insurance companies are likely to do more
harm to the boat business than gas prices. Yet, hardly a week goes by
before someone starts a bitching and whining session about how gas prices
are going to kill the boating market.

Of course, those on the left can't figure out how to blame Bush for the
problems with the insurance industry, so they keep whining about gas prices
(as if Bush is somehow responsible for world demand).

What I found most interesting of all is how the liberals who want to
socialize everything, and let the government take care of all of our
problems, were so lacking in sympathy to the plight of millions of
Floridians. It was rec.boat's most liberal forum members who adopted the
"I-got-mine-so-screw-you" mentality.

"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?

Hmmmm, and I thought the odds were the same.







Nor should our tax dollars pay for the cleanup in New Orleans.




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.

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.


Insurance companies are not in the business of losing money nor should they
be forced to. Don't like it? Move. Otherwise accept the consequences of
your choice to live in hurricane alley.