Insurance industry may be confronted with rising sea levels

[Skull Pilot]

Wasn't Florida supposed to be underwater a few decades ago?

no

Oh that's right we were supposed to have an ice age.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wasn't Florida supposed to be underwater a few decades ago?

no

Oh that's right we were supposed to have an ice age.

no

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Will the acidic oceans eat away the bottom of all our Navy vessels?

Now Frankie Boy, will the acid you have already ingested ever leave you capable of a revelent post?

Tell us again how CO2 is causing "Ocean acidification" because...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9XHwmAojLw]I Love That Story - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Will the acidic oceans eat away the bottom of all our Navy vessels?

Now Frankie Boy, will the acid you have already ingested ever leave you capable of a revelent post?[/QUOTE]

Tell us again how CO2 is causing "Ocean acidification" because...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9XHwmAojLw]I Love That Story - YouTube[/ame]

see above

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"...and then the mean Glacier eating CO2 spaghetti monster tried to hide in the ocean, but once there it turned to....acid!!! eeek!"

 

[bobgnote]

Wow, what a monumentally desperate FAIL on your part. I noticed you didn't respond to anything regrading how insurance works. All you can do is dodge the point with talk of child labor and prostitution...in a thread about insurance and global warming. How sad for you. Then you claim a 'win' because 99.9% of flood insurance is government controlled and I claimed "all". Wow, that's quite a reach there pal.

You really suck at debating. I mean REALLY suck.

Would you say the US government over-reaches, at insuring homes, on the East Coast and in the Mississippi flood plain, all the way down, to NOLA?

 

[eflatminor]

Wow, what a monumentally desperate FAIL on your part. I noticed you didn't respond to anything regrading how insurance works. All you can do is dodge the point with talk of child labor and prostitution...in a thread about insurance and global warming. How sad for you. Then you claim a 'win' because 99.9% of flood insurance is government controlled and I claimed "all". Wow, that's quite a reach there pal.

You really suck at debating. I mean REALLY suck.

Would you say the US government over-reaches, at insuring homes, on the East Coast and in the Mississippi flood plain, all the way down, to NOLA?

Yes, I would.

The insurance market has never responded to demand for primary flood insurance because the carriers know darn well where the flood plains are and the inevitable loses that will occur for anyone that chose to build there. In a free market, it would be extremely difficult to get a loan to build in a flood plain, which would ultimately result in less exposures there...a good thing! Instead, we force taxpayer money to cover flood so wealthy people can obtain cheap coverage to build homes on barrier islands and the river's edge. That's insane. Further, if the government were not meddling in flood insurance, it's not that insurance carriers would not respond to demand by offering primary flood coverage. They would but it would be very expensive...as it should be. Subsidizing homeowner's to build in flood plains in indefensible.

I certainly don't care where anyone builds their home on their property, just don't ask other people to pay for your bad decision.

 

[bobgnote]

That's interesting, since I have long thought /\ /\ how a way into government agendas, relative to climate change will be through actuarial media, including by failure of the commercial insurance industry, from increasing natural disaster proliferation, which in the US will involve the Mississippi flood plain and the East Coast, of the US, a lot.

And then, the West Coast will eat a purple earthquake and a Sacramento flood, maybe before the East and Mississippi get too wet, to continue. Sacramento is absolutely unprepared, for any El Nino deluge or for any 1-2 combination, of earthquake and wet event, even during La Nina, when Sacramento has flooded. It doesn't even take El Nino, to get California's gut to fall apart.

SoCal will run out of water, or it will slide down a hill, of mud.

Something must be done, to direct surviving capital. The four-level government fiasco in the US has caused a capital corruption scenario, to degrade both corporate and government decision-making. Given interdependent government and corporate profiteering, no sector can move, out of the way of trouble or toward some sort of mitigating response.

If government and capital are too corrupted, to react to increasing disaster proliferation, how will any recovery be effected? When we notice, how tipping points toward disaster are ignored, the likelihood of some recovery is minimized, so more government participation seems likely, over time.

 

[Trakar]

Heres the 2012 poll................Dead Last FTMFL.............in fact, in 2012, it doesnt even make the list!!!!

Again, citing a poll from April doesn't trump a poll July

 

[Trakar]

Reflecting on another comment you made in an earlier post:

[...]I don't put down insurance companies because they earn a profit, I do so because they capitalize on the misfortune of others to earn that profit. My beef is primarily with health insurance, but it carries over into other forms of insurance to a degree.
[...]

It depends on ones point of view.

Indeed is does, which was my point in the first place. I don't agree with your perspective and you apparently don't agree with mine. No big deal, as I stated my dislike of for-profit insurance companies is my personal issue, not one that I am advocating others take up or adhere to.

 

[American Horse]

Reflecting on another comment you made in an earlier post:

[...]I don't put down insurance companies because they earn a profit, I do so because they capitalize on the misfortune of others to earn that profit. My beef is primarily with health insurance, but it carries over into other forms of insurance to a degree.
[...]

It depends on ones point of view.

Indeed is does, which was my point in the first place. I don't agree with your perspective and you apparently don't agree with mine. No big deal, as I stated my dislike of for-profit insurance companies is my personal issue, not one that I am advocating others take up or adhere to.

I understand; I just wanted to inform others who may be on the fence regarding insurance companies. People need to understand how to avail themselves of the services of insurance companies, and because of the bad reputation, the critical reviews they get, lots of people work at a grave disadvantage, going uninsured because of the extreme prejudice.

As a small construction company I was, for $100, able to get a bond from a major insurance company, bonding my work up to $50,000 for a sewer line project. I would not have been able to do the work without the bond, nor even bid it. If I failed to perform they would've backed up the loss of that performance.

Think about that: $100 . . . . and the insurance company had to pay the insurance broker a commission out of that hundred, and the broker/agent had to be willing to work for that pittance. To me that's a bargain, and I recommend to anyone seeking necessary insurance to go to a commercial agent that handles a full range of products and companies, indluding for health/medical insurance.

I feel sorry for folks who are misled about insurance companies; they have about as much chance to succeed in life as a Luddite. because that's what they approximate.


.

 

[Trakar]

Reflecting on another comment you made in an earlier post:

It depends on ones point of view.

Indeed is does, which was my point in the first place. I don't agree with your perspective and you apparently don't agree with mine. No big deal, as I stated my dislike of for-profit insurance companies is my personal issue, not one that I am advocating others take up or adhere to.

I understand; I just wanted to inform others who may be on the fence regarding insurance companies. (...)

I feel sorry for folks who are misled about insurance companies; they have about as much chance to succeed in life as a Luddite. because that's what they approximate.

All you argue for is ability to procure third party bonding and insurance, I see no compelling argument demonstrating the superiority of private, for-profit insurance vs. private non-profit insurance or even public insurance institutions

Again, I am not interested in convincing others to my point of view with regards to for-profit insurance providers, nor am I interested in slinging inapt and inaccurate slurs against those who feel differently than I do about this issue.

If you would like to discuss the issue further out of some personal desire to better understand my issues and choices, I would be happy to engage in that discussion, if your goal is to generate ad hom and well-poisoning fallacies, I'm generally uninterested.

 

[American Horse]

Indeed is does, which was my point in the first place. I don't agree with your perspective and you apparently don't agree with mine. No big deal, as I stated my dislike of for-profit insurance companies is my personal issue, not one that I am advocating others take up or adhere to.

I understand; I just wanted to inform others who may be on the fence regarding insurance companies. (...)

I feel sorry for folks who are misled about insurance companies; they have about as much chance to succeed in life as a Luddite. because that's what they approximate.

All you argue for is ability to procure third party bonding and insurance, I see no compelling argument demonstrating the superiority of private, for-profit insurance vs. private non-profit insurance or even public insurance institutions

Again, I am not interested in convincing others to my point of view with regards to for-profit insurance providers, nor am I interested in slinging inapt and inaccurate slurs against those who feel differently than I do about this issue.

If you would like to discuss the issue further out of some personal desire to better understand my issues and choices, I would be happy to engage in that discussion, if your goal is to generate ad hom and well-poisoning fallacies, I'm generally uninterested.

As I said, though I'm bouncing this off your post for context, I'm addressing others.

Nothing I said was intended as a slur or ad hom. I said that up front. Those I refer to as Luddites are the poor folks who are persuaded by just that, slurs and ad homs that private (for profit) insurance companies set out to cheat their customers. My small anectdotal example, however inapt, helps show that. They (others) can explore whatever option appeals to them, and the bargain price I iterated might be convincing when one considers what it can mean in financial benefit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres the 2012 poll................Dead Last FTMFL.............in fact, in 2012, it doesnt even make the list!!!!

Again, citing a poll from April doesn't trump a poll July

distraction...........the ruse used invariably by k00ks who get pwned.


A poll citing"belief" in climate change is alot.............ALOT different than a poll which identifies "concern" about climate change ( the poll cited by SKOOKS, of course). The former hardly matters in the bigger picture.

And every single fucking poll every conducted about peoples desire to shell out $$ to confront climate change ends up in a raucus burst of laughter!!! Except for the k00ks, nobody wants to spend a single dime.........which of course makes sense, as the poll clearly reflects. The majority are barely getting by..........they have FAR.......FAR.........FAR more pressing concerns than climate change, something that the k00ks will never get.


Ummm...............apprears "sniping" wins s0n!!!



Trakar, Bobnote et. al. dont seem to recognize that all this hysterical shit with climate change impresses the general public about as much as navel gazing.................

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh..........by the way Bob..................

 

[bobgnote]

How's your driving, sucksassandballs? Pretty good in traffic?

 

[skookerasbil]

How's your driving, sucksassandballs? Pretty good in traffic?

Gotten 4 or 5 PM's from people wondering about this obsession with asses and balls..................


just sayin'...............