Windstorm Fund a Leading Issue With Lawmakers at Texas Capitol
Texas / South Central News • January 12, 2009
Hurricane Ike was the big storm Texas officials feared would hit the coast - and the state's way of paying for it afterward.
When lawmakers convene Jan. 13, they'll face the financial devastation ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Silly Legislator
Posted On: January 12, 2009, 9:24 pm CST
Posted By: Peon Agent
Comment:
OMG ...I'm usually extremely proud to be a Texan, but today is different. I just hope nobody out of state bothered to read this article and see our pitiful legislator's comments.
This is a man that I previously thought was above average. Well, unless IJ didn't assign the comments to the proper person, or I'm not reading this correctly, I have lost all respect for this one.
He's not an imbecile. He graduated from Baylor in less than 4 years. He got his law degree shortly thereafter. He's been in the state legislature for 14 years. He's now Chairman of the House Pensions and Investments committee, and this is the best part - according to his own biography, he's "viewed by his colleagues as an expert on insurance matters and the State budget".
Really?
But, there's more. He is the immediate past President of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) where he has also served as Chairman of the Property and Casualty Committee and is currently the Chairman of the State/Federal Relations Committee.
He currently serves on our House Insurance Committee, for God's sake.
That's just scary. Why?
To summarize:
1. He says he, "wants the state to have its own reinsurance pool for the windstorm association" instead of buying reinsurance. Why, you ask? "It would save money because the reinsurance wouldn't have to be bought each year"
2. He goes on to say he, "wants to eliminate insurance companies' tax credits that prevent money from going into the state budget or make those credits only available far in the future so their budget effects would be negligible."
3. And then, he says in regards to the insurance companies that are correctly denying claims for flood on a policy that wasn't intended to cover that peril, that, "We probably need to make some legislation that says it doesn't make any difference for insuring the house. So if the house flooded or the house blew away, if you're the insurer you've got to pay,"
Ok, let's think about these three ridiculous quotes.
1. Not buying reinsurance is a great way to save money. Truly, it is. At least until it comes for a disaster. This concept worked so well for Farmers, who tried it in 1994, just before the Northridge earthquake. They never recovered from that bit of brilliance. And, it worked so well for Allstate before Katrina and Rita. You know they decided that was a silly expense just that year. Ask their policyholders how that worked now as they see their soaring rate increases so they can try to recover from their losses. What a brilliant plan? One question, Mr. Eiland. What on earth makes you think the State Legislature can pull this off better than the Billion-Dollar companies just cited?
2. So, you are saying, it will hurt less if Texans don't have to pay for these expenses until later down the road. Play now, pay later. Have you ever read the story of the Grasshopper and the Ant? So, it's a good idea for most consumers to use credit cards to pay their bills and hope they can afford to pay them off later down the road, when maybe it won't hurt so much What a concept! Who has this ever really worked for? And to think, you are looking out for the Pensions and Investments of the state? Great…
3. This one is just the best ever! You just make you some of that there legislation, young whipper-snapper! Are you kidding me? Wave your magic wand and just make that coverage appear. I guess this one comes from the law practice side of you. It's certainly not indicative of anyone that has a grasp on the concept of insurance being a contract that specifically spells out what is and what is NOT covered. I mean look, as an insurance agent, I would love it if flood were included in every policy we wrote. We do good to get about 5% of our homeowner policyholders to purchase the protection, and I think we do a good job of soliciting and explaining the need. I would love the extra income, but you can't just stomp your feet and say it should have been covered. You of all people should know and appreciate that.
I'm just so sick of all politicians, and especially disingenuous lawyer politicians. Doesn't anybody care about promoting and doing what is right any more?
Is this really the best of the best that's in our legislative body? Surely we can do better folks.
Subject: Silly Legislator
This is a man that I previously thought was above average. Well, unless IJ didn't assign the comments to the proper person, or I'm not reading this correctly, I have lost all respect for this one.
He's not an imbecile. He graduated from Baylor in less than 4 years. He got his law degree shortly thereafter. He's been in the state legislature for 14 years. He's now Chairman of the House Pensions and Investments committee, and this is the best part - according to his own biography, he's "viewed by his colleagues as an expert on insurance matters and the State budget".
Really?
But, there's more. He is the immediate past President of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) where he has also served as Chairman of the Property and Casualty Committee and is currently the Chairman of the State/Federal Relations Committee.
He currently serves on our House Insurance Committee, for God's sake.
That's just scary. Why?
To summarize:
1. He says he, "wants the state to have its own reinsurance pool for the windstorm association" instead of buying reinsurance. Why, you ask? "It would save money because the reinsurance wouldn't have to be bought each year"
2. He goes on to say he, "wants to eliminate insurance companies' tax credits that prevent money from going into the state budget or make those credits only available far in the future so their budget effects would be negligible."
3. And then, he says in regards to the insurance companies that are correctly denying claims for flood on a policy that wasn't intended to cover that peril, that, "We probably need to make some legislation that says it doesn't make any difference for insuring the house. So if the house flooded or the house blew away, if you're the insurer you've got to pay,"
Ok, let's think about these three ridiculous quotes.
1. Not buying reinsurance is a great way to save money. Truly, it is. At least until it comes for a disaster. This concept worked so well for Farmers, who tried it in 1994, just before the Northridge earthquake. They never recovered from that bit of brilliance. And, it worked so well for Allstate before Katrina and Rita. You know they decided that was a silly expense just that year. Ask their policyholders how that worked now as they see their soaring rate increases so they can try to recover from their losses. What a brilliant plan? One question, Mr. Eiland. What on earth makes you think the State Legislature can pull this off better than the Billion-Dollar companies just cited?
2. So, you are saying, it will hurt less if Texans don't have to pay for these expenses until later down the road. Play now, pay later. Have you ever read the story of the Grasshopper and the Ant? So, it's a good idea for most consumers to use credit cards to pay their bills and hope they can afford to pay them off later down the road, when maybe it won't hurt so much What a concept! Who has this ever really worked for? And to think, you are looking out for the Pensions and Investments of the state? Great…
3. This one is just the best ever! You just make you some of that there legislation, young whipper-snapper! Are you kidding me? Wave your magic wand and just make that coverage appear. I guess this one comes from the law practice side of you. It's certainly not indicative of anyone that has a grasp on the concept of insurance being a contract that specifically spells out what is and what is NOT covered. I mean look, as an insurance agent, I would love it if flood were included in every policy we wrote. We do good to get about 5% of our homeowner policyholders to purchase the protection, and I think we do a good job of soliciting and explaining the need. I would love the extra income, but you can't just stomp your feet and say it should have been covered. You of all people should know and appreciate that.
I'm just so sick of all politicians, and especially disingenuous lawyer politicians. Doesn't anybody care about promoting and doing what is right any more?
Is this really the best of the best that's in our legislative body? Surely we can do better folks.