Now read a researched article, by someone not looking to blame Republicans, that tells the real story of Democrats and TRIA. Nice try. I’ll be cancelling my subscription today.
Journalistic integrity? It went the way of the dinosaur. Let’s see, the biggest obstructionist, Harry Reid saying the Republicans are obstructing! What a joke, along with the reporting in this article. How about the Obstuctionist Party (i.e. the Democrats) announcing they are going to filibuster everything they don’t like and will shut down Congress? Where did you report this? If you pick and choose what you report, make sure you don’t show your liberal leanings and bias.
TRIA was an immediate response to 9-11 and was set up in 2001 with a sunset date in 2005. It was not intended to replace the FREE MARKET for terrorism insurance. The Republicans aren’t blocking anything. This bill had an intentional sunset date so that the FREE MARKET could replace it this year. Shame on you for injecting politics into the TRIA matter. This article belongs in the NY Times with their swill, and not in the IJ.
Your liberal slip is showing and we don’t appreciate it here.
You guys are a bunch of cry babies. I hardly find the IJ pro liberal or pro conservative. They are simply reporting what’s going on. Last week I read an article that articulated (is that word too big for you?) the other side of the argument. Every time you read something you don’t like it’s liberal or democratic you start whining. Why don’t you come up with a reasoned solution?
Your condescending comments skirt the real issue FLA GAL. TRIA was supposed to DIE this year. The Democrats want to prop up another expiring Act that belongs in the FREE MARKET. Liberals HATE the FREE MARKET. Next.
If the market produced the desired results, there wouldn’t have been a need for TRIA in the first place. The fact is that the free market doesn’t always produce the results we want. That’s why governments regulate markets, be they insurance, transportation, communications, or whatever.
I’m amused by your outrage at the idea that Democrats may be helping the insurance industry and Republicans may be hurting it. You seem to think that if it’s Republican, it must be right, and if it’s Democrat, it must be wrong. Good thing you guys aren’t biased.
“U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) into law in November 2002 to stimulate business investment that had slowed to a trickle after the events of September 11, 2001. The law creates a three-year federal program that backs up insurance companies and guarantees that certain terrorist-related claims will be paid.
TRIA is a short-term measure designed to give the insurance market time to recover and develop new solutions.”
Did you get the part about “short term?” The insurance industry is expected to sovle this problem before the Act expires later this year. Your article is poorly researched. Blaming Republicans is what the Democrats want YOU to believe. What do you want US to believe, THEM?
Liberals hate free markets only when they don’t work properly. Conservatives are all for market subsidies and regulations when it suits their purposes (i.e., protective tariffs, restrictions on nonadmitted insurers, etc.)
It’s true that TRIA was supposed to be a short term solution, but the reality is that the market doesn’t appear to WANT to come up with a solution. Maybe it’s the unpredictability or the potential for catastrophic loss, but whatever the reason, government shouldn’t try to force the business sector to provide a product it doesn’t want to offer. I don’t see why this should be any different than the Federal Flood program. Maybe it could be a model for a Federal Terrorism program. Just a thought…
Terrorism insurance is like earthquake insurance. It is comnpletely unpredicatable. There is no real alternative other than the government. Europe has had government options for 20 years. Some European capacity had developed outside the governments but that has taken 10 years plus. Why do we expect the insurance industry to figure it out in three years? It is just an unreasonable request. Give it 5 more years and then maybe some degree of certainity will exist in this crazy world. By the way, last time I checked we were at war with religious fundamentalist.
Congress should let this silly law expire. It’s nothing but a subsidy for big insurers and in the final analysis provides little coverage for consumers. i.e. When one thinks of terrorism in this day and age the first thought is dirty bomb, chemical or biological contamination, but of course if the underlying policy excludes nuclear, chemical or biological contamination – which almost every policy does – TRIA isn’t going to pick it up. Thus consumers falsely think they have coverage for instances where they do not. Big insurers love TRIA because if they provide a fire policy on the Empire State Building and a plane flys into it causing a fire than subsequently lead to to collapse they can pawn 90% of the loss off on the Feds whereas they previously had to pay it all. Nice deal. I see a lot of rich insurance exec at Chubb, AIG and Travelers et al voting Democrat.
Correction — the government pays 90% after the insurer pays a deductible equal to 15% of its 2004 direct earned premium. That’s a $150 million deductible for an insurer with $1 billion in 2004 direct earned premium, plus 10% of the amount over $150 million. Not exactly a free ride.
Notwithstanding the deductible and coinsurance requirements every dollar the Fed’s kick in is a free ride. We’re in the risk business. If you can’t handle it without “Uncle’s” checkbook maybe you should direct your precious capital to other activities.
Major insurers are already kicking in huge limits with post TRIA expiration dates on iconic buildings. The market is developing and we should encourage it’s expansion and remove the TRIA training wheels. Midtown Manhattan real estate shouldn’t drive the entire program.
Now read a researched article, by someone not looking to blame Republicans, that tells the real story of Democrats and TRIA. Nice try. I’ll be cancelling my subscription today.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/031505/delay.html
Journalistic integrity? It went the way of the dinosaur. Let’s see, the biggest obstructionist, Harry Reid saying the Republicans are obstructing! What a joke, along with the reporting in this article. How about the Obstuctionist Party (i.e. the Democrats) announcing they are going to filibuster everything they don’t like and will shut down Congress? Where did you report this? If you pick and choose what you report, make sure you don’t show your liberal leanings and bias.
TRIA was an immediate response to 9-11 and was set up in 2001 with a sunset date in 2005. It was not intended to replace the FREE MARKET for terrorism insurance. The Republicans aren’t blocking anything. This bill had an intentional sunset date so that the FREE MARKET could replace it this year. Shame on you for injecting politics into the TRIA matter. This article belongs in the NY Times with their swill, and not in the IJ.
Your liberal slip is showing and we don’t appreciate it here.
You guys are a bunch of cry babies. I hardly find the IJ pro liberal or pro conservative. They are simply reporting what’s going on. Last week I read an article that articulated (is that word too big for you?) the other side of the argument. Every time you read something you don’t like it’s liberal or democratic you start whining. Why don’t you come up with a reasoned solution?
Your condescending comments skirt the real issue FLA GAL. TRIA was supposed to DIE this year. The Democrats want to prop up another expiring Act that belongs in the FREE MARKET. Liberals HATE the FREE MARKET. Next.
If the market produced the desired results, there wouldn’t have been a need for TRIA in the first place. The fact is that the free market doesn’t always produce the results we want. That’s why governments regulate markets, be they insurance, transportation, communications, or whatever.
I’m amused by your outrage at the idea that Democrats may be helping the insurance industry and Republicans may be hurting it. You seem to think that if it’s Republican, it must be right, and if it’s Democrat, it must be wrong. Good thing you guys aren’t biased.
“U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) into law in November 2002 to stimulate business investment that had slowed to a trickle after the events of September 11, 2001. The law creates a three-year federal program that backs up insurance companies and guarantees that certain terrorist-related claims will be paid.
TRIA is a short-term measure designed to give the insurance market time to recover and develop new solutions.”
Did you get the part about “short term?” The insurance industry is expected to sovle this problem before the Act expires later this year. Your article is poorly researched. Blaming Republicans is what the Democrats want YOU to believe. What do you want US to believe, THEM?
Liberals hate free markets only when they don’t work properly. Conservatives are all for market subsidies and regulations when it suits their purposes (i.e., protective tariffs, restrictions on nonadmitted insurers, etc.)
It’s true that TRIA was supposed to be a short term solution, but the reality is that the market doesn’t appear to WANT to come up with a solution. Maybe it’s the unpredictability or the potential for catastrophic loss, but whatever the reason, government shouldn’t try to force the business sector to provide a product it doesn’t want to offer. I don’t see why this should be any different than the Federal Flood program. Maybe it could be a model for a Federal Terrorism program. Just a thought…
Terrorism insurance is like earthquake insurance. It is comnpletely unpredicatable. There is no real alternative other than the government. Europe has had government options for 20 years. Some European capacity had developed outside the governments but that has taken 10 years plus. Why do we expect the insurance industry to figure it out in three years? It is just an unreasonable request. Give it 5 more years and then maybe some degree of certainity will exist in this crazy world. By the way, last time I checked we were at war with religious fundamentalist.
Congress should let this silly law expire. It’s nothing but a subsidy for big insurers and in the final analysis provides little coverage for consumers. i.e. When one thinks of terrorism in this day and age the first thought is dirty bomb, chemical or biological contamination, but of course if the underlying policy excludes nuclear, chemical or biological contamination – which almost every policy does – TRIA isn’t going to pick it up. Thus consumers falsely think they have coverage for instances where they do not. Big insurers love TRIA because if they provide a fire policy on the Empire State Building and a plane flys into it causing a fire than subsequently lead to to collapse they can pawn 90% of the loss off on the Feds whereas they previously had to pay it all. Nice deal. I see a lot of rich insurance exec at Chubb, AIG and Travelers et al voting Democrat.
Correction — the government pays 90% after the insurer pays a deductible equal to 15% of its 2004 direct earned premium. That’s a $150 million deductible for an insurer with $1 billion in 2004 direct earned premium, plus 10% of the amount over $150 million. Not exactly a free ride.
Notwithstanding the deductible and coinsurance requirements every dollar the Fed’s kick in is a free ride. We’re in the risk business. If you can’t handle it without “Uncle’s” checkbook maybe you should direct your precious capital to other activities.
Major insurers are already kicking in huge limits with post TRIA expiration dates on iconic buildings. The market is developing and we should encourage it’s expansion and remove the TRIA training wheels. Midtown Manhattan real estate shouldn’t drive the entire program.