Agents Unhappy with Administration’s View on Terror Insurance

July 1, 2005

  • July 5, 2005 at 12:20 pm
    IndAgent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agents need to look at the big picture when it comes to issues like this and not just looking at it from a self-centered standpoint. The reason the President is not going to give this a blank check renewal is because there are some issues with the program. Can government sustain itself from another terror blow, let alone having the people try to milk every penny out of government as possible! How soon will it be before we turn our entire check over to the government? How would you like it if government takes over the insurance business including taking over our agencies? Where does it stop?

  • July 5, 2005 at 12:55 pm
    InsuranceGuy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This isn’t an insurance issue; it’s a national security issue. Insurance agents and companies are in the commercial and personal security business. This has nothing to do with milking pennies and everything to do with our safety as a nation. Don’t expect private business to do what we have a government for in the first place. Read the Preamble to the Constitution for a quick refresher.

  • July 5, 2005 at 2:28 am
    IndAgent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I guess when a building has a fire, then it is a “Fire Department” issue. When someone has a theft claim, then it is a “police department” issue. When someone’s plumbing system goes out and water damaged the building, then it is a “plumber issue.” When someone is sued for an injury, then it is an “attorney” issue.

  • July 5, 2005 at 3:14 am
    InsuranceGuy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is my last contribution to this thread, but you don’t honestly equate a random fire or theft to an attack by terrorists on the United States, do you? And by the way, thefts ARE a police department issue. Would you propose that we find some private solution to the apprehension and punishment of criminals? On the other hand, plumbing problems and personal injuries ARE private matters. Let’s make an attack by a group of terrorists a little larger and call it a real war. Got a private solution to that one, as well?

    One of us is missing the point here, and it’s not me.

  • July 5, 2005 at 3:43 am
    IndAgent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Theft is a police department issue when it comes to investigating and finding out out who commited the crime. It is an insurance or risk issue when it comes to the financial losses associated with the theft.

    But for Terrorism, you want to combine the responsibility for Department of Homeland Security to be an investigative and preventative agency along with an insurance company. Why stop there, why don’t we have government take over all insurance including our very agencies?

    Why is the post office owned by the government? Have you ever tried sending something Fedex vs. Postal Overnight? Who does a better job???

    Would it be more feasable for insurance companies to provide cost effective terrorism insurance and have the government be the re-insurer? Perhaps the President is looking at those option. But better yet, why don’t you let your hate for the President get in the way of listening to all sides and finding out the most cost effective approach to solving this problem. If you feel government is the soluction to everyting, there are many countries that practice socialism and will be happy to take a loyal socialist like yourself in a haarbeat!

  • July 5, 2005 at 6:03 am
    James says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    InsuranceGuy Writes
    “This is my last contribution to this thread”

    If you truly beleive in what you beleive, then you should never limit yourself in defending your viewpoint. That statement makes it look like you are throwing in the towel on the debate.

    InsuranceGuy writes:
    “One of us is missing the point here, and it’s not me”

    Your point is that Terrorism is a much larger animal and private insurance companies cannot handle it? Who is it to say what US policy should be? Are you saying is someone does not agree with you, then they are not worth debating? Is that how much you beleive in your cause? I guess your point is a much more superior point then the lawmakers who were elected by the voters? I would invest some time in learning debating skills if you really want to come out ahead in these forums.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*