Hi BOb,

On Fri 2037-Mar-27 06:09, Bob Ackley (1:300/3) wrote to Richard Webb:

BA> Lloyd's of London works that way.  Many if not most of the 'names'
BA> there make a lot of money from premiums - but it is a requirement
BA> that they have *unlimited* personal liability for losses.

YEp, and they're darned careful what they write a policy on, or used to be.

 RW> I can't either, it happens to the rest of us.  NOw I can
 RW> understand an insurance underwriter that gets bit hard by
 RW> hurricanes, etc.  even then, one should diversify, or be
 RW> careful what they underwrite.

BA> Actually many if not most insurance companies buy reinsurance - IOW
BA> insurance on the policies they've written - to soften the blow of
BA> losses. One of the biggest reinsurance companies is General Re,
BA> which is now a division of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway
BA> conglomerate (along with GEICO and a host of other insurance
BA> companies - Buffett built his conglomerate with the 'float' on
BA> insurance).  Berkshire's companies - including General Re - took a
BA> severe hit with Katrina, and they've taken some others in the past
BA> few years.


YEp, and the reinsurance folks did take some big bites,
Katrina and Rita, and just after bouncing back a bit from
CHarley and some others.  Katrina Rita and WIlma sure kicked their
posteriors though .

 RW> regulators got into the act many of them would charge me
 RW> more for insurance by virtue of the fact that I"m literally
 RW> a braille reading white cane carrying blind man.  NO
 RW> actuarial statistics can be pointed to which say I"m a
 RW> greater risk while just going about daily life, but they
 RW> could either refuse me altogether or charge me a higher
 RW> premium.  YEs, I understand the industry, used to sell
 RW> accident health and life insurance in a former life .
 RW> wHenever it serves the carrier they can always trot out such lofty
 RW> phrases as "feduciary responsibility" etc.  BUt, it doesn't look to
 RW> me as if AIG used any of that.

BA> Insurance companies have always used actuaries to determine the
BA> degree of risk posed by a particular insurance product and the
BA> risk(s) posed by categories/groups of (potential and actual)
BA> policyholders.  They use that risk assessment to decide whether or
BA> not to offer a particular product and also to set premium rates for
BA> that product.


Agreed, and they could show no, none, nada, for actuarial
statistics showing that a blind person was a higher risk.
IN IOwa when we were fighting this battle we told 'em "show
us the data" and they couldn't bring any out.  SUddenly the
IOwa insurance commission, and soon other states' regulators told them they
could not set a different rate for blind
folks that others who otherwise fit an age or other
category.

BA> Insurance is not about anything other than assigning a risk to
BA> someone else. That's why health insurors don't (want to) cover
BA> pre-existing conditions; because the risk is 100% and not the number
BA> calculated by the actuaries. It's also why you can't get a new auto
BA> insurance policy to cover the accident you had yesterday, or a new
BA> homeowner's policy for your house that burned down last week.


YEp, it's all risk assessment, and figuring that the folks
in low risk categories will underwrite the payouts they have to make, and
if everything happens as it should in fafct
they'll be able to make those payouts on claims off of
interests or windfalls derived from said premiums.  But, in
the case of aig, they screwed up.

BA> Government regulators and many of the leftish political persuasion
BA> want to change the whole concept of insurance from risk management
BA> to what is basically welfare.

I can see that, and I can also understand their argument
that when universal coverage is there folks will get the
preventive care they need, at least that's how the argument
goes.  BUt then, the patient has to have some intelligence.

Brought my wife home from the hospital yesterday.  fOol
young doctor starts her on a steroid regimen to get the
breathing under control. We're now supplied with an oxygen
synthesizing machine and tanks which she has to haul with
her when we're out and about.  BUt, fool young doctor told
her to decase and discontinue all previous medications.  Yah right, she's
going to decase with the thyroid meds, the
diabetes control regimen, etc.  Then we're gonna be right
back where we were January of '08 with her doing the major
crump thanks to diabetic ketoacidosis.  .

Advocates for universal health care argue that costs will be lower in the
long run for a variety of reasons.  I'm not
sure about all that, but ...


BA> IMO if the government wants to provide health care for everybody,
BA> the government should build, staff and equip the facilities to do so
BA> and not *force* private entities to do it for them (at a loss). 
BA> There have for decades been tax-supported
BA> public hospitals in this country, usually they're owned and run by a
BA> 'hospital authority'
BA> that has the power to levy property taxes in its service area. 
BA> Douglas County Hospital
BA> in Omaha is one such (although it has no acute care capability and a
BA> very limited
BA> ability to handle emergencies), Highland Hospital in Oakland, CA, is
BA> another. Other taxpayer-supported hospitals are affiliated with
BA> state college and university
BA> medical schools, the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha
BA> is one of those,
BA> as are the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City. 


YEp, and the hospital and clinics in IOwa City are among the best you can
find.  wORked closely with LSU medical center
NEw ORleans as you know.  tHey operated both University and
the old CHarity hospital campuses in NEw ORleans.  Politics
were the stumbling block there however.

YOur thinking dovetails with mine on this issue.  tHe best
way to universal health care is to get the government to
equip and staff such facilities.  IN fact, it makes sense,
which is why it won't happen .

Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+