State Farm pulling up stakes in Mississippi

[yo mama]

why would should the US postal service do it with tax dollars?

 

US Postal Service is more or less self-sufficient. It's a wide-spread misconception, but they don't really spend our taxpayer dollars.

[Rockerbraves]

US Postal Service is more or less self-sufficient. It's a wide-spread misconception, but they don't really spend our taxpayer dollars.

 

 

That's because that jack up my prices to pay for delivery to rural farm country. If they could just rid themselves of those hard to reach places I bet you we would all pay less for a stamp.

[tbimm]

Sounds like a smart move. They have basically said, that in order to make it profitable, the insurance companies would have to jack the premiums up so high nobody would be able to afford them, so it's not worth it. They have a responsibility to their stockholders. Now you have to ask yourself, if an insurance company thinks it is too risky to take your money, why would should some of these areas be rebuilt with tax dollars?

 

Every once in a while I just have to respond to one of your insanely assinine posts and this is one of them!

You are such a completly closed minded, always right, my way or the highway type of person that it amazes me that anyone can stand to be around you for more than 15 mins without getting violent!

First you want to b1tch about the people down here who couldnt afford insurance at the previous rates. Then it's off to b1tch about federal tax dollars(that we also pay into) helping to get this region back on our feet again. Now you think it's a good idea for the Insurance companies to bail on us all together. Maybe you should look up the definition of INSURANCE!

These companies have become nothing more than a large scale "Protection buisiness". They will collect money for so long as they dont have to pay out more than a small % of what is collected.

Perch, may you never need to use your insurance. I can say with a great deal of confidence that if you were to run into a bit of bad luck and have say a tornadoe damage your home followed by say a fire or something along those lines you would quickly be dropped by your beloved "shareholders" er I mean insurance company. Be sure not to be involved in an accident or 2 because they arent really accidents but actually just another reason to raise your rates, or worse drop you all together.

I have to ask, what the he11 happened to you in your life to make you so closed minded to the rest of humankind?

[Jimmy Neutron]

Good. I think it's better for them to do that than to sell policies and not pay out.

 

It's a private business, folks. This is no different than a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign.

[Chavez]

US Postal Service is more or less self-sufficient. It's a wide-spread misconception, but they don't really spend our taxpayer dollars.

 

USPS generally runs in the black.

[yo mama]

Good. I think it's better for them to do that than to sell policies and not pay out.

 

It's a private business, folks. This is no different than a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign.

 

Agreed. But pay out on the policies you've issued. If that bankrupts the insurance company, I really don't care. Do you think my creditors care if I have to declare bankruptcy in order to pay debts that I'm contractually obligated to pay to them? Nope. So why the heck should we have more sympathy for corporate america's profits than we would have for an american himself?

 

But an insurance company isn't obligated to issue new policies if they don't want to. They aren't socialists.

[Chavez]

That's because that jack up my prices to pay for delivery to rural farm country. If they could just rid themselves of those hard to reach places I bet you we would all pay less for a stamp.

 

If you can't hack the 39 cents, maybe you should start looking for a higher-paying job.

 

IIRC, the cost of a stamp is generally at or below inflation.

[Chavez]

 

It's a private business, folks. This is no different than a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign.[/color]

 

...especially when you figure that "no shirt, no shoes" probably DOES apply to most of Mississippi.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Agreed. But pay out on the policies you've issued. If that bankrupts the insurance company, I really don't care. Do you think my creditors care if I have to declare bankruptcy in order to pay debts that I'm contractually obligated to pay to them? Nope. So why the heck should we have more sympathy for corporate america's profits than we would have for an american himself?

 

But an insurance company isn't obligated to issue new policies if they don't want to. They aren't socialists.

 

 

I agree - I actually started to write this in my earlier post. I'd rather see an insurance company pull out than issue policies they have no intention of honoring when the chit hits the fan. Insurance companies are in the business of risk management and low-lying areas also prone to tornados spells pretty high risk.

[Rockerbraves]

If you can't hack the 39 cents, maybe you should start looking for a higher-paying job.

 

IIRC, the cost of a stamp is generally at or below inflation.

 

 

Chavez please don't tell me you are a mail man. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

The point is that the US postal service does not run as efficient as most carriers. If they did they would charge less to deliver a package across town versus to some farmer up in Idaho. Instead we all pay more so that Farmer Joe gets his mail. In short we subsidize the cost of his mail service. I'm not opposed to helping out since I like his potatoes.

[wiegie]

Chavez please don't tell me you are a mail man. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

The point is that the US postal service does not run as efficient as most carriers. If they did they would charge less to deliver a package across town versus to some farmer up in Idaho. Instead we all pay more so that Farmer Joe gets his mail. In short we subsidize the cost of his mail service. I'm not opposed to helping out since I like his potatoes.

 

That's ok because Farmer Joe subsidizes the city folk when he pays his taxes that get used to fight terrorism. (Since the odds of Joe getting hit by a terrorist attack out in the middle of BFE are basically zero.)

[yo mama]

Chavez please don't tell me you are a mail man. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

The point is that the US postal service does not run as efficient as most carriers. If they did they would charge less to deliver a package across town versus to some farmer up in Idaho. Instead we all pay more so that Farmer Joe gets his mail. In short we subsidize the cost of his mail service. I'm not opposed to helping out since I like his potatoes.

 

There is an undeniable simplicity and efficiency of scale that results by charging everyone the same price to mail a letter, regardless of where it goes. Make the system more complex and you increase the cost to administer the system for countless potential reasons.

[BillyBalata]

Chavez please don't tell me you are a mail man. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

 

 

 

 

He delivers things way more important then the freakin' mail!!!

[Clubfoothead]

All I'm saying is that if it is too risky for the insurance companies to try to make a profit on it, then there is a good chance that rebuilding efforts are just throwing money into the Gulf of Mexico. I'm sure Juan and Pedro appreciate the money though.

 

 

Did I miss something or do you still consider Iraq worth rebuilding after 4 years of trying to fix it? I honestly cannot grasp the srgument that rebuilding Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are a waste of time and money but Iraq is not. It seems logically inconsistent to me.

 

it's not so much that the area presents too much risk....the primary risk is that they'll write a policy insuring against one thing, and some loss-spreading judge will decide later on that it insures against other things as well.

 

 

Insurance is a necessary evil. Many of us were raised with the mistaken impression that the customer is always right. Nobody at your insurance company gives a rats a$$ about you, your health, your vehicle, or your house. Unless you miss a premium payment. Big companies in general have no loyalty to you as a customer, to you as an employee, the air you breathe, the water you drink or the country you love (or hate depending on your political affiliation). Profit is all that matters and any insurance company that doesn't try and screw you is screwing their shareholders.

 

Seems to me State Farm is arguing what the definition of is is and unfortunately, just like the Honorable Bill Clinton, they are probably right. They intentionally don't issue policies that cover any damage by a hurricane, just specific ones. So you've paid them thousands of dollars becuase you thought you were in good hands or had a good neighbor only to find out that if you read the fine print because the water got your house first, you only have coverage for the wind damage to the newly empty lot.

 

So now you literally have thousands of people whose homes were destroyed, still owe the mortgage and are being denied coverage. The insurance companies then decide, after years of taking profits in the region, that it's really a $hitty area to do business in because due to the climate people will actually use the product they pay for. They are packing up thei million dollar balls and going home. At least RJ Reynolds will look you in the eye and tell you they are killing you.

 

I don't know what the answer is but something has to be done. I promise you justice is not State Farm and Allstate boxing up their millions in profits and hitting the road leaving the people of Gulf to hope the American taxpayer bails them out as they are trying to drag a third world nation into the civilized world while Merck screws the government out of $2,300,000,000.00 of its share of the load and your boss is trying to figure out how to replace you with an illegal Mexican.

 

When you think about it insuring homes is no riskier post-Katrina than pre-Katrina. It only becomes a crappy place to do business when it's time to actually act like a good neighbor. :insertSeinfeldbitabouttakingreservationsvs.holdingthem:

[Bill Swerski]

while Merck screws the government out of $2,300,000,000.00 of its share of the load

 

I thought that Merck was paying the $2.3 billion?

 

I can't stand Merck. Almost all of the scientists I've talked to from there are a bunch of pretentious, cocky motherf###ers.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Clubfoothead]

I thought that Merck was paying the $2.3 billion?

 

I can't stand Merck. Almost all of the scientists I've talked to from there are a bunch of pretentious, cocky motherf###ers.

 

 

Their paying it after they got busted drying to defraud the fed. Mojo probably just decreased your moxy rating.

[Rockerbraves]

There is an undeniable simplicity and efficiency of scale that results by charging everyone the same price to mail a letter, regardless of where it goes. Make the system more complex and you increase the cost to administer the system for countless potential reasons.

 

 

If true shouldn't the insurance companies do the same or should the postal service take a que from the insurance companies and eliminate the hard to deliver places? The later would certainly lower the cost of mailing for the majority of Americans, dont you think? While we're at it why not let the insurance companies pick and choose which employees they want to insure in group insurance policies. Certainly some of us are higher risk than others.

[wiegie]

While we're at it why not let the insurance companies pick and choose which employees they want to insure in group insurance policies. Certainly some of us are higher risk than others.

 

If I thought it might help you understand what is going on, I would type up a long explanation about information asymmetries, but to be honest, from other threads you have posted in it appears that you really don't want to understand what is going on and, therefore, you aren't worth the effort.

[Beaumont]

To understand State Farm in Mississippi, you have to understand their post-storm litigation strategies and the way they manipulated/rewrote engineering reports to avoid paying total losses ...

[yo mama]

If true shouldn't the insurance companies do the same or should the postal service take a que from the insurance companies and eliminate the hard to deliver places? The later would certainly lower the cost of mailing for the majority of Americans, dont you think? While we're at it why not let the insurance companies pick and choose which employees they want to insure in group insurance policies. Certainly some of us are higher risk than others.

 

No single insurance company can do that, because there would be some people within any class of customers that are going to say, "hey: I can get the same insurance from another company for cheaper than your standized price."

 

However, there is no cheaper alternative to mailing a letter than USPS (other than hand delivering it yourself). So USPS is not under the same competitive pressure to offer customized pricing, despite the obvious disparities in the cost of providing services (due to the difference in variable costs associated with delivering mail over different distances for different customers).

 

Another factor in play here is profit margin, in relation to being a low-price leader (i.e., the cheapest alternative available). USPS cannot afford to raise prices on the farmer beyond the next cheapest alterative (hypothetically $0.55 for sending a letter to UPS) *and* lower the price to deliver a letter to the guy who lives across the street from the post office. If they did that, not only do they lose the farmer as a customer, they lose money (or at least make less money) delivering the mail to the guy across the street. Plus, your variable pricing system would undoubtedly increase administrative expenses. Triple whammy.

 

In order to remain to remain self-sufficient - let alone profitable as a low-cost leader - their pricing system must cover their costs. In order to do that, they've got to keep costs as low as possible and generate revenue the exceeds those costs. What you are proposing would increase their administrative costs, reduce overall customer base, and ensure that only the least profitable customers stuck around. Nice job, genius. You just bankrupted the USPS and now no one gets to send a letter for $0.39.

Edited February 16, 2007 by yo mama

[yo mama]

To understand State Farm in Mississippi, you have to understand their post-storm litigation strategies and the way they manipulated/rewrote engineering reports to avoid paying total losses ...

 

That's the F-d up part. If the house was totally destroyed, how to you prove if the house was wrecked by flood waters or wind first? If the engineer writes it up as flood waters destroying the house first, its real difficult to prove him wrong unless you were there during the storm and just happened to go outside during the Cat 4 hurricane to snap some photos just as your house was being demolished... and you manged to live.

 

On the flip side, I've talked to a number of insurance attorneys who tell me there are also a lot of bogus or embellished property damage claims. So I'm sure there is cheating going both ways.

[Rockerbraves]

What you are proposing would increase their administrative costs, reduce overall customer base, and ensure that only the least profitable customers stuck around.

 

What I am proposing is actually abit to late FedEx and UPS beat me to it.

[yo mama]

What I am proposing is actually abit to late FedEx and UPS beat me to it.

 

They did that with parcels. Notice how they weren't able to do the same thing profitably with letters.

[Rockerbraves]

They did that with parcels. Notice how they weren't able to do the same thing profitably with letters.

 

 

Exactly my point. So do we not deliver mail to the farmer much like some believe we should not provide insurance to those who are not as profitable to the private insurance companies.

[rajncajn]

It's a private business, folks. This is no different than a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign.

 

The problem there is that if you want to purchase a car or home & you're not rich enough to buy them outright then you are basically forced to buy insurance.

 

 

Did I miss something or do you still consider Iraq worth rebuilding after 4 years of trying to fix it? I honestly cannot grasp the srgument that rebuilding Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are a waste of time and money but Iraq is not. It seems logically inconsistent to me.

Insurance is a necessary evil. Many of us were raised with the mistaken impression that the customer is always right. Nobody at your insurance company gives a rats a$$ about you, your health, your vehicle, or your house. Unless you miss a premium payment. Big companies in general have no loyalty to you as a customer, to you as an employee, the air you breathe, the water you drink or the country you love (or hate depending on your political affiliation). Profit is all that matters and any insurance company that doesn't try and screw you is screwing their shareholders.

 

Seems to me State Farm is arguing what the definition of is is and unfortunately, just like the Honorable Bill Clinton, they are probably right. They intentionally don't issue policies that cover any damage by a hurricane, just specific ones. So you've paid them thousands of dollars becuase you thought you were in good hands or had a good neighbor only to find out that if you read the fine print because the water got your house first, you only have coverage for the wind damage to the newly empty lot.

 

So now you literally have thousands of people whose homes were destroyed, still owe the mortgage and are being denied coverage. The insurance companies then decide, after years of taking profits in the region, that it's really a $hitty area to do business in because due to the climate people will actually use the product they pay for. They are packing up thei million dollar balls and going home. At least RJ Reynolds will look you in the eye and tell you they are killing you.

 

I don't know what the answer is but something has to be done. I promise you justice is not State Farm and Allstate boxing up their millions in profits and hitting the road leaving the people of Gulf to hope the American taxpayer bails them out as they are trying to drag a third world nation into the civilized world while Merck screws the government out of $2,300,000,000.00 of its share of the load and your boss is trying to figure out how to replace you with an illegal Mexican.

 

When you think about it insuring homes is no riskier post-Katrina than pre-Katrina. It only becomes a crappy place to do business when it's time to actually act like a good neighbor. :insertSeinfeldbitabouttakingreservationsvs.holdingthem:

 

:manloveforclub:

 

To understand State Farm in Mississippi, you have to understand their post-storm litigation strategies and the way they manipulated/rewrote engineering reports to avoid paying total losses ...

 

That's the F-d up part. If the house was totally destroyed, how to you prove if the house was wrecked by flood waters or wind first? If the engineer writes it up as flood waters destroying the house first, its real difficult to prove him wrong unless you were there during the storm and just happened to go outside during the Cat 4 hurricane to snap some photos just as your house was being demolished... and you manged to live.

 

On the flip side, I've talked to a number of insurance attorneys who tell me there are also a lot of bogus or embellished property damage claims. So I'm sure there is cheating going both ways.

 

Both are very true. What I understand is that it is the insurance company's responsibility to prove a claim to be invalid, which is why the court found in favor of the policyholders. It was decided that State Farm had no valid way of proving that certain claims were not caused by the wind before the surge finished the job.