News

 
Welcome Guest   ·   Login   ·   Register   ·   Member List
   
1 of 2
1
Nationwide To Drop More Than 40,000 Policyholders
Posted: 28 August 2007 04:08 PM  
Administrator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  183
Joined  2006-10-25

Nationwide Insurance, the fifth largest property insurer in Florida, said today it plans to drop more than 40,000 policyholders next year.

The company said it’s dropping the policies to reduce its hurricane risk exposure in the state.

In January, the company said, it will begin dropping about 39,000 homeowner policies and 1,600 commercial policies.

Are you a customer of Nationwide or another insurer who’s worried the company may cancel your policy? Share your story here.

Read the story

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 07:35 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  547
Joined  2007-06-11

There is so much in life to be worried about. Our governor and State government don’t really care to help us in this matter. What could any of us do? We could hope that Crist does decides to leave this state soon to pursue his national career with Rubio. We all do know the republicans are going to do real well this next presidential election. Maybe our next governor will actually be a TRUE PEOPLE’S GOVERNOR.  Maybe another and another special session is needed.  Why are we having so many special sessions anyway? Can our state government get anymore inefficient?. How much more extra time do they need to do very simple things like lower property insurance and make homeowner’s taxes equal? Is everyone in this state willing to wait another 3 and 1/2 years to solve these simple issues?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 08:36 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  675
Joined  2007-05-12

The best thing to solve this would be to permit no company to have anymore auto, life, health, etc. policies in the State of Florida than they have homeowners.

Citizens - which is State Owned and doesn’t need a profit ot to pay a CEO Mega-millions - should be expanded to cover all other types of insurance as well as homeowners.  Let the insurance companies compete against a State Owned company that does not need a profit.  All of a sudden the Private Industry hates competition when a Government Competitor is formed against them.

Kind of like American Workers competing against $10 a week wages in China.  Corporate America doesn’t mind that but they sure would hate government owned insurance companies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 10:18 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  399
Joined  2007-03-23
hockeyray - 29 August 2007 08:36 AM

The best thing to solve this would be to permit no company to have anymore auto, life, health, etc. policies in the State of Florida than they have homeowners.

Citizens - which is State Owned and doesn’t need a profit ot to pay a CEO Mega-millions - should be expanded to cover all other types of insurance as well as homeowners.  Let the insurance companies compete against a State Owned company that does not need a profit.  All of a sudden the Private Industry hates competition when a Government Competitor is formed against them.

Kind of like American Workers competing against $10 a week wages in China.  Corporate America doesn’t mind that but they sure would hate government owned insurance companies.

Good points!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 11:52 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1727
Joined  2007-05-11
hockeyray - 29 August 2007 08:36 AM

The best thing to solve this would be to permit no company to have anymore auto, life, health, etc. policies in the State of Florida than they have homeowners.

Citizens - which is State Owned and doesn’t need a profit ot to pay a CEO Mega-millions - should be expanded to cover all other types of insurance as well as homeowners.  Let the insurance companies compete against a State Owned company that does not need a profit.  All of a sudden the Private Industry hates competition when a Government Competitor is formed against them.

Kind of like American Workers competing against $10 a week wages in China.  Corporate America doesn’t mind that but they sure would hate government owned insurance companies.

What do you want, drive auto insurers out too. You can’t force people to lose money. They’ll move on

No way is a government managed business going to run more effectively than a for-profit one. Remember when citizens come up short due to mismanagement and poor business practices, they come to us to make up the losses. If you want an example, look at the national flood program. It’s $ Bil in the Red

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 02:40 PM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  547
Joined  2007-06-11
SubMariner - 29 August 2007 10:18 AM

hockeyray - 29 August 2007 08:36 AM
The best thing to solve this would be to permit no company to have anymore auto, life, health, etc. policies in the State of Florida than they have homeowners.

Citizens - which is State Owned and doesn’t need a profit ot to pay a CEO Mega-millions - should be expanded to cover all other types of insurance as well as homeowners. Let the insurance companies compete against a State Owned company that does not need a profit. All of a sudden the Private Industry hates competition when a Government Competitor is formed against them.

Kind of like American Workers competing against $10 a week wages in China. Corporate America doesn’t mind that but they sure would hate government owned insurance companies.

Good points!

Is the ten dollar a week wages with or without benefits. I am sure Corporate America would embrace government owed insurance. It would take at least that monkey off their backs. Let alone retirement,days off,and all the other perks they have to give to keep the American worker happy. Insurance is to bridge the gap not to cover everything. We all want everything so that’s what we pay for.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 09:14 PM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  675
Joined  2007-05-12
jacque - 29 August 2007 02:40 PM

Is the ten dollar a week wages with or without benefits. I am sure Corporate America would embrace government owed insurance. It would take at least that monkey off their backs. Let alone retirement,days off,and all the other perks they have to give to keep the American worker happy. Insurance is to bridge the gap not to cover everything. We all want everything so that’s what we pay for.

It’s called “cherry picking” which is all the Insurance Companies do.  That’s a lot of profit that Corporate America will never give up my dear.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 09:20 PM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  675
Joined  2007-05-12
Stuka - 29 August 2007 11:52 AM

No way is a government managed business going to run more effectively than a for-profit one. Remember when citizens come up short due to mismanagement and poor business practices, they come to us to make up the losses. If you want an example, look at the national flood program. It’s $ Bil in the Red

It’s better that the government is a bil in the red than have some insurance CEO’s making that profit.  Take profit out and it works for the people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 12:11 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  547
Joined  2007-06-11
hockeyray - 29 August 2007 09:14 PM

jacque - 29 August 2007 02:40 PM
Is the ten dollar a week wages with or without benefits. I am sure Corporate America would embrace government owed insurance. It would take at least that monkey off their backs. Let alone retirement,days off,and all the other perks they have to give to keep the American worker happy. Insurance is to bridge the gap not to cover everything. We all want everything so that’s what we pay for.

It’s called “cherry picking” which is all the Insurance Companies do. That’s a lot of profit that Corporate America will never give up my dear.

I always disliked that words ‘“ never” and “always”. They seems so final when used. I know we can change things especially if everyone works together for the same cause. Complain or change?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 04:10 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1727
Joined  2007-05-11
hockeyray - 29 August 2007 09:20 PM

Stuka - 29 August 2007 11:52 AM
No way is a government managed business going to run more effectively than a for-profit one. Remember when citizens come up short due to mismanagement and poor business practices, they come to us to make up the losses. If you want an example, look at the national flood program. It’s $ Bil in the Red

It’s better that the government is a bil in the red than have some insurance CEO’s making that profit.  Take profit out and it works for the people.

I’m not for paying more out of my pocket to prevent some unknown person from getting rich. I don’t suffer from jealousy of the wealthy like apparently you profess to. Few people believe that a government ran business will outperform private enterprise. You really don’t believe what you write, do you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 08:12 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  675
Joined  2007-05-12
Stuka - 30 August 2007 04:10 AM

Few people believe that a government ran business will outperform private enterprise. You really don’t believe what you write, do you?

That’s because you have been brainwashed by Corporate America.  Government can and always does outperform corporations when all factors are evaluated.

Take the schools.  Our public schools are loaded with good, hard-working, underappreciated, and underpaid teachers.  They cannot cherry pick which students they will teach and they won’t teach like the private schools can.  Yet Republicans constantly bash the public school system while starving it for funding.  They constantly hold the private schools as examples yet they let the private schools toss out difficult students who then end up in the public school system.

When we nationalize the insurance industry - we cannot have a situation like this.  The insurance companies take the cases where they got the most profit and lowest risk and dump the rest on the government.  Then the Republicans say the government is bad.

The government does not have to pay CEO’s or make a profit which is always better for the consumer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 08:31 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1727
Joined  2007-05-11
hockeyray - 30 August 2007 08:12 AM

Stuka - 30 August 2007 04:10 AM
Few people believe that a government ran business will outperform private enterprise. You really don’t believe what you write, do you?

That’s because you have been brainwashed by Corporate America.  Government can and always does outperform corporations when all factors are evaluated.

Take the schools.  Our public schools are loaded with good, hard-working, underappreciated, and underpaid teachers.  They cannot cherry pick which students they will teach and they won’t teach like the private schools can.  Yet Republicans constantly bash the public school system while starving it for funding.  They constantly hold the private schools as examples yet they let the private schools toss out difficult students who then end up in the public school system.

When we nationalize the insurance industry - we cannot have a situation like this.  The insurance companies take the cases where they got the most profit and lowest risk and dump the rest on the government.  Then the Republicans say the government is bad.

The government does not have to pay CEO’s or make a profit which is always better for the consumer.

Competition is always better for the consumer.

How can you laud public schools many of todays’ recent high school grads can’t even perform simple arithmetic without a calculator?

Besides, people choose education as a profession because they can contribute to society by helping young minds progress, thus helping mankind. There is no passion that comes with insurance jobs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:40 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1238
Joined  2007-03-28

response to Stuka:
The insurance companies are not losing money -not by a longshot.  You can look at them in almost any way you wish, and they are making a profit -they have far more ‘good’ years than they have ‘bad’ seasons.  While I’m usually the last person on here to claim the ‘government needs to be involved’, I’ll make an exception when it comes to insurance companies -they have far too many loopholes, and far too few protections for the consumer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 07:09 AM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1727
Joined  2007-05-11

Insurance companies are in the business to make money first and to provide a community service second. Usually over regulation causes business to reduce if not completely halt operations. New Jersey found out by over regulating Auto insurance, now the state is the major insurer and the rates are high. Just recently has there been any change. The politicians have finally figured out that you can’t force a business operate in a unsafe manner.
New Jersey saw the light after 30 years When the first major storm hits Florida and Citizens finds itself drowning in red ink, people will wake up.

The only effective regulation that a state should attempt is

1) Make sure companies are fairly operating according to the contract agreements with consumers.
2) Review rate changes to insure companies make fair and reasonable profit while maintaining strong balance sheet.

Why not regulate all essential service business like food and fuel too? People just don’t like insurance companies, so they’re an easy target and prone to over regulation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:31 PM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1172
Joined  2007-05-18

Insurance is a process of sharing the risk among a large number of people to cover the few who will suffer a loss. Rates and available coverage depend on the risk involved. Florida has a very high risk of very extensive losses from hurricanes. Several can hit the state in a year and every part of the state can be hit by them. This is in addition to other risks that are shared nationwide. As long as companies are not too heavily invested in Florida they can cover the risk. When companies see too much coverage in risky areas, they need to increase coverage in lower risk areas or drop coverage in the high risk areas. They can try to do this by offering lower rates in lower risk areas and higher rates in higher risk areas. Having coverage in high risk areas doesn’t allow a company to lower rates in low risk areas enough to add enough customers. They can’t compete with companies that aren’t as heavily invested in Florida. I see many companies pulling coverage in Florida to be able to compete with companies who don’t offer coverage in Florida. If Florida offers coverage only in Florida, it will have to have very high rates to stay solvent.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 09:27 PM  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  675
Joined  2007-05-12
think - 03 September 2007 06:31 PM

Insurance is a process of sharing the risk among a large number of people to cover the few who will suffer a loss. Rates and available coverage depend on the risk involved.

That’s how things used to be before these insurance companies “de-mutualized” which meant they had to get stockholders, CEO’s, and be totally profit driven.  We can only fix this by government run insurance and getting greed and profit out of this mean business.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 

Advertisement

Advertise With Us:
Online | In Print | Broadcast

TBO.com AdLinks