Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005 Status: offline
|
Actually even if they are, can you blame them for trying to remain solvent ? Not that there is any razor sharp distinction anymore, but it's a business move. Actually it's not that bad, to take themselves out of the process. If they go bust then they need a bailout, the end result is the same, we all get it up the dupa. Remaining in this game means another level of middleman in the disbursion of the funds. Instead of them getting profits and bonuses, the money will be handled by something else. Something regulatory must've happened. And they have actuaries. No doubt these policies will expire withinh the next year sometime. They are banking on trouble. They have just about the best information in the world. I would take it as a sign. They did not get where they are by losing money. Thing that gets me is that they were looking for a 47.1% increase ? That means your $600 a year house insurance becomes more like $900 a year. As much as it may sound like to you, I don't think it would've covered it. And then there is the infrastructure, which would sustain heavy damage. Even if they don't insure that, it jams up the works because many policies pay for temporary housing during repairs. Imagine the house being all fixed up but the family can't move back in until the sewers work, and who knows how long that might take ? You may cast a jaundiced eye on this and describe it as corporate greed. But I think what happened is that they saw a sucker bet coming within a year and decided to fold. By folding, you limit your losses. And they are not folding up, but to do so on 20% of a statewide income is quite a move, and is noteworthy. I don't think I'll move to Florida. In case Florida fucks with them over this, with 700,000 some odd customers there they do not have a huge market share. So if they have to pack up and leave, so be it, at least in their eyes. What would you do ? T
|