🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Apr2.011857.30896@r-node.hub.org> ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:

> Here is a press release from the California Department of Insurance.
> 
>  California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to
> Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies
>  To: Business Desk, California Correspondents
>  Contact: Bill Schulz, 213-346-6456, or Elena Stern, 213-346-6371,
>           of the California Department of Insurance
> 
>    WASHINGTON, April 1  -- Calling the tens of millions of dollars 
> in unpaid insurance claims from last year's Los Angeles 
> disturbances suffered by inner-city Los Angeles business
> owners who put their faith in unlicensed insurance companies "a
> terrible tragedy," California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi
> today endorsed legislation by U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) to
> establish federal regulation over foreign insurance companies that
> will protect consumers who are defrauded with increasing frequency by
> these unscrupulous insurers.

Baloney.  The only thing this bill will "protect" will be the insurance
companies remaining on-shore.  Yes, friends, it's hard to remember, but
insurance is just a contract between two parties -- nothing less and
nothing more.  If one of those parties happens to exist out of the
country, that makes it more difficult for the insured to file legitimate
claims, all right.  It also makes it tougher for dewy-eyed social
engineers like Kennedy and Garamendi to ramrod their notions of "fair"
down the gullets of the insurers.

No doubt about it: law-abiding citizens that the insurance companies
are, they want to outlaw some competition under the smokescreen of
"protecting the consumer."  Imagine for a minute what this would mean if
we were talking about cars.  It would be the same thing as GM running to
Uncle Sam for protection against those mean old Japanese, demanding an
outright ban on all imports because they're shoddy, all in the name of
saving the consumer from those awful Japanese imports.  Uh huh.  In
1967, Toyota made okay cars; who would say a Toyota is a bad car now?

Any time I hear somebody bleating that he's "trying to protect the
consumer," I look to see whose ox is getting gored.

>    Noting that in the past three years complaints filed with the
> California Department of Insurance against unlicensed companies have
> increased more than 100-fold, Garamendi said that the proliferation
> of these problem companies resulted from redlining by licensed
> companies in major inner-city areas of California.
>    Garamendi presented maps of central Los Angeles showing that
> licensed major companies sell almost no insurance policies in
> low-income areas, yet over-serve high-income areas.  "Insurance
> redlining in the inner-city by licensed companies has meant that
> business owners have been forced to turn to what are often scam
> insurance companies for coverage," said Garamendi.

What a surprise.  As the state Insurance Commissioner, Garamendi should
know that insurers make money by anticipating risk.  Redlining exists
because of higher risks -- more crime, in other words -- in low-income
areas.  Why this repeatedly fails to penetrate the thick noggins of
Garamendi and the sob sisters of the left escapes me.  Perhaps it's
because, once more, government never lets the facts get in the way of an
excuse for more meddling.

>    The Department of Insurance has estimated unpaid claims for such
> companies in the wake of last year's disturbances to be $20 million
> to $30 million.  Among the recommendations made for strengthening
> Congressman Kennedy's HR 1257, Garamendi suggested that insurance
> companies could be required to either directly invest in distressed
> area or purchase packages of loans made in these communities.

Here's the lollipop for social engineers: they get to tell big, rich
insurance companies how to invest their money.  That might go down hard
at first in the boardrooms, but the insurers probably figure it's better
to pick up the tab for Kennedy's expensive, politically correct
posturing than having serious competition capable of evading silly laws.
Unfortunately for Kennedy, the problems of the inner cities cannot be
solved by pumping money into the affected neighborhoods, for the
problems there are not ones of money but of morality and behavior.

The left likes to dodge the issues of morality and behavior, crying that
anyone who raises them "blames the victim."  Nonetheless, as a recent
editorial in the {Los Angeles Times} pointed out, the free love
advocates of the 1960's have demolished the poor.  It's one thing to
have children out of wedlock if you're, say, Murphy Brown (or someone
like her), turning over a six figure salary -- and quite another if
you're sixteen, have no skills, and no income.

By accepting and even celebrating single, out-of-wedlock parenthood, the
1960's radicals espousing free love set the stage for catastrophe among
the poor. They must account for this.  No amount of "investing" in
"distressed" areas will change these facts.  At best, this approach
salves the consciences of those who think check-writing equals
catharsis.  At worst, it blocks serious thought about how social mores
can build up or tear down people and neighborhoods.  No wonder Malcolm X
has regained such popularity in recent years -- the poor finally see that
the left cares about them only as abstractions, not as people.
--

Robert L. McMillin | Surf City Software | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Dude!
#include <std.disclaimer.h>