Go figure this one
I really need to get into the insurance business.
I can’t blame them, it is hard to build a good profit model when you have to pay claims and all the other nonsense that comes along with covering someone or something.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. insurance industry, responding to what it says is a growing risk of chemical and biological terrorism, is pressing Congress to dramatically increase its backing of terrorism insurance policies.
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote next month on a bill that for the first time would make the federal government help pay for large claims resulting from chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear terrorism. The bill, co-sponsored by House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., grants a 15-year extension to a 2002 federal terrorism insurance bill that expires Dec. 31.
I love corporate welfare!
Shouldn’t the risk of terrorism be down with the muscle-flexing flyboy-wannabe fighting them there instead of here?
Yes but all the “Cut and Run” talk from the left has then feeling confident again. Besides should one of the Democratic candidates be elected president in 2008, they may even be able to do it without fear of reprisal.
ahhh. To plumb the depth of your stupidity is almost as enjoyable as reveling in your utter desperation to be on the right side of this war. Give up Chris. You only show yourself a fool when you parrot the nutjob line.
“Give up Chris. You only show yourself a fool when you parrot the nutjob line.”
And your parroting the defeatist left is so much MORE appealing….
I’ll cut and run out of anybody else’s civil war, except our own.
“…defeatist left”?
Yeah. Those damn parents of slain American soldiers are just so negative. I’ll bet Mitt Romney wouldn’t be defeatist even if one of his was killed in the war, which they won’t be, ’cause he’ll never let them near it, ’cause he can use your kids instead. But he won’t be negative.
How about the Bush girls? I’ll bet they could be in the war and not be negative. They allow manicures and coke in Iraq, don’t they?
Corporate America = Welfare Queens.
Speaking of queens, have you all heard about the disgraced Senator from Idaho joining the USO?
“I’ll cut and run out of anybody else’s civil war, except our own.”
I see…so it would have to be DOMESTIC terrorists to call you to arms. Foreign terrorists are not enough.
I’m a little confused about the article. Usually all policies on property exclude ‘acts of war’, and since 9/11, they also exclude terrorist attacks. However, some states have regulated against the terrorist exception to coverages. I think what the lobby group is asking is to exclude acts of terror.
Can you blame the insurance lobby? We have a President who for the past 7 years has methodically pissed off just about every other nation in the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if we got an attack from the Nepalese Jihad (all they do is shoot your goats though, and they can’t afford bullets, so its really not much of a threat).
You can get policy endorsements for damage from acts of terrorism, but they can be tough to get. I think some industries (airlines) are required to have the insurance.
What is odd about this call for the Feds to pay more is that there was a law after 9/11 that does provide fairly generous backstopping of terrorism policies to give the insurance industry some time to come up with new risk models to better know how to underwrite the policies. That law expires end of this year. It would be nice to know what the difficulties are in assessing this risk of if the industry is just asking for a gimme here.
I see, Chris, that you are truly clueless on what’s going on in Iraq.