iamcanadian2

So you an insurance salesman. Big deal. You are one step up from a Vacuum Cleaner salesman and one step down from an Encyclopidia salesman while I was growing up. Insurance companies have a bad reputation as businesses generally and nothing to be proud of being in that racket. But nothing is worse than the incestious relationships between Insurance Companies and Public Buisiness Officials. The whole idea of taxpayers paying for private Insurance on government activities, people or property should be outlawed.

Are you referring to giving free insurance for homes, cottages, autos and boats of senior public officials in order to get public insurance policies? I thought you said you are an insurance broker? Every insurance broker that supplies insurance products to government is required to insure a number of top public business officials personal property free of charge or their names are removed from the approved Insurance Company lists circulated to public purchasing departments. This is common knowledge. Government business officials in Canada in all levels of government have their little black books of who they can do business with for non-tendered discressionary purchases that are outside of any public scrutiny, audit or review by objective agencies or independant parties.

So you are an insurance policy salesman and you think this makes you an expert in Fidelity Insurance claims and their interconnection with corruption in public spending. Frankly I doubt you have the experience necessary to provide much comment on these perverse practices of select near-monopoly specialty insurers that procure these type of illicit products to higher government business officials. Do you dable in providing insurance and bonds to government spending activities? If so have you given many free home, cottage and auto insurance to public officials in return for paid government policies? This is prety standard in the industry so judging from your apperant opinion that there is any integrity in your industry, I question your level of experience in these specific maters.

But how many that are complicent to the scams running free to rape and pillage at will? You mix theory with practice. Very little that works in theory actually functions when applied in practice. Government Fidelity Insurance is one such theoretical imposibility that provide NO value to the taxpayers and in fact facilitates PUBLIC FRAUD and EMBEZELMENT by senior public business officials who are entrusted to spend the taxpayers money (and coincidentaly pick which insurer gets the Fidelity Policies on themselves) The CONFLICT OF INTEREST is self evident to any honest thinker with any common sense about how a claim might come to be and run its course.

Now you have hit the nail on the head with your comment. This is the way the process works in practice: A director who defrauds the government would likely go to jail and loose the money stolen and then some, if it was not for the Fidelity Insurance that interferes with justice having its way with them.

Yours are the general understanding from watching US TV and news media, but apparently this is not what happens in Canada. We have insurance companies founded by Sir John A. MacDonald and Sir Alexander Gault that go back to the 1800's when they invented Fidelity Insurance to protect the Railroad Barrons from theft of payroll that evolved to the present day protection of public servants from going to jail and from having to pay back what they are caught stealing from the public coffers. You should check history rather then popular opinion created by Holywood and the News Services.

I thought this part would be common knowledge... Insurance Premiums: They are set based onthe amount of losses expected plus a mark-up for profit etc. and spread out by the amount of premiums charged. Insurance comanies never loose any money. They only incur losses which are then used to establish their cost of Goods Sold. Losses to Insurance Companies are ASSETS like equipment purchased which they USE to CHARGE their premiums on to the next premium. This is 101 basic economics. The more losses or claims an Insurance companies pays or it costs them to handle the more money they make from their maark-up on the losses which translate to higher premiums. Are we on the same page with this part? It's hard to have a discussion when people don't have the same basic understanding. It's like we are speaking in different languages.

In this case the insurance company drives the gettaway vehicle that let's the public business officials and their degerate professionals they employ to assist them to get away with blataint frauds and gross betrayals of public trust.

Assuming that you know somthing about these things form your comments: This is a typical scenario: An estimate is drawn up for a project. The estimates are always significantly higher than the actual cost because everyone in the process is lazzy and incompetent to justify any overruns. So they ask for much more up front that they actually need. The example of a project costing $7.0 million that had an initial approved budget of $9.0 million is a routine and normal ratio. What the approvers of these budgets then fail to do is look for the amount over budgeted to get it back. Instand everyone helps perpetuate an intentional waste of the $2.0 million to avoid looking stupid for having approved $2.0 Million more than necessary. The cycle of wanton waste and intentional mismanagement ripe full of corruption managed by degenerate professionals without honour or integrity is the status quo in government spending in Canada. It is quite normal then when men with the mentality of gangsters meet the genetic turds entrusted with public spending get to work in this environment for the pilferage and rape of the public.

But in this case there is nothing to argue about. This is a typical procurement scenario that is repeated thousands of times a year in every level of government where public money is being spent under the estimated budget approval scenario. This is one graphic example that lays out the normal practice. It does not matter what is being purchased. As long as there is budget for a spending set this illicit practice will be the rule rather than the exception. So if we are not on the same page and in agreement on the background to the scenario, then we need to fix it before I proceed. I only need to tie down some of the loose ends so everything comes out clear and concise so anyone can understand these methods of operation. (the M.O. in 5-0 talk)

Well I can't until I hear the full story. Sheesh. Well there must be something you have to say on the subject as covered so far based on your statement. Or are you just out and about chopping up anything that might explain the incredible levels of corruption in the Canadian public procurement practices?

No problem Hydro... ask for clarifications as needed. We are here to serve and please my fellow Candians of all manner of disposition.

That's not very ethical... I am taking breaks often to allow comments and discussion so we don't get too ahead of ourselves. Please by all means tear away at this expose' of the most disgustingly corrupt public business scenario that is unfortunatly routine and most commonplace in Canada's public spending regimes when men with the mentality of gangsters meet genetic turds with public authority... by all means go for it.

Nice of you to check in with us Mad. But why the hostilities? You into insurance, government procurement or the public consulting game?

I'll carry on some more but I must say it would be nice to see people following along with questions and comments durring the pause so I can see them paying attention. Scam Scenario: The Objective: Take the $2 Million in surplus approved provicial funding The Means: A captive insurance company has the following Insurance Products: 1) provided general insurance and fidelity insurance to the municipality (i.e. municipality is a big client generally) 2) provides project specific insurance and fidelity to the funded project and individual directors Key Man (bag man): The consultant with the cap on his fees Consultant attacks project at completion making excuses for additional spending (and naturally bills additional fees beyond the cap due to unforseen requirements). Municipality spends the money beyond the necessary amount (and then some) on the strength of the consultants recommendations. Municipality bills province for the extra expenses and extra consulting fees that are alleged to be needed. Province has right to audit project expenses and question extra fee's and extra costs, but is blindsided; Municipality avoids audits and questions on extra spending by claiming the cost overruns against its captive insurer, commences legal action for recovery against the Insurance Product. Responds to Province's audit and questions saying "the issue is a legal matter before the court and we cannot comment". Province pays the money including amounts beyond the original provicial funding agreement without question. In fact, a $4.0 Million overrun is created (the original $2.0 Million surplus PLUS another $2.0 Million for good measure), to set the stage to prevent any questioning and to blind public scrutiny that may otherwise arrise. (Pause to catch breath)... Good time to ask questions or seek clarifications here folks.

I want to see more people taking interest in this senario. I want to see a few more ostrich lift their heads out of the sand and pay attention to the kind of pervasive and systemic corruption they are paying for with their hard earned public tax dollars. I will continue when I see more ostrich paying attention.

Looks like here we are showing Canada to be the home of the preverbial OSTRICH. The OSTRICH should be the national animal of Canada. It's a good representation of our general population; a people who stick their heads in holes in the ground to avoid hearing or seeing things that are unpleasant to avoid having to do deal with it or do something about it. Shamefull people without integrity or honour who let themselves be screwed by people with the mentality of gangsters while they keep their heads firmly in the sand with butts prone high in the air to make it easier to be screwed by them.

You other guys here are letting me down. I hope I am not going through all this for the benefit of just one Doubting Thomas forum member.

Glad you agree this is a typical procurement when a muncipality does not have the money for vital infrastructure and in the case where they seek and obtain provincial funding assistance. Are you the only one following this? Let's see if there are a few others on board so we don't have to rehash this again after more of the scenario unfolds. I don't want anyone to get confused.

I have not gotten to any "fictional" parts yet. The above is to illustrate a scenario that will follow (which may or may not be fictional) and I need to make sure eveyone following me on the same page with the parts that are factual. Which parts do you not accept as normal routine activities in the above list of prerequisites that sets the stage to the scenario? We need to get over this hurdle before I can continue or we will end up wasting time.

Great then... need to set more framework to the scenario so that everything will make sense and tie in together. Like any good conspiracy the prameters need to be identified going in. Frauds play on the gap of information between the various elements one can see and people need to look at the big picture to catch them. Professional fees in this exampe are capped at around 10% so of the $7.0 million only nets less than $1.0 million on top of the project expenses, for engineers, lawyers etc.. Lets add the insurance overlay on the scenario. The insurance products at play: Canada has very poor competition in insurance products. This is because we have a very bad civil legal system (as outlined elsewhere) where the legal system is designed to pilfer and rape both sides of a legal dispute as much as possible. As a result as of about 15 years ago most of the worlds insurers have abandoned Canada and left it to the vices of the few that are ingrained in the system from the 1800's. Be that as it may, the playing field for government insurance is small and one sees many examples of near monopoly conditions with insurance product procurements to governmental organizations everywhere here with virtually no competition, public scrutiny or review by the elected officials (who have no clue about such big business activities and blindly follow "professional" recommendations). The Municipal Levels of Ontario (and Ontario Regional Government certainly) get most of their general property and auto insurance from the same one insurer as a matter of practice. They also get their directors fidelity products from them as well. On a project of this size, will see the same insurer providing bonds and fidelity products to everyone in the financial pyramid as well as having larger monopoly relationship that span the whole municipality / region. For the purposes of this excercise we need only look at a few key products required to make the scenario feasable and conductive to the "intentional waste" and therefore ensure the $2 Million in surplus funding does not go to waste (i.e. ends up not getting "intentionally wasted" in the self-interest of the public officials that have the opportunity to line some friends' pockets) (i.i.e., back to the provice and used elsewhere in the taxpayers interest...where some other group of officials will intentionally waste it... the standard circle jerk of public spending) (pausing for questions and clarifications so i don't loose people here ...)

Good thing that you brought this up. Intentional Waste IS stealing. It's FRAUD. FRAUD is stealing. Get some education on this and then let me know when you understand before I waste my time elaborating on my "scenario" that backs up my opinions. The only opinions that mater are Reasoned Opinions. The rest are regurgitation of propaganda and brain washing and are totally worthless.

The municipality has $9.0 Million approved but after awarding contracts under supervised open tender competition they only spend $7.0 Million and they have a $2.0 Million surplus in the funding. The above scenario set the stage for the intentional waste through mock mismanagement: Recap: 1) Budget from Province $9.0 Million 2) Restricted Spending Rules to get it. (what is not required of the budget goes back to the province) a. open tendering (can't give the contracts to friends & relatives) b. open specification (can't use the money to buy from firends and relatives c. consultants and other "professionals" fees are capped so that they can't pilfer (nudge nudge wiink wink) between the bureacrats and their captive professional who would kickback some of the fee (this is quite pervasive in government spending when ever professionals provide services) 3) Contracts tenders come in at only $7.0 million including the permitted allowance for professional fees. 4) $2.0 Million in approved funding will be lost since there is no means to legitimately spend it under the Provincial Funding Agreement Is everyone still following? Any clarifications required to this point? (to be continued...)

You don't know the difference between a point of view and a fact? You have no point of view to contradict mine. So the ball is in your court... You are the one that is shut up with your foot in your mouth. What is your contrary point of view? If you have any?

This is a public opinion forum and everyone is entittled to legitimate opinions. I give mine but get illigitimate responses without any contrary opinions. In theory some of the things you seem to believe apply but in practice they don't. As a "hypothetical" example... A municipality applies for provincial funding for a capital project. As usual, they ask for much more than they realy need when applying for it by requesting money based on a estimated budget that then gets approved. In this excercise lets say they estimate and get a budget for $9.0 Million to build some vital infrastructure. (It does not mater what for since this is a typical generic example of the way these pervasive scams work) The Province approves it and the muncipality proceeds with the project under a Provicial Funding Agreement which contains various terms and conditions on the funding that the municipality must comply with to get the funding. As examples, the municipality must allow all bidders from anywhere in the province to participate (this is so they don't take provincial money and spend it only on local private businesses since this would not be fair to all taxpayers that paid the taxes that are being used for the project). The Municipality must use products from open sources without propriatary specifications (same reason as above to prevent favoratism and incumbancy in the procurement). The professional fees are capped at a maximum percentage of the project (this is to prevent funding abuse by the local captive professionals servicing that municipality) and other such restrictions that are applied because the money is Provincial Money and not money raised by the local community that gets the benefit. I will pause here and let you catch your breath. Please feel free to ask for clarifications so I don't waste my time going too far ahead of you in case you don't get any of this....(be back tomorrow night to continue and tie this example to the theme of the thread)