When government pays Insurance Premiums it is a Scam on the Taxpayers

[iamcanadian2]

Government taking out insurance by paying private insurance companies tends to be a scam.

Insurance in practice is the art of spreading the risk to many policy holders and making a profit based on the amount of losses incurred, the losses incured in one year sets the premiums (plus mark-up) they charge next year so that Insurance Companies never really can loose money.

Therefore when the government buys insurance with public money they are passing the losses back on the backs of the taxpayers since government insured losses get lumped together with private insurance losses setting the price for premiums the public pays.

There is no legitimate reason for government at any level to pay for and obtain insurance from a private company for anything.

It is just another public administratio orchastrated public scam.

[guyser]

Government taking out insurance by paying private insurance companies tends to be a scam.

Yup yup ..hyuck... hyuck...Look cletus , dont be daft . Taking out insurance can save the govt , thus the public, a lot of money.

Insurance in practice is the art of spreading the risk to many policy holders and making a profit based on the amount of losses incurred, the losses incured in one year sets the premiums (plus mark-up) they charge next year so that Insurance Companies never really can loose money.

Really...hmmmm , I guess you know nothing about insurance then because that is patently false. Nice try , but your aim is way off.

Therefore when the government buys insurance with public money they are passing the losses back on the backs of the taxpayers since government insured losses get lumped together with private insurance losses setting the price for premiums the public pays.

So if the govt buys insurance explain to all of us how the "losses" come back to the taxpayer. Wouldn't the loss be paid thru the policy ergo NOT the public? Wow, shot yourself in the foot again huh?

There is no legitimate reason for government at any level to pay for and obtain insurance from a private company for anything.

It is just another public administratio orchastrated public scam.

How about these cases....

1) municipality/regional/federal govt buys excess liability insurance. One of the aforementioned gets sued for $20M and they lose . The insurance co coughs up above the threshold (likely in excess of 5 or 10M)So the govt saved at least $10M, minus the premium. Yes , talk about a scam trying to save taxpayers money.

2) Govt takes out policy to cover all the buildings they own. Lets look at Parliament Hill . Very expensive buildings architecturally and for security reasons. Pay a premium and get covered for damages and rebuilding.

Thats enough for you to see the truth, but I somehow doubt you will come in and admit it.

[August1991]

Government taking out insurance by paying private insurance companies tends to be a scam.

Do you have any evidence that a government in Canada buys insurance?

The federal government generally self-insures.

[geoffrey]

There is no legitimate reason for government at any level to pay for and obtain insurance from a private company for anything.

Gross generalisation and completely incorrect. Risk management is more complex than one liners. There are many instances when purchasing private insurance makes sense for large corporations or government.

Somethings you self-insure, somethings you don't.

Self insuring makes alot of sense in some instances with big organizations, but it doesn't always work.

[guyser]

Self insuring makes alot of sense in some instances with big organizations, but it doesn't always work.

And I bet the Govt would love to create a captive for there insurance.But because they are set up off shore, I doubt they ever will .

[iamcanadian2]

Government is never a business. Any government that claims to be a business... is a public scammer.

Government is a self imposed service to the Public that the public pays for by force. It is more akin to enslavement than a client - business arrangment. It can never be considered a business.

When insurance companies pay claims they pass on all the losses and make a profit by marking up the losses and pass them on the to public by way of higher premiums.

Government should never purchase insurance from a private corporation. Doing so they are scamming the taxpayers by lining the pockets of their friends and family in the Insurance Industry.

We the public already cover the losses government sustains by our taxes which go up in response to the expenses and the intentional waste and intentional mismanagement government adminitrators do to pilfer from the public purse.

Yes government takes out insurance and its usually used in the context of defrauding the public using insurance scams that cover the tracks of gross public frauds committed by public business officials so that they can get away scott free.

I can ellaborate on several such scams involving Insurance Companies as the "gettaway vehicle" for senior crooks with professional public employment.

[Wilber]

Whether it makes sense or not depends on the situation and level of government. Example, the RCMP doesn't insure its vehicles because they have determined that it is not cost effective to do so and they have all the taxpayers of Canada to pick up the liability. Our city does insure its police vehicles because they feel its pockets aren't so deep that they can accept that kind of liability.

Since when was insurance fraud been the sole province of government? It is not government that is insuring itself, it is government insuring its tax payers.

Individuals insure themselves, companies insure themselves, why shouldn't different levels of government insure its tax payers? Insurance companies don't write policies for governments because they are compelled to, they do it because they believe them to be an acceptable risk and the premiums will reflect that risk. As such, it is good business.

[iamcanadian2]

Let's look at the more blatant Fraud schenario involving public business officials:

The government insures directors and up with fidelity insurance against the individuals committing public fraud by pocketing the taxpayers money in any of the thousands of different ways that they habitually do so.

What is your opinion on this system? The concept being that if a public official holding public trust, betrays the public trust and scams a few million here and there alla Enron executive, a claim can be made on the insurer to reimburse the public money stolen.

This concept came about and evolved from the concept set up by Sir Alexander Gault in the 1800's to ensure the Canadian Railroad Barrons against their employees stealing the payroll and such that traveled across Canada by steam engines back then. This was adopted by Governments in Canada following the monopolies founded by Sir John A. McDonnald and the rest of the gangs from those days.

There are serious problems with this people are overlooking and the scams that have come about over the years are grotesque.

[August1991]

Government should never purchase insurance from a private corporation. Doing so they are scamming the taxpayers by lining the pockets of their friends and family in the Insurance Industry.

Do you have any evidence that governments buy such insurance?

iamcanadian2, you have made similar spurious claims in other threads:

It would seem prudent to me that our government would purchase insurance if it meant protecting taxpayers from unforseen disasters. I'm sure all their vehicles are insured and federally owned buildings, furniture, etc.

That's not true. The federal government does not have insurance because it self-insures and assumes the risk itself.

iamcanadian2 is attempting to make an issue out of something that is not an issue.

[geoffrey]

August, it seems like iamcanadian2 is discussion the government carrying director liability coverage, not insurance on assets. I haven't dealt with insurance from a government perspective before, but I have little doubt that they carry some coverage there.

--

Let's look at the more blatant Fraud schenario involving public business officials:

The government insures directors and up with fidelity insurance against the individuals committing public fraud by pocketing the taxpayers money in any of the thousands of different ways that they habitually do so.

You mean fuduciary insurance? Or a fidelity bond? A fidelity bond does not protect the director committing a fraudulent action, it protects the company (or government) from losses caused by the actions of that individual if they are not solvent enough to repay damages.

I know when I'm in a position to move into an executive or director spot in an organization, I'm going to make damn sure they have millions in fuduciary coverage on my ass. I, nor anyone in a situation to take on such a position, would be stupid to accept that liability without coverage.

The government requires such coverage for their senior beaureucrats, no one would take the jobs without it.

That being said, there are some interesting legal concessions regarding government that legally limit liability of those at high levels. I wouldn't be suprised if they applied much lower coverage or no coverage at all in some situations due to this.

What is your opinion on this system? The concept being that if a public official holding public trust, betrays the public trust and scams a few million here and there alla Enron executive, a claim can be made on the insurer to reimburse the public money stolen.

Great. We get our money back. It's better than everything else being the same and us being a few million poorer.

This concept came about and evolved from the concept set up by Sir Alexander Gault in the 1800's to ensure the Canadian Railroad Barrons against their employees stealing the payroll and such that traveled across Canada by steam engines back then. This was adopted by Governments in Canada following the monopolies founded by Sir John A. McDonnald and the rest of the gangs from those days.

This isn't a Canadian thing. It's an everywhere thing.

There are serious problems with this people are overlooking and the scams that have come about over the years are grotesque.

I strongly disagree. You have very little education or experience in dealing with professional/fudicial liability and I suggest you study it in far greater detail before reaching conclusions.

If your really interested in having a higher level of beaureucratic responsibility, you'd be encouraging something productive like holding deputy ministers to the ICFR (internal control over financial reporting) standards required in private sector MD&A disclosures as of this year. Essientially, not only do the CEO and CFO of a private organization need to sign off on the financial statements of the venture, but also submit in their MD&A an outline of their financial controls, tests of these controls and the success of their controls. Any weakness must be declared and a solution suggested and implemented.

An outline if you want to read up on this is provided in the CICA publication from September 2006 Internal Control 2006: The Next Wave of Certification. I can't find a link to it at this time, unfortunately, but see if you can find it. In the meantime, here is two great links on certification:

http://www.cica.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/35208/l...ument/1/re_id/0

http://www.cica.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/35356/l...ument/1/re_id/0

[guyser]

Government is never a business. Any government that claims to be a business... is a public scammer.

blah blah blah......ad naseum.

With each post you show us exactly what you dont know. Like in that other post to you, put up or shut up.

Simple really.

[Wilber]

The government insures directors and up with fidelity insurance against the individuals committing public fraud by pocketing the taxpayers money in any of the thousands of different ways that they habitually do so.

I don't see what you are getting at. All government officials are crooks therefore tax payers shouldn't be able to insure against their crimes?

[Mad_Michael]

Government taking out insurance by paying private insurance companies tends to be a scam.

Insurance in practice is the art of spreading the risk to many policy holders and making a profit based on the amount of losses incurred, the losses incured in one year sets the premiums (plus mark-up) they charge next year so that Insurance Companies never really can loose money.

Therefore when the government buys insurance with public money they are passing the losses back on the backs of the taxpayers since government insured losses get lumped together with private insurance losses setting the price for premiums the public pays.

There is no legitimate reason for government at any level to pay for and obtain insurance from a private company for anything.

It is just another public administratio orchastrated public scam.

Can you give us an example of a specific government entity buying a such of insurance?

[iamcanadian2]

Can you give us an example of a specific government entity buying a such of insurance?

The only one that does not that we have seen is Federal Government which tends to self-insure as matter of standard practice.

[guyser]

Can you give us an example of a specific government entity buying a such of insurance?

The only one that does not that we have seen is Federal Government which tends to self-insure as matter of standard practice.

IOW..... you have no idea .

[Mad_Michael]

I can certainly think of a dozen good reasons or situations where it might be financially prudent for a government or government body to purchase private sector-provided insurance products.

I'd get a bit annoyed if the Federal government were using derivatives-like products to protect themselves against currency or interest rate fluctuations, but short of that, I don't see anything wrong with a government buying private sector insurance products for legitimate purposes in the interest of the citizenry.

[iamcanadian2]

I can see that there are more than a few people here spreading false government propaganda in the guise of legitimate opinions. Governments buying insurance is always a SCAM on the citizens and never good for or in the interest of the citizens.

It is only in the interest of public business officials so they can defer the risk of loss back onto the citizens and can relly on using the regular taxes in their self-interests.

But more importantly insuring government officials against their own wanton pilfering is done to permit them to pilfer with impunity knowing that when (if) they get caught the insurance company will pay what they stole rather than to have to pay the money they stole back.

This is the biggest of the two kinds of public scams that insurance companies help facilitate in return for their share of the profit from the pilfering.

[Wilber]

But more importantly insuring government officials against their own wanton pilfering is done to permit them to pilfer with impunity knowing that when (if) they get caught the insurance company will pay what they stole rather than to have to pay the money they stole back.

What you are speaking of is a crime. If you have evidence, give it to the police, otherwise it is just unsubstantiated slander.

[guyser]

Round four...here we go.

I can see that there are more than a few people here spreading false government propaganda in the guise of legitimate opinions.

You "might" think you are right....but in fact YOU are the one spreading falsehoods.

Governments buying insurance is always a SCAM on the citizens and never good for or in the interest of the citizens.

How so.?

It is only in the interest of public business officials so they can defer the risk of loss back onto the citizens and can relly on using the regular taxes in their self-interests.

Can I have this one in english please?

But more importantly insuring government officials against their own wanton pilfering is done to permit them to pilfer with impunity knowing that when (if) they get caught the insurance company will pay what they stole rather than to have to pay the money they stole back.

Gee Beav....thats called stealing. And and and didja know Beav that stealing is a punishable offense?

Gee Wally I did not know that.

Hey Beav, check this out, the policy will only pay if the problem is identified as "theft" and the person handling that account is charged with theft .

This is the biggest of the two kinds of public scams that insurance companies help facilitate in return for their share of the profit from the pilfering.

Which is the first and ...while we are at it, what is the second. Details please?

Oh, and as I mentioned, round four....put up or shut up.

No opinions please, just tell us the proof you rely on for your position.

[iamcanadian2]

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)

[guyser]

This is a public opinion forum and everyone is entittled to legitimate opinions. I give mine but get illigitimate responses without any contrary opinions.

As a "hypothetical" example...

You are right, it is an opinion forum, but when you post more than an opinion you will be asked to back it up.

Why "hypothetical" s now? You speak with such "authority" on the subject, claiming this and that, scam this ,rip off that one would think you have examples.

Alas, you dont.

Why not start every post of yours with ..." HYpothetically ........blah blah etc. "

You made outrageous claims in another thread about judges and lawyers, and again, nothing to back yourself up, and now this thread -same thing.

[iamcanadian2]

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...)

[guyser]

The above scenario set the stage for the intentional waste through mock mismanagement:

Is everyone still following? Any clarifications required to this point? (to be continued...)

So now you are talking about "intentional waste?" You "were" talking about stealing.

Looking forward to seeing where the goal lines are moved next.

[iamcanadian2]

So now you are talking about "intentional waste?" You "were" talking about stealing.

Looking forward to seeing where the goal lines are moved next.

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.

[geoffrey]

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.

He's pulling a Polynewb... read a few internet articles and your a risk management expert.

I'm very interested in hearing the rest of your example though.