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

[geoffrey]

And this has what to do with insurance?

[iamcanadian2]

And this has what to do with insurance?

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.

[guyser]

Come on, get on with it. We want to see what you have to say.

I am still waiting on this one....

You said "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."

No sign of that yet.

And this....

"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"

This one intriques me too , look forward to seeing how this one plays out.....

"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."

Hope you can complete this sometime this spring.

[iamcanadian2]

I am still waiting on this one....

You said "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."

No sign of that yet.

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.

[guyser]

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.

Insurance companies can and do lose money, a ton of it in fact. Look at 2002 and 2003. Expected mark up is not used in basic rating.

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.

That I suspect is wrong, but the language is the hard part to understand. Mark up on losses??

Are we on the same page with this part?

Apparently not.

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.

Well now THAT is true, and comical, but yes you are correct , just not how you think.

But please do carry on. I am anxious to see the theft and how it evolves.

[geoffrey]

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.

Nah. You've got it all wrong. But I don't blame you, accounting for insurance companies is about as complex as it gets. COGS aren't assets ever though, just to let you know. Insurance companies don't write of policy losses like I'd write off a loss on the sale of an asset.

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.

That's like PolyNewb saying banks make money when people default on loans. Doesn't happen. An insurance company can easily lose money, they can go bankrupt.

[iamcanadian2]

That's like PolyNewb saying banks make money when people default on loans. Doesn't happen. An insurance company can easily lose money, they can go bankrupt.

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.

[geoffrey]

That's like PolyNewb saying banks make money when people default on loans. Doesn't happen. An insurance company can easily lose money, they can go bankrupt.

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.

Actually, my opinion isn't the 'general understanding' or the 'popular opinion'. I'm an accountant. I know a thing or two about insurance and risk. I've also worked on a few government contracts at the provincial and federal levels.

You seem to be misunderstanding a key point. Insuring directors from fraud protects the taxpayer (fudiciary insurance), not the director. The director still goes to jail. We just get our money back, where as without insurance, we get nothing.

I see insuring from director negligence/fraud as a prudent decision, especially for governments.

[iamcanadian2]

Actually, my opinion isn't the 'general understanding' or the 'popular opinion'. I'm an accountant. I know a thing or two about insurance and risk. I've also worked on a few government contracts at the provincial and federal levels.

You seem to be misunderstanding a key point. Insuring directors from fraud protects the taxpayer (fudiciary insurance), not the director. The director still goes to jail. We just get our money back, where as without insurance, we get nothing.

I see insuring from director negligence/fraud as a prudent decision, especially for governments.

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.

[guyser]

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.

Wow,that is so far from the truth it is amazing. And on that statement I truely do want to read more.

[geoffrey]

There's a bunch of Liberal ad men sitting in jail right now. Seems like this isn't as widespread as you think, nor is the reasoning behind purchasing such insurance fraudulent.

[iamcanadian2]

There's a bunch of Liberal ad men sitting in jail right now. Seems like this isn't as widespread as you think, nor is the reasoning behind purchasing such insurance fraudulent.

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.

[guyser]

I think...and of course this is only my opinion, I think that you have no discernable interest in debating this, nor in discussing the topic of insurance and taxpayer scams.

You do seem to want to vent about some unseen injury to yourself or someone close to you.

Why?

You have been asked about specific examples of corruption/fraudulence/scams......yet nothing comes of it.

So , I return to one of my first posts of this thread. Put up or shut up.....nicely said that is.

I was going to hold off on mentioning this, but frankly you have neither the information to back your claims up nor the gumption to see to it......

But go ahead if you must. But here is a little hint. I am an Insurance Broker , have been for quite some time now. I am sorry , you were going to say what then ?

Busted.

[guyser]

removed

[iamcanadian2]

I am an Insurance Broker , have been for quite some time now.

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.

[geoffrey]

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.

References? Citations? Something?

[iamcanadian2]

References? Citations? Something?

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.

[geoffrey]

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.

If it's so common, then find ONE business case or at least a newspaper article on this topic. I'm calling BS here.

(Correction on some fact... guyser is the insurance broker, I'm the accountant)

[guyser]

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.

Considering I do engage in Fidelity Bonds for clients, plus Performance Bonds, Completion Bonds, 3D Bonds etc etc .....yea I guess I am knowledgeable. An Expert?....compared to you, oh absolutely.

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.

Doubt all you want cupcake , my clients (gosh..they pay me) seem to think I am good.

Near monopoly huh? Lets look at this book on my desk titled 2007 General Insurance Register .Oh my, 412 pages of companies , and hmm.....at least 100 firms offering Bonds. Pretty close to a monopoly if you count 100 different firms as such.

Do you dable in providing insurance and bonds to government spending activities?

Nah...I dont dabble in it, I make my living in it

If so have you given many free home, cottage and auto insurance to public officials in return for paid government policies?

No, never. It has never been hinted at, it has never been brought up, it has never ever been what you think it is. Perhaps you are confusing a courtesy golf game as inducement.

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.

Not standard at all. We are so heavily regulated, as are the insurance companies, that it would be folly to do so.

Question all you want , I can take it.

Now, where are those examples of all these shenanigans you speak off? But then again, I did kind of expect you to switch gears when I posted what I did for a living.

As I said before....................... busted.

[iamcanadian2]

Now, where are those examples of all these shenanigans you speak off? But then again, I did kind of expect you to switch gears when I posted what I did for a living.

As I said before....................... busted.

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.

[iamcanadian2]

Back to the scenario that uses Fidelity Insurance on Public Business Officials to let them get away with pilfering and raping the public purse to the tune of MILLIONS of DOLLARS EACH Official Each YEAR.

BILLIONS are stolen in the 30 year CAREER of any one top public business official in Regional Government in Ontario alone.... That's thousands of MILLIONS each year.

[iamcanadian2]

How is this done? One might ask:

Very simply...

When a public business official is found pocketing millions of dollars habitually from his personal professional activities a claim for the losses is made against the insurance policy.

When a claim is made Insurance adjusters are dispatched to investigate.

When the loss is identified the insurance company pays the amount that was stolen and adds it to is losses for the year to be passed on in future years premium calculations. (like the way they raise your auto insurance by several times over what it cost to fix your car... so you pay for the repairs several times over after they pay for your repairs initially).

The taxpayers feel relieved that the amount pilfered from the tax coffers was returned... hoodwinked to the fact that they will pay several times over for the settlement they received in the first instance.

This is why private insurance products purchased by public business officials for the taxpayers is a scam. Not only are we raped initially by the unethical ginetic turd employed by the government to steal our money, his friends and relatives in monopoly procurement of insurance products will jump on after initially paying an amount to ram the taxpayers several times deeper for years to come.

It is a scam on top of all scams that get caught.

The best solution is to have no insurance products to government at any level and let the taxpayers cover losses, and seek return of pilfered monies from the culprits directly. Kind of like the war of drugs, size all assets of public officials and their families when they are suspected of having betrayed the public trust. In some countries they are excecuted when found to be pilfering. Siezing their world personal assest is much more benign and humane treatment than excecution... so I don't see why it should not apply to creatre accountability and integrity in public spending.

[Peter F]

So, let me get this straight;

I'm a genetic turd high-level functionary in the municipal public service. I pocket $500K over,say, 5 years by skimming off the top of various budgets that come under my control.

I am found out and accused by my genetic turd underlings and the insurance company investigates. The insurance company agrees that I have in fact stolen $500k.

So the insurance company fulfills the terms of thier agreement and pay the municipality $500k.

I am forced to resign but keep my $500k

Is that how you say it is working?

[iamcanadian2]

The insurance company agrees that I have in fact stolen $500k.

So the insurance company fulfills the terms of thier agreement and pay the municipality $500k.

I am forced to resign but keep my $500k

Is that how you say it is working?

You got the scam right but you have under estimated the amount that tends to be taken. $500K over five years would not easily be found out. It takes millions before anyone notices.

The Insurance Company will not necessarily agree that anyone specifically took the money. They will never the less agree to pay the amount that's gone missing under your care, if they want to as a supplier of insurance products to municipal organizations.

You will be asked to resign which you will do on terms that involve you getting another $500,000 in severance pay-out. You will also get a 30 day vacation to enjoy some of your gains, before you start yous new government job in some other municipality or level of government.

This is the rule rather than the exception. These scams are pervasive throughout the system. Pretty much every resignation is associated with million dollar level intentional mismanagement like this.

[geoffrey]

Mind you, he has no evidence or a single documented example of this. So I'd hardly say this is the rule.