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

iamcanadian2 · March 25, 2007

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 ...)

geoffrey · March 25, 2007

I really don't see where your trying to go with this one? Continue on, please.

guyser · March 25, 2007

Good thing that you brought this up. Intentional Waste IS stealing. It's FRAUD. FRAUD is stealing.

It is ?

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.

I will answer that question once I know where you are going with this. So far you have not broached anything remotely close to theft. But we knew that when you started.

Oh please ....do go on, I look forward to reading the thrilling last chapter of this fiction work.

iamcanadian2 · March 25, 2007

Oh please ....do go on, I look forward to reading the thrilling last chapter of this fiction work.

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.

guyser · March 25, 2007

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.

Oh...so this is a scenario now is it? I thought we would get factual cases , you know like you said occurs "all the time" But thats okay, scenario or not .

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.

As of now, lets accept all as normal routine.

I assure you we are following along quite fine. Please continue.

iamcanadian2 · March 26, 2007

As of now, lets accept all as normal routine.
I assure you we are following along quite fine. Please continue.

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.

iamcanadian2 · March 26, 2007

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.

guyser · March 26, 2007

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.

I am pretty sure there are a couple of people who are following along . Please , dont let your fans down, we want to hear the rest of this.

iamcanadian2 · March 28, 2007

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.

guyser · March 28, 2007

Looks like here we are showing Canada to be the home of the preverbial OSTRICH.
The OSTRICH should be the national animal of Canada.

Beaver is much more exotic.

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.

Thats it? This is all you have for us? Come on man, we have been waiting for this trilogy for two whole days now.

Finish your explanation.Dont disappoint the masses.

And I am no doubting thomas , I can assure you.

iamcanadian2 · March 28, 2007

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.

guyser · March 29, 2007

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.

I must tell you that is not the way the forum works. You put up what you want to write about and then you get the interest.

People , well other than me, wont ask you nicely to post. They would rather just read it and comment.

But that aside, I hope you continue.

iamcanadian2 · March 29, 2007

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.

Mad_Michael · March 29, 2007

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.

Lots of pompus and self-important drivel so far, but I've tried to be kind by not replying until you were finished and actually said something meaningful. But now that you are throwing it around rather thick, I figured I'd pipe in.

BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE!

iamcanadian2 · March 30, 2007

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

geoffrey · March 30, 2007

Please continue, I'm dying to tear your theory to peices.

iamcanadian2 · March 30, 2007

Please continue, I'm dying to tear your theory to peices.

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.

Hydraboss · March 30, 2007

Please stop using big words. I'm having trouble following along.

iamcanadian2 · March 30, 2007

Please stop using big words. I'm having trouble following along.

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

geoffrey · March 31, 2007

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.

Well I can't until I hear the full story. Sheesh.

iamcanadian2 · March 31, 2007

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.

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?

geoffrey · March 31, 2007

I tend not to argue points until the other side has made their case. I'd like to see what you have to say first. Why would I risk making a fool of myself before that?

iamcanadian2 · April 1, 2007

I tend not to argue points until the other side has made their case. I'd like to see what you have to say first. Why would I risk making a fool of myself before that?

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)

geoffrey · April 1, 2007

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.

Hardly typical, but I'll admit it does vaguely like that at times. Have much government contracting (from either side of the process) have you done to consider yourself so knowledgable to make such a claim without any verifiable backup?

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.

You have no knowledge then of the topic. This is not normal practice. And the practice isn't illicit even if it were happening, so what are you on about?

So your in favour of eliminating budgets and just winging it?

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.

Oh, we're on the same page, I'm following you quite clearly. Please finish instead of dragging this out needlessly.

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)

Tie down the loose ends by finishing your story.

iamcanadian2 · April 1, 2007

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.