Insurers force change on police departments long resistant to it

[Truth in love]

If insurers cannot dictate conduct of the insured,
& the insured can get cheap rates even when
they commit crimes that cost the insurer, that's
even scarier, ie, total impunity for bad cops.

Cops are government.

That's a highly unrealistic worst case scenario.
But what you propose is a total disconnect between
rates & what the insured does.
There must be accountability for behavior of the insured.
If they are reckless on the job, they should pay more.
They might even make it so no one wants to provide
them with insurance. Cops need to take responsibility
for their actions, & clean up their act.

No I’m suggesting that big guys (gov and business) micromanaging is bad.

again I’m not saying the reforms are it needed, but if an insurer wants your board of directors to be more female do you comply? Where are the limits on what they can force?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The city and state both have the power.(guts may be a different issue).

but this practice if continued could put the banks really in charge. That’s a nightmare on par with a bad AI and killer robots.

Looks like business as usual for insurance.

 

[Revoltingest]

No I’m suggesting that big guys (gov and business) micromanaging is bad.

again I’m not saying the reforms are it needed, but if an insurer wants your board of directors to be more female do you comply? Where are the limits on what they can force?

Businesses need to make money.
If an insurance company has a customer who costs
more than they pay in premiums, then the insurer
must either raise rates, ditch the customer, or
require that the customer generate less risk.
How could it possibly be otherwise?

The issue is cops behaving so egregiously that
they're losing big lawsuits, & costing the insurance
companies too much money. This isn't about
having females on a company's board.

If you don't like your insurance company's terms,
don't buy insurance from them. If they give you
a better deal if you meet their standards, that's
worth considering.

I've bought a lot of insurance of different kinds.
I've shopped for the best deal. I've taken steps
to meet their requirements. This is good.

 

[Truth in love]

Businesses need to make money.
If an insurance company has a customer who costs
more than they pay in premiums, then the insurer
must either raise rates, ditch the customer, or
require that the customer generate less risk.
How could it possibly be otherwise?

The issue is cops behaving so egregiously that
they're losing big lawsuits, & costing the insurance
companies too much money. This isn't about
having females on a company's board.

I agree they need to be able to make money. But if they said we don’t want to insure any home in “that part of town” they be hammered for it.

So where is the line between running a business and taking over our lives?

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree they need to be able to make money. But if they said we don’t want to insure any home in “that part of town” they be hammered for it.

Suppose you live in a flood plain. And that 100 year
flood happens every few years. If you don't pay
premiums high enuf to justify the risk, then tell me
why they should continue insuring your home?

So where is the line between running a business and taking over our lives?

Do you think requiring cops to be better trained,
& to commit fewer crimes against civilians is
"taking over our lives"?
They sell liability insurance for cops. Cops are
creating massive liability claims. It makes
perfect sense for insurers to say "Clean up
your act, or we'll increase your premiums, or
perhaps even refuse to insure you."
This is very very good for society & business.

 

[Truth in love]

Suppose you live in a flood plain. And that 100 year
flood happens every few years. If you don't pay
premiums high enuf to justify the risk, then tell me
why they should continue insuring your home?

Do you think requiring cops to be better trained,
& to commit fewer crimes against civilians is
"taking over our lives"?
They sell liability insurance for cops. Cops are
creating massive liability claims. It makes
perfect sense for insurers to say "Clean up
your act, or we'll increase your premiums, or
perhaps even refuse to insure you."
This is very very good for society & business.

I’ve said this half a dozen times. Cop reform is needed. Having insurance set policy for five is a problem

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If a law says “must have insurance” and all the insurance guys get together and threaten no coverage unless. They write the laws.

No, they write the conditions and set the price for the insurance. They rarely refuse insurance, but the price reflects the risk. As do the conditions. When they do refuse insurance it's because the risk has become a certainty and is uninsurable. Insurance is business like any other , it must be profitable to be viable.

You can not force some one to do business with you.

Insurance companies can not afford to limit their business by having a political agenda.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No I’m suggesting that big guys (gov and business) micromanaging is bad.

again I’m not saying the reforms are it needed, but if an insurer wants your board of directors to be more female do you comply? Where are the limits on what they can force?

Insurance companies do not involve them in such things. They make commercial decisions based on profit.

It is up to you whether you accept their business terms or not.
Either party can walk away.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The city and state both have the power.(guts may be a different issue).

States sometimes, but often not cities.

In a lot of places, the city has little or no ability to direct police. They can't impose policies, fire staff, or require that the budget be allocated some particular way.

In these places, the only mechanism of control that a city has over its police department is to set the total budget amount.

This is why "defund the police" is a thing: a city may not be able to directly fire an officer whose illegal actions keep getting the police department sued or order the police force not to buy a tank, but the city can reduce the overall police budget so that the police department won't be able to afford those lawsuit settlements or tank maintenance without cuts to core functions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I’m suggesting that big guys (gov and business) micromanaging is bad.

Psst: the police are government.

again I’m not saying the reforms are it needed, but if an insurer wants your board of directors to be more female do you comply? Where are the limits on what they can force?

The limits are the market.

If one insurance company won't insure you without meeting some criteria that don't have anything to do with how much profit the company will make, other insurance companies will happily swoop in, underbid the original company, and grab that profit for themselves.

OTOH, no profit-motivated insurance company will offer a police department a policy that will cause the company to lose money on the deal.

Even non-profit arrangements like risk pools and self-insurance still have to break even over the long run.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’ve said this half a dozen times. Cop reform is needed. Having insurance set policy for five is a problem

Insurance requirements are the solution.
It's very useful to have market forces keep
government from authoritarian thuggery.

 

[Truth in love]

No, they write the conditions and set the price for the insurance. They rarely refuse insurance, but the price reflects the risk. As do the conditions. When they do refuse insurance it's because the risk has become a certainty and is uninsurable. Insurance is business like any other , it must be profitable to be viable.

You can not force some one to do business with you.

Insurance companies can not afford to limit their business by having a political agenda.

Right which is why we have such a diverse market for home mortgages. And federal laws requiring insurance companies and other to do business in very specific ways.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is terrifying. Not the one case, but the power being used here.

If private and public organizations are beholden to the edicts of insurance then law and policy can be set by them not the government.

It might have some good days, but such a power should not exist. It will lead to the big banks controlling everything.

FYI: the OP story is an example of the opposite of "big banks controlling everything."

The insurance company in the story is a risk pool: IOW, a group of cities, police departments, etc., all got together and formed their own private insurance company that they all jointly own and control.

So in this case, it's other cities effectively saying "you're costing us too much; shape up or we're kicking you out of our club."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a law says “must have insurance” and all the insurance guys get together and threaten no coverage unless. They write the laws.

Laws that require insurance generally still allow self-insurance.

If a city has the cash to do it, they can just set aside a reserve fund with enough money to cover expected claims and that's their insurance. This is pretty common even for medium-sized cities.

... so even when the law says you must have insurance, if you have the resources of a city, you can still refuse to deal with insurance companies.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Right which is why we have such a diverse market for home mortgages. And federal laws requiring insurance companies and other to do business in very specific ways.

All financial services are heavily regulated in the USA and also in other countries. Insurance is very much a world wide market. Mortgages are a different prospect and differ very much country by country. In the UK there is no direct link between a mortgage and house insurance. It is a free choice. A mortgage company can not link the sale to a particular insurance company. Though they might try.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is pretty daft to insure any risk that you could easily cover out of income.
While it is wise to insure a house, if you own a few of them why would you bother, unless the premium was very low.
Individual household possessions are rarely worth insuring.
Third party insurance is almost always cost effective.

 

[Truth in love]

All financial services are heavily regulated in the USA and also in other countries. Insurance is very much a world wide market. Mortgages are a different prospect and differ very much country by country. In the UK there is no direct link between a mortgage and house insurance. It is a free choice. A mortgage company can not link the sale to a particular insurance company. Though they might try.

So I find I want to force you to do or not do whatever my whim is and you get to comply our you can’t have insurance. It’s like a shadow government in the making.

Again such power might start of doing good, but things rarely stay that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

All financial services are heavily regulated in the USA and also in other countries. Insurance is very much a world wide market. Mortgages are a different prospect and differ very much country by country. In the UK there is no direct link between a mortgage and house insurance. It is a free choice. A mortgage company can not link the sale to a particular insurance company. Though they might try.

Here, it makes sense for a lender to require
that a borrower be properly insured. This
protects both parties in case of a big loss that
the borrower cannot otherwise recover from.

If government made it illegal to require insurance,
this would increase the lender's risk & costs,
thereby causing rates to increase.

 

[Revoltingest]

So I find I want to force you to do or not do whatever my whim is...

You keep making it about insurance companies
doing bizarre irrational things on mere "whim".
This is a common liberal justification to call for
having government micro-mange everything
a business does.
You don't want to be one of those people.
If something ain't broke, don't let government fix it.

 

[Truth in love]

You keep making it about insurance companies
doing bizarre irrational things on mere "whim".
This is a common liberal justification to call for
having government micro-mange everything
a business does.
You don't want to be one of those people.
If something ain't broke, don't let government fix it.

LOL you are suggestion I'm taking a liberal stance. That's rich.