Taking away American choice and infringing on peoples right to freedom

Right now the government is subsidizing the corn farm industry for this and yes if they take away the subsidies then it will reduce this.. however I do think we need to help the produce farmers of fruits and vegetables and that hasn't been done yet. Small local farmers just can't compete. Anyone watch the documentary "weight of the nation"? Talks about all of this. But I still believe you don't take peoples right to choose away. That is part of our freedoms.. being able to have choice. Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

how about some roof top gardening?

I could argue we don’t subsidize them, we pay the same rates as they do. But it doesn’t really matter. Profits are up for insurance providers. Insurance companies have their tables. When was the last time an insurance company failed to make a profit? I’m not talking about the companies that branched out into other endeavors such as mortgages, etc. Even a Katrina evens out because 50 year and 100 year events are figured in. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Actually insurance companies are in business of loosing money these days.

Latest S&P reports indicate that property/casualty Combined Ratio for 2011 is estimated to be 107.5%.

Combined ratio takes into consideration both investment income and underwriting profits. Well, words "underwriting profit" is pretty much an oxymoron these days. Not a single underwriting profit was recorded in the 25 years from 1979 through 2003. None. Companies operated at loss offsetting these losses by income from investing premium dollars.

In the eight years from 2004 through 2011 industry wrote profitable business only three years!

Each state has its own Insurance department that dictates to insurers how much they can raise premiums for next year based on last year's losses. So as a company you can tell to the state that you need to raise premiums 3 percent to stay profitable and they are fully capable of telling you to go pound salt. So they continue to operate at underwriting loss hoping to make it up on investment side.

Lina

Why not let the market handle this, and get the government out of subsidizing food, or issuing ridiculous regulations?

Then, let the insurance companies bear the risk and charge accordingly.

Then you people will say that health care must be free and pre-existing conditions be covered, but God help you if you're fat or you smoke! Then tough shit, brother!

Why not let the market handle this, and get the government out of subsidizing food, or issuing ridiculous regulations?

Then, let the insurance companies bear the risk and charge accordingly.

Then you people will say that health care must be free and pre-existing conditions be covered, but God help you if you're fat or you smoke! Then tough shit, brother! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Fortunately or unfortunately insurance industry is regulated "in interests of general public". Or at least that is the answer given by state departments.

This is the only industry where insolvent bankrupt company can actually remain operating for years while it is in liquidation by the state.

Lina

Really? Effective when?

Lina Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

I may have misspoke, I can't find anywhere that this bill actually passed the state legislature. I was under the impression it was law but maybe someone up there came to their senses. But here it is/was, in all its glory

http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/0...ented-grub-7d5

S 399-BBB. PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR
OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARATION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT, INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAURANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.

WHENEVER THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION HAS OCCURRED, THE COURT MAY IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH VIOLATION. EACH USE OF SALT IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE VIOLATION.

Followup, I did jump the gun on that one. The assembyman who proposed this backed off after figuring out that is career as a politician was going to be pretty short-lived pushing for that one.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/b...37iqerKvEqqc9K

Assemblymember Felix Ortiz backed off his controversial anti-salt stance to a more moderate anti-shaker, pro-recipe position, according to a recent press release put out by his office.
“My intention for this legislation was to prohibit the use of salt as an additive to meals,” Ortiz (D-Sunset Park) said. “If salt is a functional component of the recipe, by all means, it should be included.”

His sudden change of heart is obvious — the dogged assemblyman hopes that softening his bill will convince voters he is, well, worth his salt.

Damn idiot.

Followup, I did jump the gun on that one. The assembyman who proposed this backed off after figuring out that is career as a politician was going to be pretty short-lived pushing for that one.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/b...37iqerKvEqqc9K Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I wonder how he missed sugar and pepper?

Next thing you know they will be telling us we have to have medical insurance or be fined.

Hell if you are going to allow the government to control certain aspects of your life you may as well get used to them controlling ALL aspects of your life.l

You people that are constantly running to the government to do for you things you should do for yourself will get a lot more than you ever expected. Suffer bitches.