Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Requiring that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers is a pretty reasonable guideline. Now if the school board or state wants to pay a higher premium to get coverage, I'm sure an insurance company would obliged them. However, that would be an admission that putting guns in the hands of poorly trained teachers and administrators is increasing risk, yet the purpose of the law is to reduce risk. This make no sense.In the Insurance Business, there is no such thing as "Too Risky".
There is only an 'inadequate premium'.
They're trying to learn how to rate this new risk. There is no history, no claims history on which to base their premium charge. Whole new breed of cat
And if the Insurance Commissioner disagrees with what they want to charge, He/She can step in and slam-dunk the Ins Company.
Easier to just walk away. I don't blame them.
"We've been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers," said Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development. "Our guidelines have not recently changed."
Here, have fun arguing with the quotes and tell them they didn't really mean what they said
You don't get it because you don't WANT to get it.
This is a new kind of animal. How could a responsible Insurance Executive say something like that when there is no history -- None -- Of School District arming Teachers and Custodians.
An intelligent reporter, or even a half-intelligent reader, would arrive at that conclusion without someone having to shove it up your ass.
There is no track record of arming Teachers. None. How can an Insurance Company rate something they have no experience, no claims experience, with?
I try to help out, I try to explain the real world and you just shift into stupid and rev it up until you get to hyper-stupid.
What other kind of 'Armed Security' has there ever been in Schools?
Scary Witches at Halloween?
Once they establish that the numbers are in their favor they'll start writing policies otherwise other insurers will fill that void.
As someone who has spent the last 40 years working for or with insurance companies, it isn't going to happen. If the schools initiate a valid training and qualifying program, maybe. But what school district has a few extra million to spend on that?
Requiring that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers is a pretty reasonable guideline. Now if the school board or state wants to pay a higher premium to get coverage, I'm sure an insurance company would obliged them. However, that would be an admission that putting guns in the hands of poorly trained teachers and administrators is increasing risk, yet the purpose of the law is to reduce risk. This make no sense.Here, have fun arguing with the quotes and tell them they didn't really mean what they said
You don't get it because you don't WANT to get it.
This is a new kind of animal. How could a responsible Insurance Executive say something like that when there is no history -- None -- Of School District arming Teachers and Custodians.
An intelligent reporter, or even a half-intelligent reader, would arrive at that conclusion without someone having to shove it up your ass.
There is no track record of arming Teachers. None. How can an Insurance Company rate something they have no experience, no claims experience, with?
I try to help out, I try to explain the real world and you just shift into stupid and rev it up until you get to hyper-stupid.
What other kind of 'Armed Security' has there ever been in Schools?
Scary Witches at Halloween?
True. And they are trained. Now let us take that fact and apply it to thousands of untrained and unprepared people and put them in the middle of a bunch of kids. Sound like a good idea?
If thats training, they need to look at thier methods again.
Find me a CCW who injured all sorts of bystanders with some spray and pray, and you may have a point to stand on.
You think it would be an improvement if they just didn't train them at all? All of this is irrelevant. The added risk of allowing untrained school employees to go armed is going to make a school system uninsurable, which has already been demonstrated. The reasons are obvious.
If thats training, they need to look at thier methods again.
Find me a CCW who injured all sorts of bystanders with some spray and pray, and you may have a point to stand on.
You think it would be an improvement if they just didn't train them at all? All of this is irrelevant. The added risk of allowing untrained school employees to go armed is going to make a school system uninsurable, which has already been demonstrated. The reasons are obvious.
Can you find an incident where an armed employee at a school caused an incident? The risk is unknown.
I honestly think this is a political move. A business move would have been to at least give them a premium cost, even if it was an order of magnitude higher.
Except they do know what to make of this: Too Risky
You think it would be an improvement if they just didn't train them at all? All of this is irrelevant. The added risk of allowing untrained school employees to go armed is going to make a school system uninsurable, which has already been demonstrated. The reasons are obvious.
Can you find an incident where an armed employee at a school caused an incident? The risk is unknown.
I honestly think this is a political move. A business move would have been to at least give them a premium cost, even if it was an order of magnitude higher.
Of course you do...when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail
Except they do know what to make of this: Too Risky
They don't have enough data for their risk analyses assessments.
Except they do know what to make of this: Too Risky
Can you find an incident where an armed employee at a school caused an incident? The risk is unknown.
I honestly think this is a political move. A business move would have been to at least give them a premium cost, even if it was an order of magnitude higher.
Of course you do...when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail
And you will gleefully ignore an overt political move if it forwards your agenda and gives even then veneer of a legitimate reason.
Its funny that people who bash insurance companies with regularity all of a sudden find them to be paragons of truth when their action furthers thier own cause.
Kansas law thrusts Iowa insurer into gun debate
The EMC Insurance Cos. insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts and has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law, which took effect July 1. It's not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said.
"We've been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers," said Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development. "Our guidelines have not recently changed."
They obviously hate America...or something
Insurance is all about risk and about pricing the cost of coverage in a way that correctly reflects it. That's one of the reasons many schools have gotten rid of their trampolines, he said.
"It's one thing to have a trained peace officer with a gun in school; it's a completely different situation when you have a custodian or a teacher with a gun," Skow said. "That changes the risk of insuring a school and magnifies it considerably."
snip
While a trampoline can hurt one person, modern weapons have the potential to kill many people very quickly, he said
Well, that went downhill quickly
Of course you do...when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail
And you will gleefully ignore an overt political move if it forwards your agenda and gives even then veneer of a legitimate reason.
Its funny that people who bash insurance companies with regularity all of a sudden find them to be paragons of truth when their action furthers thier own cause.
I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you. You've resorted to just saying things that don't apply to anyone
Of course you do...when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail
And you will gleefully ignore an overt political move if it forwards your agenda and gives even then veneer of a legitimate reason.
Its funny that people who bash insurance companies with regularity all of a sudden find them to be paragons of truth when their action furthers thier own cause.
I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you. You've resorted to just saying things that don't apply to anyone
It's a business decision that they are FREE to make. Best thing about capitalism is there is COMPETITION. I guarantee a competitor will jump in and pick up the schools that EMC drops. Watch the 85% drop down sharply! Eventually when they got down to under 50% they will reassess if the decision was worth it!
Kansas law thrusts Iowa insurer into gun debate
The EMC Insurance Cos. insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts and has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law, which took effect July 1. It's not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said.
"We've been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers," said Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development. "Our guidelines have not recently changed."
They obviously hate America...or something
Insurance is all about risk and about pricing the cost of coverage in a way that correctly reflects it. That's one of the reasons many schools have gotten rid of their trampolines, he said.
"It's one thing to have a trained peace officer with a gun in school; it's a completely different situation when you have a custodian or a teacher with a gun," Skow said. "That changes the risk of insuring a school and magnifies it considerably."
snip
While a trampoline can hurt one person, modern weapons have the potential to kill many people very quickly, he said
Well, that went downhill quickly
And you will gleefully ignore an overt political move if it forwards your agenda and gives even then veneer of a legitimate reason.
Its funny that people who bash insurance companies with regularity all of a sudden find them to be paragons of truth when their action furthers thier own cause.
I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you. You've resorted to just saying things that don't apply to anyone
In his defense, he's no different than 90% of the other brain dead "conservatives" who don't know how to look at a situation and form an original opinion without someone telling them what to think.
I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you. You've resorted to just saying things that don't apply to anyone
In his defense, he's no different than 90% of the other brain dead "conservatives" who don't know how to look at a situation and form an original opinion without someone telling them what to think.
Coming from a progress-0-bot that is fucking hilarious. If you ever had an original thought it would probably cause an anyurism.
In his defense, he's no different than 90% of the other brain dead "conservatives" who don't know how to look at a situation and form an original opinion without someone telling them what to think.
Coming from a progress-0-bot that is fucking hilarious. If you ever had an original thought it would probably cause an anyurism.
Good one! Love the spelling of aneurism by the way. Really shows me how wrong I was!
The school districts should invite bids from other insurance companies.
