Just blame your problem on global warming as a reason to jack up your rates and stick it to the consumer. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11685714/
I read an article a couple of weeks back that stated that the frequency of hurricanes in recent years is unchanged; however the intensity has increased significantly: something like double the number of category 5s, for example. Now if this is true, then the risk of damage is clearly increased. In which case it makes sense to jack up premiums. That's business, as they say. Rather than get the shits with a company that's responding to the problem, better to get the shits with the bodies responsible for allowing the problem. Demanding that Bush ratify the Kyoto Protocol would be as good a place as any to start.
So a company loses money offering a product at a lower price. So they raise the price, fearing that at current prices they could lose that money again. Yeah, that has to be a liberal conspiracy or something.
Actually you are both correct to an extent. They have every right to jack their premiums in order to cover losses. Looks like they still did quite well in spite of Buffets failed bet against the Dollar that nearly cost a billion. That has to lend some speculation as to his motive. Kyoto would be a catastrophe for America. I am all for clean environment however. Trust me if Greenpeace was not so radical and based there philosophy on hard scientific facts instead of junk science I would be a card carrying member. My biggest pet peeve is water pollution.
I'm more inclined to think your biggest pet peave is "liberals". Greenpeace isn't that bad. Balance is not attained by pulling from the middle. Balance is attained by an equal weight on both sides. If there were no equally radical groups working to limit pollution laws then Greenpeace would fall right off the fringe. You don't really see anyone acknowledging the Earth Liberation Front, now do you?
Actually, while I am definitely a fiscal conservative. On social issues I'm all over the board and tend to lean liberal. This exactly the reason I call myself a Libertarian. I tend to speak out against the personality cult exploited and propagated by an extreme liberal media. But that has nothing to do with Greenpeace. I am for environmental conservation when approached from a reasonable perspective. Truly weather you believe me or not back in 91 when I was getting out of the military and considering what to do next. As an adrenalin junkie I did some neat stuff and wanted to keep it going I saw Green peace as a possible option. But I opted out in the end after deciding that they were to radical and off base.
To scary for me Xerx Kyoto problem in a nutshell summed up here. http://www.abetterearth.org/article.php/632.html
