Date:         Mon, 02 Oct 1995 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         "Maher, Steve (SD-MS)" <SMAHER@PO2.GI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Insurance Industry Regu


>   2)  I have noticed a couple of folks have addressed this topic of 
Insurance
>Industry Regulations and attributed statements to me as included below. 
 This
>is not accurate.  My comments addressed the insurance company I deal with,
>USAA, which is an alternative for current, retired, and former military
>officers (USAA "members").  They are the only population served by this
>company, and it's financial objectives are to serve it's members, not to
>maximize or for that matter even generate profit beyond what is necessary 
to
>operate the company and serve it's members.  If losses/claims are below
>projections, each member is rebated a prorated share of the excess.
>
>--------------------------------------
>[Harvey's correction, the text attributed to me immediatly following was my
>repeating what some other  individual said, and that I had included to 
provide
>context for my own comments about USAA.]
>
>
>On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Harvey Chao wrote:
>
>>                       RE>>Insurance Industry Regulation (was... 
     9/28/95
>>
>> In other words, insurance co's are profit-making institutions, as any 
legit
>> business must be. But > like you've described.
>>
>> Any chance that government restrictions before the election, were so 
severe,
>> that even legit, clean companies could only lose money? I have no info


I am the one who said the above.

Sorry, Harvey-- I wasn't aware of a non-profit institution doing private
insurance. All the insurance companies I have dealt with, or heard of,
have been for-profit companies.

Now I know that there is at least one that isn't, with a restricted 
clientele.
I stand corrected.

 -Steve Maher   smaher@gi.com   '71 VW Transporter