Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News AIG, Not Exactly The good hands people

  1. Apr 20, 2009 #1

    I did not realize that the no bid contracts KBR received also came with taxpayer funded insurance policies on their workers. The primary insurance company is apparently AIG.

    This was also on ABC's 20/20

    This is totally disgusting in light of the bail out money AIG received.

    Edit: here is a link to the 20/20 program.

  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2009 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The company has a duty to it's shareholders not to it's customers. The optimum strategy is to do evil to the point that the fines outweigh the savings.

    So the government is now the shareholder - anybody who objects to AIG stiffing vets is obviously anti-american.
  4. Apr 20, 2009 #3
    The bailout money AIG received was to cover derivatives exposure...their insurance division is generally considered viable.

    Private contractors in war zones are typically well compensated for their risk. I find it disturbing that tax payer money is used to fund their insurance in the first place.

    A short term war zone specific policy is a highly specialized insurance product. It's doubtful the policies could be priced adequately to provide high limit comprehensive (and long term) coverages.

    My best guess is the term "taxpayer funded" will be applicable for a long time for these men and women. It seems to me the private firms should have some liability in the care of their personnel as well.

    As for the government staffers that apparently negotiated the policies with the carriers...I hope they won't be involved in the future universal care negotiations.
  5. Apr 21, 2009 #4
    AIG has been accused of overcharging on the premiums they recieved for worker coverage in Iraq.

    I find it more than coincidence that an insurance company who had the influence to get what was essestially a no bid contract to provide insurace in Iraq, also had the influence to get the government to jump in immediately with bail out money.


    Why did they deny claims when they were being reimbusred by the government for payouts on those claims? Did they deny the workers, yet collect the money from the government anyway??

    KBR didn't complain about the overcharges, the army did.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aJhLICr7Z7to&refer=us [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. Apr 21, 2009 #5
    It's possible the claims aren't covered by the policies...whether morally right or wrong. If AIG over-paid claims they might be accused of wasting tax payer money as well...it's potentially a no win situation.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Apr 21, 2009 #6
    Any insurance company that tries to rip off its own employees (by trying to avoid paying them after the fact what they previously agreed to, ie retention bonuses) cannot ever be trusted.

    They should be bankrupted by a concerted effort to spread the word that they can't be trusted to provide insurance, and lose all their customers, not be bailed out with dirty money stolen from Americans.
  8. Apr 21, 2009 #7
    Didn't the Obama administration and Congress decide paying the bonuses was a bad idea...I seem to remember the CEO being grilled on TV by Barney Frank and associates?
  9. Apr 21, 2009 #8
    Yes Barney Frank is a real stand up guy who represents the people real well. Anytime he sees mis-management or wrongdoing he is always there to stop it. Oh, wait...
  10. Apr 22, 2009 #9
    Yeah, we have a President and congressmen that encouraged AIG to not honor the contracts that legally required them to pay the bonuses. Dishonest elected officials, big surprise!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook