Contractors’ Insurance In Iraq

This story from the Raleigh News & Observer on taxpayers’ costs for underwriting what is essentially workers comp insurance for contractors employed overseas, including in war zones, is interesting and well-written, but can’t make up its mind what it wants to criticize.  Is it that the market is unregulated, or that an insurance monopoly exists?  It appears significant cost savings could be found by introducing more competitive bidding for the insurance contracts, but the story impliedly criticizes the fact that contractors are doing the work rather than the military.  From a purely economic  standpoint, does anyone think the military would be any cheaper? 

1 Comment

Filed under Industry Developments

One Response to Contractors’ Insurance In Iraq

  1. Gregory Sosbee

    I have direct involvement in this process, and this is a mess. No one involved in the process wants more military involved. They need to be doing things other than guarding people and private concoys. (All the things the Iraqi’s should be doing for their own reconstruction.)
    However the rule is DBA basically for all Americans or companies working in Iraq. No one wants to provide the cover, and one cannot really blame them. This leads to the high premiums.