[Rhodes22-list] Coastal Living - Insurance

[Brad Haslett]

Mike,

YES! Insure against the things you can't recover from without help!  When I
queried my insurance agent about his inability to insure me against
earthquakes, his response was, "the odds are so small".  Well, that's true,
but my wife has an advanced degree in geophysics paid for by the University
of Memphis which lured her away from the Beijing Seismological Institute,
but more importantly, if it ain't a risk, why wouldn't you just steal the
money from me for something that ain't gonna happen? BS.  They looked at the
risk and passed.  Life is full of risks and if you have half-a-brain, you
take the most risk you can afford and pocket the money.  The risk of losing
my home isn't the end of the world, but I'd like to have enough money to
forget all about the old neighborhood and what if might become (post
earthquake) and I'm willing to pay for that option.  They won't take the
other side of the bet, so they obviously see some risk there.

Health insurance for all is a different issue - the way the current debate
is being framed isn't about sharing risk, it is all about 'sharing'
outcomes.  Here's a novel idea: ask for health insurance from your employer
instead of income!  Income is taxed, most benefits aren't (we are assuming
you have or are seeking an employer). Everyone loves a tax as long as the
other guy has to pay for it.  If everyone who supports universal health care
would volunteer $300 per month to pay for the health care insurance of one
other person, the problem would be solved - overnight.  But no, they don't
want to pay for it, they want someone else to.  And you can put me in the
category of "my family comes first!" BTW, that 'other' person is the target
of the current wave of populist candidates.  That would pretty much be all
of them!

Brad


On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Michael D. Weisner <mweisner at ebsmed.com>
wrote:

> From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com> Monday, February 25, 2008
> 12:25 AM
> {clip}
> > As people discover that they, through the power of their vote, can
> > require insurance companies to pay damages for coverage that they were
> > not paid for, force them to do business where it is not economically
> > viable, force you and I to pay for health care for those that are too
> > unmotivated to find the means to do so themselves; I fear we are headed
> > down that path.
>
> This is nothin' new.  Just take a look at the rules for airline
> operations.
> In order to serve the lucrative markets, they are forced to run scheduled
> flights to markets that never earn money (not that I particularly agree
> with
> this regulation.)
>
> You know, it seems that when I learned 'bout insurance in school, the
> concept was that the risk was spread over a large pool.  The definition of
> insurance went something like this "Insurance - a system to protect
> persons
> against the risks of financial loss by transferring the risks to a large
> group who share the financial losses."  Providing insurance where it is
> "not
> economically viable" was balanced by providing coverage to those whose
> risk
> was much lower but wanted insurance anyway.  That's why insurance needs to
> be "sold" to folks.  Really good salesmen can sell coverages that most
> consider uneeded (100 year floods in dry regions.)  If insurance was only
> offered where there was very low risk, there would be no life insurance
> coverage for anyone over 30!
>
> Many of us coasties never get flooded and rarely experience disasterous
> wind
> or storm damage.  We purchase full homeowner coverages, albeit with a 5%
> deductible for storm related damage, at a reasonable rate.  We insure
> against losing everything, not to file a claim for a window broken during
> a
> storm.  People need to rethink why they buy insurance in the first place.
>
> Mike
> s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
> Nissequogue River, NY
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>