California earthquake insurance?

Page 2 of 5  
On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:39:07 -0700, Frank J Warner

I'm with you there. But at least you don't have the Democrats (well, in NC, there are some tokens, from New York).

Crawfish are yummy. The Mississippi doesn't cover the whole state. Rednecks are mostly good people. Sure beat Kalifornika lefties.

Daddy, what's a Nor'wester? Noreasters aren't a big deal.

Your bigotry is showing.

Well, you have a point there.

You're going to hell!

I guess I'm in good company.

What's not to like!

There's no prostitution in Californica? Gee, what were those bimbos (or whatever) doing in SF who wanted to show me a good time? I was *sure* there was a pay for play angle going on there.

You sound a little racist, as well as full of other bigotry.

Wow! There's some (false) bigotry. Wallmart comes to us from Arkansas, BTW.

Cool. Both are great! Illinois sucks almost as badly as Californica, though.

Cool! Sounds like a plan! Though I think you're mistaken, again.

Yeah, too many Democrats in Eastern Pennsylvania, too.

More nonsense from Mr. Bigot.

You mean 30ft.

And birthplace of Obama. Gack! That puts it on par with Illinois!

Neat! Both would do a good job of keeping me warm!

No bikinis in Hawaii? I coulda sworn...
No, Californica is 163,695 sq mi of flat broke, with (yet another) governor who wants to double down and a legislature that's even worse. It's dead, Jim.

It's dead, Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You're in the shadow of Mt. Rainier. You probably have volcano insurance, too.

Not a good time to be living in the Yellowstone area.
-Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2012 6:21 PM, Frank J Warner wrote:

Insurance or where you live (in the world) would be of no benefit if that goes off:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/supervolcano.html
Geologists say its way past due to blow its top.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There you go.
Bottom line is that the insurance companies can't cover catastrophic losses. It's NOT like your house catches on fire and they have to build a new chateau for you and yours. That's small change for them (although your future premiums will skyrocket). They have to rebuild your entire block, your entire town, your entire region.
It's like a casino. They took the bet. They lost the bet. They should pay when they lose, even if you end up owning the casino when it's all over. Now they're hedging their bets because they like that cash machine.
The CEA is a specific example. $4 billion in assets and they've yet to pay out a single claim.
Where can I get a job like that?
-Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm in Florida - Tampa Bay area. There has not been a hurricane to hit this area in 90 years. When I moved here my first year the insurance was $325 a year.... last year it was almost $2000...with good old State Farm (who I had been with for 50 years) long before moving to Florida. Now I can only get insurance from one company -- its Citizens. Run by the state of Florida....and it's what everyone in my county has. There is a sinkhole problem in this state -- and it is very hard to get coverage for that. I am not covered....I would have been glad to pay for it but the agent said I probably wouldn't be able to get it. My neighbors all have the same problem. Most of us are senior citizens and our houses are paid for so we don't have to have insurance. Most of us do have it -- in addition to FEMA flood insurance -- because we are responsible adults and want to do everything to protect ourselves. But the price is high and is getting higher -- and our income isn't rising in proportion to the price of insurance. If we have a hurricane or sinkhole -- a lot of people will just move away and abandon their property. Won't have much choice. Its the world we live in. People in the mid-west have problems with tornadoes and still choose to live there. Its silly to say "they chose to live there so they should pay" .... what we should be doing is trying to find a reasonable response to these problems. The people in charge of regulating insurance need to find a better way to handle this and stop bending over backwards to protect the insurance companies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's a big problem, but just part of the Florida landscape. Here's a couple articles that show how complex it is. http://www.insuringflorida.org/articles/overview-of-florida-insurance-market.html http://corner.advisen.com/Florida.pdf
Maybe the problem is not thinking out of the box. What I thought when you described your problem was, one way to cut the premium in half is to cut the coverage in half. So you self-insure for half the value. I don't know how the insurance companies would look at this, because I don't know how they figure losses. It might mean on $50k of repairs you have to cough up $25k. Big hit, but there may be ways to offset that. The $25k from the insurance might be enough make the home habitable, and you can take your time fixing the rest of the damage, getting better prices. Sure, that could change your home life style for a while, but consider it a cost of "living in paradise." Even with a total loss, being paid half the loss will at least keep you off the streets. That's all only for those without a mortgage. There were a lot of people without insurance hurricane insurance after those big ones 6-8 years ago. My sister has a condo in Punta Gorda that got hit by Charley, and she went without hurricane insurance for a while after that. One mistake people make is insuring for too much, like the entire amount they paid for the house, or current market value. A big chunk of that is the value of the land, which is retained even if the house is blown away. Anyway, I've been thinking of eventually moving to Florida. Insurance will be a big consideration in my decision.
--
Vic

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

None of this affected you? Twenty years ago, Hurricane Andrew roared into South Florida as a category 5 storm. Its toll: 15 deaths directly from the hurricane, $30 billion in property damage, 250,000 left homeless, 82,000 businesses left damaged or destroyed. The stories below reflect on the changes that came out of this catastrophic event. We also wanted to take this time to remind you about Hurricane Charley, a storm that had been predicted to come ashore in Tampa Bay as a category 2 in 2004. Instead, it took a hard turn right and slammed into Punta Gorda as a Category 4 storm. The devastating storm caused 10 deaths in the United States and $14 billion in losses. Many in that area were caught unprepared, thinking the storm was going to hit Tampa Bay. And what if it had? Would you have been prepared?

Why is it silly? If you choose to live in a high risk area, why should I have to pay for your losses?
Are you willing to pay more for car insurance because teenagers cause a lot of accidents and they don't want to pay higher rates? Should we all pay the same?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about health insurance? (Serious question)
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Smokers should pay more.. (Serious answer)
Smoking is a choice, same as living in a beach front house. Or below sea level.
Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2012 8:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

The biggest problem in health insurance imo is the selective creation of pools that many are shut out of--like the self-employed, etc., that are forced into individual policies that prevent any benefit of pooling w/ a larger multi-age group of similar general health levels.
Here is where I think there should be some additional regulation that creates a general pool for the population as a whole rather than the present employer-based pools that skew the market.
The issue of voluntary "opt-out" by the young and relatively healthy is a problem as well--they tend to either not participate at all or to have very minimal coverage so they skew the system in two ways--they don't add much (relatively speaking) to the premium base and so when do have a major illness are added to the un-/under-insured pool essentially no differently than the indigent. 'Tis a quandary; I don't have a good answer on how to improve the maturity of the immature...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

system that evolved out of WWII.

is well established that really small numbers of people spend the overwhelming largest % of the money, with 5% of the population spending almost half of the money. I think it would make sense to have an extra surcharge on health insurance premiums to fund it. Then when a person hits a specific amount spent (which could vary based on the size of the group), their care would be paid for by the reinsurance fund. It is used in many area for Property and Casualty insurance for instance. The REAL problems with the small groups and individual insurance occurs when they have an expensive patient and few people to spread the costs around.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2012 1:05 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

Well, yes, I recognize that--the comment was on current situation owing tb demographics and employment patterns having evolved markedly since the 60's and that model doesn't fit an increasingly large fraction of the present population.

Possibly at least a partial solution although I still think the pools ought to be something like a state overall population or somesuch instead of simply a group of employees--after all, employees are for the most part the healthy sub-group since they are at least still employable (if perhaps not all productive :) ). Thus it is, in essence, cherry-picking the cream of the crop and leaving the rest to make up the problem cases.
Thus the self-employed has the problem of the latter above that I raised earlier.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And I think that the health insurance hooha was a very large driver of a lot of that as it became too expensive for many companies to afford.

Also, many are still employable, just aren't.

their ENTIRE private market as one group. That would help spread the risk and also help limit the Death Spiral.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes.
There are problems with that. Without the statistics, I can only speak in generalities. Much of that 5% are elderly and can least afford the surcharge. Since I'm getting closer to elderly every day, I'm well aware of it. In addition, in 2010 my wife's medical bills were about $150,000. Most covered by a good insurance policy. My employer could have chosen a less costly policy with less coverage and more expense to me.
We do have choices as to coverage. Since that time, we are both on Medicare and we both have the top supplement offered. To get that good coverage, we pay a higher premium than others. I guess we are paying that surcharge you speak of.

The company I work for has 17 employees. Of the 17, one is under 30, but seven of us are 60+. That is bad for the census that determines the rate. It may be a benefit though, that some of us are now out of the company plan and into Medicare.
Getting back to that 5% again. much of the money is spent near or at end of life. At some point, it is probably best to say "goodbye" rather than keep a poorly functioning body alive so family members can sit and watch it. In a few rare cases, the euthanasia advocates make sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

of that REALLY big group known as MCare. If the problems lasted much more than for 2010 and was a smaller group, they may very well have had to in order keep it affordable.

and not the government insurance. I am suggesting they have a big enough group to handle it. The surcharge would in addition to the premium, although it might come pretty close to evening out since the risk of the really big losses are being spread out over the entire population.

it. You are going to spend the most at the end of life because you (unless you are decapitated for die in similar fashion that means the EMTs don't transport you) are sickest at the end of your life. MCaid in Oregon actually has a policy that if you don't have a 5-year survival chance of at least a certain percentage, you don't get 3rd level cancer treatments. Whenever health or medical writers in Oregon have a slow news day and a hopped up editor, they find a person who has been denied some sort of lifesaving cancer treatment by MCaid and then got it from the Pharm Company and Take Outrage and Umbrage.. but more importantly take a few column inches. (grin).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is nothing stopping you from creating your own pool. The real problem is that those pools are limited to the states. You couldn't have members from the various states and have insurance companies compete for the business. In several states there is *very* little competition at all.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2012 1:56 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ...

You got the capitalization backing? Not a viable option.
If the pool were even state-wide it would be reasonably homogenous; the problem is they're not--they're split into relatively tiny pools the predominant one of which is those of various employers by definition essentially a healthy pool.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't be absurd. Buy from an insurance company.

Wow! What a short attention span.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that cost extra?

I would argue that we don't have health insurance any more and haven't since the demise of the old Major Medical policies, but that is a story for another day.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK on obesity, but pretty much anything else should be nixed. They are behavioral traits that you have some control over. Heart disease, blood disorders, and that sort of thing happens potentially to anyone and is just part of the pool. See my comment below.

Sure is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.