On 5/28/2012 1:55 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Actuarially-based rates owing to behavior reflect the realities of the
resulting consequences (on a statistical basis, not individual outcome)
and it's actually more nearly reflecting personal responsibility to
shoulder the additional burden for that choice.
On 5/28/2012 3:30 PM, email@example.com wrote:
And that's changing fast.
The F100 corp I slave for is charging the smokers an extra $750/yr for
medical insurance and the rumor is they're going after the drinkers
next. Should be amusing when they roll that one out. The drunks will be
crying like the smokers were 15 years ago. LOL!
On 5/28/2012 2:30 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I don't see how it follows--it's the other way 'round to pony up imo.
How do you get that? That's what I am for; the issue is
selection/culling on the underwriters' side to choose pools that are
cherry-picking the healthy preferentially.
Consider it as a shared benefit; some early pain by the young would be
recouped later on as their rates wouldn't be as high as they will
eventually be when they get shoved into those same high-risk pools.
On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:55:03 -0400, " email@example.com"
Yes, get sick you have no benefits. OTOH, the ER cannot refuse you so
the rest of us pay. Send them away!
Not at all. Just as under 25 drivers and drivers with many points pay
more, smokers and others that choose (note: I said "choose") to be
high risk should pay more. It is a simple actuarial setup.
Have diabetes? You did not choose to be, so yes, part of my premium
goes to your treatment.
The ER can refuse you if you are not in active labor or have a life or
limb-threatening problem. For instance they can street you with cancer,
etc. Even then, their only responsibility under federal law is to
Obesity is a choice and the fastest growing reason for T2 diabetes.
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:15:21 -0400, " firstname.lastname@example.org"
I'm not dictating anything. Don't buy that insurance if you don't
like the setup, go elsewhere to get what you want. That is the beauty
of a capitalist society.
That is the deal when you sign up. Take it or go elsewhere.
Depends on how the pool is determined and what qualifies. My
contention the if you CHOOSE to partake in risky behavior, you should
be willing to pay more or change your behavior.
The purpose of a pool is to share risk and pay for the problems that
happen. None of us choose to come down with a serious disease, but
when it happens, we agree to use the funds from premiums to pay for
it. Could be you, could be me. We don't know that ahead of time.
Once you are in, you are in. Shared risk.
A) +1 w/ the observation that it isn't so much "can't" as it is "can't
at single-loss actuarial rates".
B) They're not "hedging a bet" they're adjusting the odds to reflect
actual risk for widespread events. If "you end up owing the casino"
there's no benefit--they're bankrupt and all you've got is the return of
what assets there were which clearly wouldn't have been sufficient to
cover the losses or they wouldn't have the problem...
In reality, the spate of hurricanes the precipitated the insurance
problems in the SE US was a result of them not adequately addressing the
first point above. As hard as it is to believe they could be so
oblivious to the realities, actuarial rates had been set on very similar
models as those used for individual homes and had not adequately
addressed the "common-mode failure" factor of large-scale events and the
exponential growth in total value in the coastal regions over a period
It's a reflection of changing to meet the real risk and higher potential
payouts that are the root cause. It's not clear to me whether the state
mandates help or hurt more in terms of actual coverages offered--I tend
to think likely it's counterproductive in that companies will simply
choose to not accept the risk rather than face excessive regulatory burdens.
There's severe weather here but it's much more isolated in general altho
when a large metro area gets a direct hit like Joplin did last year it
can add up pretty good. Still, it doesn't cover anything like the area
nor have the tremendous flood damage potential of a major hurricane.
So, rates here aren't terribly affected by the tornado risk.
Did you happen to miss the details of the Northridge e/q and its
impact on the insurance industry?
Your general location, specific lot characteristics and details of
your house along with your financial situation will determine if e/q
insurance makes sense.
If one examines the effects of Long Beach, Sylmar, Whitter,
Northrdige, Landers e/q's and relates them to a specific property,
one can quickly see if e/q insurance is worth the premium.
A lot of folks are leaving Californiastan for other parts. It sounds
like another bale of hay was just dropped on the camel's back. Heck,
I wonder if there are any states that are free from natural disasters? o_O
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.