California earthquake insurance?

Page 4 of 5  


Should those who have chronic illnesses pay more? They use more.

So is going without insurance.

So you approve of Big Brother.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2012 1:55 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz 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.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I said, I'll mark you down in the "approve of big brother" column (no surprise, really).
But you're against "actuarially-based rates" otherwise. Others must be forced to pay for your illness. Nice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2012 3:30 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz 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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't really have an issue with that. Employees are welcome to work elsewhere. I *do* have an issue if the government tells the insurance company that's the way they have to operate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2012 2:30 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz 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.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why do you snip so close?

Because you're telling the insurance company (or employer) how they have to set their rates.

What gives you the power to dictate the pools?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2012 6:12 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Why not? What's the point of repeating more than the minimum to keep context (particularly when it appears to be a two-way conversation)?
...

What gives them the power to dictate the pools any more so?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because it *kills* context.
...

I am not. Let the insurance companies be insurance companies. I want fewer regulations, not more. That's why we're in the mess we're in now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

The same as any other business to conform their prices or their customers to their own liking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:55:03 -0400, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2012 3:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: ...

Type I, ok. Type II, maybe "not so much". Lifestyle there may be the primary if not only causative event aiui.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 stabilize you.

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fix the problem, don't destroy the patient curing the disease.

*YOU* are dictating the insurance pools. That *is* being big brother.

If you have diabetes you will cost more. Why should the other members of your "pool" have to pay for it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:15:21 -0400, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

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

You're telling people how insurance should be run. If you weren't, you'd let them figure it out. Hint: they have, at least where government hasn't stopped them.

...unless you have your way and there is no "elsewhere" because you busybody HOA types have added even more regulations to the insurance industry

The purpose of the pool is to share risk across like risk/premium classes. Insurance companies already know how to do this. They don't need your help figuring it out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmmmm..seems like someone doesn't quite understand the concept of true insurance and mistakes the taxpayers' wallet for an insurance fund.
cheers Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2012 5:31 PM, Frank J Warner wrote: ...

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

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.
cheers Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/26/2012 9:29 AM, Frank J Warner wrote:

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

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.