Insurance or where you live (in the world) would be of no benefit if
that goes off:
Geologists say its way past due to blow its top.
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
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?
Here's some of my work:
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
It's a big problem, but just part of the Florida landscape.
Here's a couple articles that show how complex it is.
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.
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?
Smokers should pay more.. (Serious answer)
Smoking is a choice, same as living in a beach front house. Or below
Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and
intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.
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...
This is an almost inevitable result of employer-based insurance
system that evolved out of WWII.
I don't know. I have, however, long advocated a reinsurance pool. It
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
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
Thus the self-employed has the problem of the latter above that I raised
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
But the elderly are largely out of the general pool and are members
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.
Not really. The surcharge would be first of all for private groups
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.
Very much so. They don't charge for insurance they don't provide.
I have always suggested that was a really dumb stat and I stand by
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
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.
On 5/28/2012 1:56 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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.
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.