~ Insurance ~

[Jeanway 0]

It's ALL a BIG Scam :yes: :shifty3: :kwasny:

[fenriz275 0]

Tell me about it. If you actually use your insurance and file a claim they either cancel your policy or raise your rates through the roof. All I get it for is for that stupid little yet expensive card I have to have to get my tags renewed for my car. Which I hate in the first place. That scrap heap knows if it gives me any trouble I'll push it into the river.

[nik 0]

I have a friend who's a lawyer, and he says that a general practice for many insurance companies is to cancel claims regardless of whether or not it's covered in the policy. They do this simply becuase few people actually check their policy to see if it's really covered. I was ALWAYS on the phone with my last health provider informing them of

their own policy because they were doing this with me.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

I like what Chris Rock says about insurance. "Instead of calling it insurance they should just call it in-case-(I'm trying to say a bad word but can't). You buy the service in case (I'm trying to say a bad word but can't) happens."

 

"Now if (I'm trying to say a bad word but can't) don't happen, shouldn't I get my money back?"

Edited November 4, 2004 by lt_van_roy

[Jeanway 0]

Hmm, Why does the word "Bilk" come to mind??? Hmmm???

[A l t e r E g o 9]

 

Actually we're pretty happy with our (car) insurance so far. Since we didn't have one for so long (since before Insur became mandotory) our records were spotless, that in turn lead to a very low cost policy which has been going down every year.

 

Our poor son though, (new driver) he got it in the rear big-time; his yearly cost is nearly triple ours.

[ddillard 2]

When it comes to car insurance I believe that if it is going to be mandatory for a person to have it, then they should regulate the cost of it. The problem currently is that because you have to have it, they can get away with charging you pretty much whatever they want.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

What insurance does is it spreads risk out over time. A car accident can be devastating financially because you are hit with a bunch of expenses all at once. Insurance lets you pay these expenses over time, albeit you have to start paying before actually getting into the accident.

 

Insurers make their money in essence by charging a finance fee for the consumer's ability to spread the risk over time. You can do the same thing without needing a company to do it for you, plus you can earn interest on the money you store away for such incidents. The problem is most people won't, which is why certain types of insurance are mandatory.

[ddillard 2]

I completely understand the purpose and the need for insurance, don't get me wrong. I just believe that there should be some regulation especially on auto insurance to prevent the companies from charging extremely inflated rates. It gets to a point that alot of people cannot get insurance with the cheaper companies, because they are selective on who they insure, and the companies that will ensure anyone charge through the nose.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

California actually has an Insurance Commissioner as part of our Executive Branch (the other members of the Executive branch being the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General, and possibly the Controller so it is pretty high up there) for just that reason. His sole function is to regulate insurance within and throughout the state of California. Not sure what other states have.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Lt. Van Roy

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Well, I think Jeanway was mainly talking health insurance but it really applies to all.

 

I have to differ with LVR's definition - you're not really spreading your risk over time because many people never have claims. What you do when you purchase insurance is pay someone else to assume your risk of loss for you. Ex. if your home has a replacement cost of $300,000 and you don't carry insurance that means every year - year end and year out you bear the risk of having a $300,000 loss. If you purchase insurance you may pay someone $1000 to assume that risk for you. Those who don't understand insurance think that if there is no loss you should get that money back but insurance is a contract and you paid someone $1000 to accept a risk of $300000 - its intangible but you did purchase something

 

There are many an economist, actuarian etc gainfully employed in calculating risk potential, for homes autos etc. All risk is not equal - someone once said every location is at risk but that isn't true. People on the beach have a higher risk of hurriance damage that someone inland. People who live more than a certain # of miles from a fire station or a certain # of feet from a hydrant are at a greater risk of fire than someone living across the street from a hydrant.

 

Some factors are unfair and IMO unrelated to your actual risk - example: if you're single and poor - no matter how honest you are - you pay more than someone who is wealthy and married - at least for auto. But I also get tickled when people start complaining about their auto rates and I see accidents, claims, tickets etc. on their history Okay, here's the deal you're paying someone to assume your risk - if you go out of your way to increase your riskiness you're going to pay more. The minimum required auto insurance in Florida is very low - and people who just want to buy the minimum requirements are scary - people here in Florida buy brand new Cadillacs and Mercedes etc and pay cash - you cause an accident and total one of these cars your little $10,000 state minimum isn't going very far.

 

Insurance is a regulated industry in Florida we have an insurance commissioner - he made a stir a couple of months ago when he yanked Allstate's license; companies do have to submit their rates to the commission before they can raise them - apparently Allstate didn't provide the required documentation in a timely manner. This is where the vast army of actuarians come in - they model and calculate risk, exposure etc and decide if the rates are appropriate. Some rate increase requests have been rejected

 

Which brings us to the next point - Florida has an insurance nightmare in the homeowner's market. LVR surely you're not promoting government regulation of industry? Our governor has regulated nearly every major national insurer out of the state. I don't know if a state has ever declared bankruptcy before but if we get hit by a big one this year Florida just might. The state insurer has a few billion in exposure and a few million in assets - everything beyond that will come as assessments to the taxpayer. So people get to pay less for insurance - it's just with a company that got licensed last year instead of 80 years ago.

[ddillard 2]

I agree that those that have increased their risk by getting tickets and such should pay higher premiums. I am not one of those people, as a matter of fact I was pulled over last week for speeding, (only a few miles over) and the officer let me go without a ticket because he noted that it had been over seven years since I received any warnings or citations. And for the record the only reason I was speeding was because I was on a road where I had never been before and did not see the sign.

 

One thing that I do see as unfair that is kinda related is the SR-22 (proof of insurance filings) that are required in Ohio for some reasons. A good example is my roommate. He had purchased a vehicle, which he insured. Then he determined that there were issues he could not deal with so he returned it to the dealership and cancelled the insurance. He then received a mailing from the state requiring him to show proof of insurance on a certain date (after he had returned the car). He did not really know what to do and by the time he was able to reach someone to tell him his options the letter he had to write arrived to late and his license was suspended for failure to provide proof of insurance, on a vehicle he did not own. After the suspension he was required to provide an SR-22 (proof of insurance) to get his license back and had to continue to provide proof for three years or his license would again be revoked. You may be thinking no big deal, but one problem he does not own a car. There is SR-22 insurance but the policy would have cost him about $300 a month just to keep his license for the few times that he drives someone else's vehicle each year, but the kicker is that insurance does not cover him if he is in an accident in someone else's vehicle, that would fall to the owners car insurance. So therefore as an alternative I carry him on my insurance, which raises my rates, which is fine. I just do not believe that they should be able to make it a condition that a person show proof of Insurance when they do not own a vehicle, and only keep their license as ID and so that they can drive other people's vehicles if needed, in his case primarily as a designated driver.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

d - I think you should write and call your state representative andhave him/her look into this - that doesn't sound right - I seriously wonder if your roommate got a hold of someone who didn't know what they were doing. Otherwise you live in a seriously messed up state.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

LVR surely you're not promoting government regulation of industry?

 

Of course not. I was, however, pointing out that insurance is more regulated than many people think it is. And you are correct, you are spreading risk not just across time but across individuals. I just thought that level of detail would be lost on some here.

[ddillard 2]

d - I think you should write and call your state representative andhave him/her look into this - that doesn't sound right - I seriously wonder if your roommate got a hold of someone who didn't know what they were doing. Otherwise you live in a seriously messed up state.

 

Ohio, is a seriously messed up state. But they do send out random mailings that require you to send in proof that you were insured on a certain date for a vehicle that they show in their records that you have registered. It is very hard to get many of the state run departments on the phone to ask questions, it usually involves alot of voicemails before you get a living person. In this case he had offered to hand deliver the letter since we live in the capital and the due date was very close but was told that he could not. Well the letter arrived a few days after the deadline so since it was not there he was considered guilty of not providing proof of insurance.