Subject:
|
MOB (was Re: Fan Thank You Letter)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:16:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1359 times
|
| |
|
|
MOB (was Re: Fan Thank You Letter)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> His insurance pays, but that money has to come from somewhere. SO insurance
> premiums go up, so we, who use insurance, pay more, so we have to make more
> from our jobs. So whatever company we work for has to make more money
> selling what they sell, so those prices go up. So, in the end, the consumer
> (all of us) have to pay more for *everything*.
Consider this:
He doesn't BUY insurance. No one does. There is no insurance to be had.
The cost is not spread. No one cares whether I ride a motorcycle with a
helmet or not -- it's MY OWN BUSINESS.
When did my business become everyone else's business too? And is it everyone
else's business or is that a mere pretense?
Insurance is good business -- for the insurance companies! But is it good
business for everyone else? Probably not...
See, here is the thing: you are fearful of a loss so you buy insurance, but
the insurance company is basically betting that the loss will not occur --
they collect more than they pay out. And we know they WILL collect because
many kinds of insurance are contract-based in mortgages and loans, and even
when they are not contractual you are forced to buy the insurance by law
(like car liability insurance). And there is no end in sight. Insurance is
not a very well regulated business. It's pretty much like banking -- they
are allowed to make almost as much as the market will tolerate, and
apparently we will tolerate quite a lot because they tend to make record
breaking profits with each new year that passes. While the cost of doing
business is spread amongst the insured, why isn't the insurance company
taking at least some loss in profits? At some point it is no longer
reasonable for costs to simply go up and up...
As it stands you will pay more for everything regardless of theft because in
many ways you are forced to buy the insurance. I think your scenario only
becomes a consideration if insurance somehow becomes some kind of VERY
streamlined tontine where monies are collected and paid out, and the
liabilities are spread out amongst the participants but no profit is made.
Then if the monies paid out are causing the price to increase we might
conceivably worry about the causes.
At this point, I am more worried about the insurance companies' need for
profit than I am that certain activities are actually causing an increase in
prices.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a brief anecdote that shows how crazed insurance companies can be
and how some people are employed just to keep anyone from actually
benefiting from insurance no matter how appropriate their claim. [And this
is also why I am against tort reform -- don't be too sure that people are
actually filing thousands of frivolous claims. Winning a case often takes
years and preparation and actually going to court is a huge pain in the ass.
And unless you are retired you will lose time from work and it is unlikely
that you will be compensated for all or even any of it).
My father was at a stoplight behind a UPS truck. Suddenly the UPS starts to
back up on him, but he has nowhere to go having another car behind him. The
UPS truck travels backwards until the truck is resting on top of the hood of
my dad's old Thunderbird having crushed and dented the hood, the front
fenders, and possibly certain parts of the engine and mounts (the car runs
though). The cost of repair was estimated at more than $2K and for the age
of my dad's car that means it's pretty close to a total loss (the price of
repair approaches the blue book value of the vehicle). EXCEPT that the car
was cherry -- tricked out and kept in tune in all the ways imaginable. My
dad merely wants UPS to put the car back into the exact condition that it
was in before the accident occurred -- HE LIKES THIS CAR! UPS is covered so
they tell my dad to contact the insurer.
The insurer tells my dad that he must accept the price that they will set
(far less than blue book, they have their own estimates of value) and total
the car. My dad rejects this and asserts that he has the right to be fully
and adequately compensated for the loss. The insurer claims that my father
is obligated to accept their offer, that it's the law (N.B. never take legal
advice from cops, insurers, large companies, and other people out to screw
you or that obviously don't know ****). These negotiations go on for a few
weeks and they keep vacillating on whether they will simply pay the cost of
repairs or insist on a low ball figure for totalling the car.
My father's point the whole time is that he doesn't have a contract with the
insurer, UPS does. He doesn't have to accept what the insurer is offering,
he can just sue UPS directly for the damages. He is just dealing directly
with the insurer as an expedient to settling the matter. He asserts to them
on several occasions that they are wasting money arguing the point with him
and should just cover the costs of repairs. He also asserts that there is
no way it is worth it for them to go to court over the matter as they will
quickly incur attorney's fees that exceed the value in dispute. My father,
by contrast, is retired and more than willing to waste time in a courtroom
if they insist on doing so.
All he wants for them to do it to fix his car and put him where he was
before the accident occurred.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: MOB (was Re: Fan Thank You Letter)
|
| (...) Regulations differ greatly from country to country. It is my understandment that US Workers' Compensation insurance is very well regulated; the carrier is not allowed to make any price increases beyond those to account for inflation. In (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: MOB (was Re: Fan Thank You Letter)
|
| (...) A nit. Technically this is not true. They actually typically collect LESS than they pay out. (but only by a little) You can read quite a bit more about this topic here: (URL) particular see: (URL) in particular particular, the section headed (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fan Thank You Letter
|
| (...) Oh my tirade is not directed at anyone here at all. I have agreed with these posts. Few things get my blood pressure up and this is one of them, so if I come across as yelling, my bad. Yes I stand on a soap box every once in a while. I'm not (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
