Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mercury Spill

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 374 posts

Re: Mercury Spill

#201

Post by zaroth »

tadfisher wrote: post #173
ekianjo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the point of buying insurance then Unfortunately, just like for many things, government makes it mandatory to buy insurance for many of your properties. So the scam can go on and on forever.

Which government requires insurance on a private home? Mortgage lenders make homeowner's insurance a condition of the loan to protect their assets. I've never heard of a state requirement for homeowner's insurance. I'm in the US, though. Might be different elsewhere.

Who are these "mortgage lenders" you speak of? It's all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and they set the underwriting requirements which include property insurance.

[1] - https://www.fanniemae.com/content/guide/selling/b7/3/02.html

Re: Mercury Spill

#202

Post by gnopgnip »

irixusr wrote: post #135
chimeracoder wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She finally did find a new insurer, but the price has gone way up -- negating her original claims. This isn't a scam at all. That's exactly what you'd expect from insurance. Insurance isn't there to save you money. In fact, the expected value of an insurance plan is always going to be negative on an infinite time horizon[0]. The whole point of an insurance plan is to smooth risk : instead of the small possibility o…

I hate to agree because what the insurance company did is nasty. But you're right. Which is why I'm skeptical of the AMA requirements to cover certain recurrent health services (annual checkups, contraception). If they're unavoidable than its not insurance!

Its about the total cost accounting. Many types of insurance offer discounted, or even free services for things that lower your total risk. You get a break on home insurance for having an alarm system. Car insurance will replace the windshield for free if it is chipped. It is cheaper for them in the long run to replace the glass and have people driving with an unobstructed view. Yearly checkups for some insurance plans will actually pay you to go.

Re: Mercury Spill

#203

Post by zaroth »

danieltillett wrote: post #155
cortesoft wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pretty sure that insurance companies know this. I bet that they have data showing that, even in cases where it seems like the cause of a claim was outside a person's control, that person is still more likely to make a second claim than someone who has never made a claim.

I would think so too, but I would not be surprised if there is some sort of industry wide collusion to not try and change the situation. The key is separating out the risks that are truly higher from those that are not. If they are applying this as a blanket policy on all claimants it suggests that collusion is the culprit.

Properly rating a potential customer seems to me like the key metric for these companies and if I can find a way to better qualify risk and therefore offer lower prices to truly less risky customers that equals profit. So I'm pretty sure there is very strong competition in this area and insurance companies will do absolutely everything they can to ascertain the risk of each individual customer and price a policy accordingly.

Re: Mercury Spill

#204

Post by gnopgnip »

existencebox wrote: post #45
ccvannorman wrote: post #14

It may have cost you $50,000 but you now have +50 karma on HN and rising. Some would say a bargain! ;-] In all seriousness, cool story, glad you're okay, and this makes me think "insurance" as a business needs to be re-thought entirely. How many times has it happened that insurance companies weasel out of paying? Objectively you might think THAT was their primary job.

I'll throw my hat in the ring. Recently had a car totaled when getting it shipped cross country. Apparently because it was an "Act of god" (a hailstorm, with what looks like fist-sized-rock-hail in that every piece of glass and most trim on the car had holes in it, although I'd argue the insurance was for the idiot driver who didn't pull over or cover his load.) the insurance company refused to do squat. The car was…

Why would your insurance cover negligence of someone transporting your car? Ask for them to pay for the repairs, or sue them if they refuse.

Re: Mercury Spill

#206

Post by vixen99 »

brianpan wrote: post #193
mirimir wrote: post #122

That's arguably overkill for domestic contamination by elemental and inorganic mercury. Even that family in that contaminated house was probably at far greater risk from methylmercury[0] in predatory fish. So cutting predatory fish from the diet would have arguably been more cost effective. But it's hard to say. CDC[1] is more nuanced on the topic than EPA[2]. And I do tend to trust CDC. [0] http://toxics.usgs.gov/de…

They have a 1.5 year-old that undoubtably puts everything in his/her mouth. Even the CDC factsheet says the impact of low levels of exposure is unknown. And we're not talking about the milligrams in a CFL bulb, a speck of mercury. This was cups of mercury.

Impact unknown! Meanwhile many American dentists install mercury amalgam (about 50% Hg) in tooth cavities inches from the brain where it will sit for years on end. How can anyone support this with a straight face. The response is something like 'yes,we know mercury is a devastating neurotoxin but it's tightly bound in the amalgam and there is no proven statistical relationship to say it's dangerous'.

Re: Mercury Spill

#207

Post by mirimir »

brianpan wrote: post #193
mirimir wrote: post #122

That's arguably overkill for domestic contamination by elemental and inorganic mercury. Even that family in that contaminated house was probably at far greater risk from methylmercury[0] in predatory fish. So cutting predatory fish from the diet would have arguably been more cost effective. But it's hard to say. CDC[1] is more nuanced on the topic than EPA[2]. And I do tend to trust CDC. [0] http://toxics.usgs.gov/de…

They have a 1.5 year-old that undoubtably puts everything in his/her mouth. Even the CDC factsheet says the impact of low levels of exposure is unknown. And we're not talking about the milligrams in a CFL bulb, a speck of mercury. This was cups of mercury.

I do get that. Still, what I get from the article is that the owners were manipulated into throwing far too much money at the problem. We could have much the same discussion about asbestos, lead paint, etc. One key issue is removal vs encapsulation.

Re: Mercury Spill

#208

Post by piyushpr134 »

newjersey wrote: post #38
cjbprime wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't realize that mercury spills are such a huge issue until recently. As the post mentions, the world at large didn't realize that vapors from mercury spills are toxic until recently.

Um, someone (not saying I) may or may not have played with mercury from a broken thermometer as a child. Is that person (not necessarily I) a walking health hazard? How does this work?

I think this mercury scare is overrated. I have played with thermometer mercury many times as a child. I used to break thermometer to get the mercury out and play with it as it was very interesting liquid! Am still well and alive after 20-25 years.

Re: Mercury Spill

#209

Post by tadfisher »

zaroth wrote: post #201
tadfisher wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which government requires insurance on a private home? Mortgage lenders make homeowner's insurance a condition of the loan to protect their assets. I've never heard of a state requirement for homeowner's insurance. I'm in the US, though. Might be different elsewhere.

Who are these "mortgage lenders" you speak of? It's all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and they set the underwriting requirements which include property insurance. [1] - https://www.fanniemae.com/content/guide/selling/b7/3/02.html

OK, fine; I am speaking of those entities who originate and collect payment on a home loan. You pointed me to a government-sponsored enterprise that places an insurance stipulation in the terms of its voluntary contract with lenders who wish to guarantee or pass-through their loans.

Granted, almost no one will originate a subprime loan these days, because everyone in the private-label MBS business got out or was bailed out, so the best this example shows is a de facto standard set by the guarantor of last resort.

Re: Mercury Spill

#210

Post by TeMPOraL »

togusa wrote: post #199
ekianjo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case of large scale catastrophic events, insurance companies cover shit, though. It only works if you are the rare case and if you meet all the criteria marked in the fine prints that the insurance agent is careful never to explain.

Exactly this. I've worked with insurers and the first step to any claim is working out the cost of fighting the claim versus paying up. I wrote part of the system for managing estimates. You're only going to win easily if the claim value is cheaper than their lawyers fees.

So we can't really trust even in insurance for big things?

Fuck it. Who can we trust with anything nowadays?

Post reply on HN