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

221–230 of 374 posts

Re: Mercury Spill

#221

Post by TeMPOraL »

chimeracoder wrote: post #109
hyperbovine wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The point of insurance is to pool risk . The expected value of insurance is not automatically negative. Look up the term "actuarially fair". Yes, there is moral hazard in insurance and it is sometimes necessary to exclude bad actors to prevent markets from unraveling, but to not to the extent which has become common in many sectors. Your whole post reads like an specious apology for bad behavior in the insuranc…

> The point of insurance is to pool risk. The point of insurance is to smooth risk, not to pool it. Pooling risk is not the point of insurance as a product; it's the mechanism by which that product (risk smoothing) becomes feasible as a business model. > Look up the term "actuarially fair". There's really no need to condescend by telling me to look up basic terminology; I am quite well-versed in this topic. I didn't…

Could you ELI5 it all then, please? I was always under the impression that the whole point of insurance is that expensive accidents don't happen to everyone, so if everyone pays a little regularly, then there's enough money to both pay out the ones who end up having an expensive accident AND for the insurer to make money.

On an infinite timescale it may not add up but it surely can on any practical one, right?

Re: Mercury Spill

#222

Post by toomuchtodo »

jessaustin wrote: post #177
SteveGerencser wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We went through a very similar experience when our car was being transported half way across the country. They driver somehow managed to roll his trailer on a freeway curve (his claim was high winds). His insurance company tried to claim act of god because "the wind did it". I'm still trying to figure out how the wind pushes over an open trailer with 2 sports cars on it. At least mine was 4 or 5 years old at the time…

Wow this thread has confirmed what I always suspected: shipping a car is a bad idea. I have actually pulled a car behind a U-haul through multiple states, but that was me, and I know how to pull trailers. A friend of mine in Hawaii was all set to ship his car from the mainland until I pointed out how little sense the math made.

It's perfectly safe and low risk if the vehicle is secured In a cargo container.

Re: Mercury Spill

#223

Post by tempestn »

gwbas1c wrote: post #158
nrjames wrote: post #49

This sounds so familiar... Here's a story about my 1961 house that is built on concrete slabs. About 18 months ago, we noticed a bit of the hardwood floor was bubbling up. We ignored it. About 6 months ago, our water pressure started to drop and then disappeared altogether. The plumber came and told us that our well pump (which was relatively new) wasn't working. They pulled the pump and the PVC bushing around it was…

Uhhh, at that point doesn't it make sense to just tear it down and rebuild?

First, I expect rebuilding the house would cost >> $50k. Second, the problem with this kind of thing is that you don't have any idea how much it's going to cost going in, or really at any point in the process until it's done.

Re: Mercury Spill

#224

Post by lucaspiller »

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.

Last year I was travelling around Italy and somebody broke into the rental car I was using (a Smart Fortwo) and stole my luggage - which contained my camera, laptop and passport :D Although I had travel insurance and separate car rental insurance, neither covered theft of personal possessions from an unattended vehicle.

Even the 'super everything included' insurance rental companies try to sell wouldn't have covered this, as they exclude items accessible from the passenger compartment (like most small cars, the Smart Fortwo doesn't have a separate boot).

Re: Mercury Spill

#225

Post by jules »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #210
togusa wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Move out of the US.

Re: Mercury Spill

#226

Post by javajosh »

cortesoft wrote: post #129
danieltillett wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you that you should only insure the risk you can’t carry yourself there should be a profitable business opportunity insuring individuals that have been dropped by other companies provided the reason from the drop is not predictive of future risk.

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.

Yes, because at the very least the person has demonstrated the ability to file a claim. This alone makes them a higher risk.

And no, I'm not kidding.

Re: Mercury Spill

#227

Post by togusa »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #210
togusa wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I wouldn't use it as a safety net myself these days, just a dice roll.

Good question. After working in insurance and finance for about 15 years, not those two sectors for sure.

Re: Mercury Spill

#229

Post by wfunction »

Cakez0r wrote: post #219
rahimnathwani wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In your friend's case, the fact that she had two claims adjusted her relative risk profile" For car insurance it makes sense, as the risk is specific to the driver, so the number of claims tells you something about the insured's driving. But, for home insurance, isn't it mainly about the property rather than the individual? And isn't that mostly about location and property type? Will this continue to affect her prem…

> For car insurance it makes sense, as the risk is specific to the driver, so the number of claims tells you something about the insured's driving. Not necessarily. One of my friends had his parked car hit by a drunk driver while he was not in it. His insurance premiums still went up after claiming for the damage.

> One of my friends had his parked car hit by a drunk driver while he was not in it. His insurance premiums still went up after claiming for the damage.

What the heck? Can you elaborate on this? How is this even legal?

Re: Mercury Spill

#230

Post by wfunction »

jessaustin wrote: post #167
URSpider94 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very strange. Not saying it didn't happen to you, but to my knowledge, most medical professionals charge insured patients much LESS than insured ones, because insurance companies negotiate special rates. My wife had to have an intensive surgery a few years ago. The total bill amounted to over $100,000. Insurance negotiated it down to $25,000 or so, and then paid 90% of the balance. That's pretty typical of my…

There are definitely clinics that give cash patients a 50% discount; I've been to several. The reason is obvious: they get real money rather than a several-month back-and-forth with various unhelpful assholes at an insurance company. That's why the prices are so high to start with. I think that if such a provider isn't careful it can get into trouble with its PPOs, because their contracts require that they get the "b…

> give cash patients a 50% discount

> That's why the prices are so high to start with.

I feel like health insurance prices are too high by a factor noticeably larger than 2 though.

Post reply on HN