291–300 of 374 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Poland you only get composite if you pay extra, National Health Fund (mandatory insurance) gives you the amalgam. And a month of waiting, where time is crucial. And no anastheatics for drilling. SLAVIC FUN!
Yeah, I believe it's the same in the UK. I don't think the month of waiting is too bad, cavities take a long time to develop. A checkup every 6 months should be enough to prevent them from developing too far.
Is there anything else in the modern world where we still uses mercury in this large amount of quantity? If so why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in that situation there's an element of avoidable "own risk" that could be priced into the premiums. Someone whose parked car gets hit by a drunk driver is more likely to: - Not park their car in a garage overnight, exposing them to various damage to the car. - Not park their car in a garage when they go downtown. - Park their car near bars or other places statistically more likely to have drunk drivers around.…
You forgot a bullet point - not buy a house that's next door to a homeowner who rents the home to a person who is willing to drink and drive. In case you didn't pick up on it, I'm calling your bullet points bullshit. It's kind of like arguing over code, there's always going to be something you can nitpick as not optimal. There will always be something a person could possibly have done to prevent the issue (like commi…
We're talking about insurance. There's certain reasonable activity that exposes you to heightened risk. Your car is at higher risk parked outside than in a garage.
Who should assume the cost of that heightened risk? Should the insurance company charge a person with a garage and a person without one the same premiums? Should there be no consequences for damage that could have been avoided by storing your car in a garage?
If the answer to those questions is "yes" you've created a moral hazard. Why would anyone store their car in a safer location if their insurance company will pay for any damages without their premiums going up?
To categorically say that this shouldn't be priced into insurance is to say that some buyers of insurance with higher risk profiles should be subsidized by those with lower risk profiles.
Now of course insurance companies are far from perfect. They have limited data to work with and it wouldn't be cost effective to figure out whether some individual customer had a one-off freak accident or not.
But over their entire customer base it's not an unreasonable approximation to connect your premiums to traffic incidents you were involved in, even though you were not at fault.
Not being at fault is not the same thing as not having exposed yourself to heightened risk. The police deals with the former, insurance companies deal with the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, self insurance is always better if possible, since that means your cost is exactly equal to your risk. When you buy third party insurance, your cost is going to equal your risk + profit + overhead for the insurance company. You self insure when you can afford the max cost you could incur (e.g. You could buy a new car if you had to.) You buy insurance when you can't afford the rare but very costly catastrophic lo…
When renting a car, I don't usually take the insurance to reduce the excess from $5,000 to $0. However, I wonder whether rental companies are then keener to take note of a little scratch, especially when it was preexisting but gone unnoticed at initial inspection.
I had a physics class in a community college that had us handling open containers of mercury for our experiments. It was maybe 15 years ago. Someone in one of the classes managed to knock one of the jars over, and mercury spilled everywhere on the floor. Either the students hid their spill from the staff, or the staff just had some janitors do a simple sweeping of it, because I noticed spheres of mercury everywhere i…
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
One correction: it is the ACA ("Affordable Care Act") not the AMA. The AMA is the lobbying organization for providers. Also, most health insurance plans have always covered checkups, contraception etc. The ACA specifies that these should be covered without copayments and deductibles. This is intended to be an incentive for the insured to get these kinds of preventative procedures instead of waiting till more costly p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pla…
Which is an absurd way of thinking about it, but there you are.