Mercury Spill • Hacker News Board

Re: Mercury Spill

#371

Post by mreiland » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 7:28 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #310

mreiland wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best description I've seen is that insurance is peace of mind. from an individual perspective, insurance means you don't have to worry about unexpected expenses from things beyond your control (ie, peace of mind). Now, the mechanism by which this is achieved may be described as a pool in that it's a single company with a pool of money that everyone pays into and the input into that pool necessarily must be greate…

We have a whole subthread here about how insurance companies will refuse to pay when push comes to shove; I don't really believe in the peace of mind anymore. What I'm looking for is the ELI5 for what insurance really is about (especially from the POV of insurers) given that, if I understand correctly, 'chimeracoder is disputing the insurance-as-everyone-pooling-money model.

For some definition of "reall", amirite?

people and business purchase insurance to cover unexpected loss, ie, "peace of mind".

Maybe insurance companies are evil scumbags, but that's STILL the reason why people PURCHASE insurance.

Re: Mercury Spill

#372

Post by mreiland » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 7:28 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #310

mreiland wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best description I've seen is that insurance is peace of mind. from an individual perspective, insurance means you don't have to worry about unexpected expenses from things beyond your control (ie, peace of mind). Now, the mechanism by which this is achieved may be described as a pool in that it's a single company with a pool of money that everyone pays into and the input into that pool necessarily must be greate…

We have a whole subthread here about how insurance companies will refuse to pay when push comes to shove; I don't really believe in the peace of mind anymore. What I'm looking for is the ELI5 for what insurance really is about (especially from the POV of insurers) given that, if I understand correctly, 'chimeracoder is disputing the insurance-as-everyone-pooling-money model.

For some definition of "reall", amirite?

people and business purchase insurance to cover unexpected loss, ie, "peace of mind".

Maybe insurance companies are evil scumbags, but that's STILL the reason why people PURCHASE insurance.

Re: Mercury Spill

#373

Post by mreiland » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #295

mreiland wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The topic of discussion is not what's reasonable activity. Of course it's reasonable to legally park your car outside, it's also reasonable to go rock climbing. 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 perso…

> Not being at fault is not the same thing as not having exposed yourself to heightened risk.

By moving in next door to a drunk, how dare you.

The problem with your example, and the reason it doesn't apply to this particular discussion, is the rates will go up if a drunk drives into your garage door and hits your vehicle.

Is it because of a heightened risk, or is it because the insurance company removes you from their special "never had to pay anything out on you" list?

someone who gets a DUI is at an increased risk for wrecks, this is reasonable. Someone who is parked in a parking spot is not, that is not reasonable. The driver is already paying a rate based upon where they live, they have ALREADY paid for that risk.

Re: Mercury Spill

#374

Post by fintubi » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 9:19 PM UTC

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…

I'm happy for you that insurance is covering so much, but very curious how it can be. Is it because many of the problems (e.g. septic fields crushed, misdiagnosis of leak under slab, ducts collapsed) were caused by contractors and covered by their insurance? Otherwise I wouldn't expect run-of-the-mill aging-house infrastructure problems to be covered by homeowner's insurance.