571–580 of 712 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bathtubs are dangerous, being dangerous isn’t the only criteria here.
Ok, well, we've reached an argument that is dispositive for people who think trampolines are no more dangerous than bathtubs.
What does the data say? Which is more dangerous, trampolines or bathrooms?
I've known a few people who have hurt themselves in the bathroom, but I dont know anyone who has hurt themselves on a trampoline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information I see this type of comment on HN too often. Some hypothetical bullshit scenario followed by a BIG if. Armchair quarterback type of comment. In all highly advanced countries (G7 and similar), insurance is insanely strictly regulated. If they cancel your policy for a b/s reason, and your protests are ignored, then tell the regulators. They will fix it qu…
> If they cancel your policy for a b/s reason, and your protests are ignored, then tell the regulators. They will fix it quickly and slap a huge fine on the insurer. You have too much faith in the regulators, that's not how it works. Insurance companies are violating these rules all the time, only when you can gather a critical mass of complaints against a specific one will anything happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s called “money.” That is the reason. Slate roofs are common in the UK, and using synthetic slate is $7-12/sqft, whereas bitumen/asphalt shingles which are common in the USA cost $0.50-$1.00/sqft. Average home in the USA is 2,200 sq ft with a roof size of 1,700 sq ft. So $1,700 vs $11,900 is quite a difference (and that was being most generous, excluding installation costs, etc) So basically, average person who ow…
Also the cheap materials roof weighs less, and so the whole building under the roof can get away with being built cheaper. In order to have a better roof, you probably must have a better entire house under it also.
Where I live in Europe, roofs are usually ceramic shingles, which should easily last 50-100 years or more.
Of course, the down side of higher quality building standards is cost. Building a houses here costs a minimum of half-a-million, and quickly hits a million...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I agree that the systems are different and one is more oriented towards payout because we have little to no social safety nets so whatever the victims get has to last them for life, among other reasons I described above. The argument though is, a lot of the difference is nothing to do with the factors you cite such as social safety nets, it is about the use of juries in civil cases, especially to decide damages. Da…
> The argument though is, a lot of the difference is nothing to do with the factors you cite such as social safety nets, it is about the use of juries in civil cases, especially to decide damages. Why are you arguing this? For what purpose would it serve to give up the right to a jury trial in order to mitigate the extreme outlier cases which bump up the averages and which do not actually get any money into the hands…
Because I'm interested in comparative law and the differences between the legal systems of different countries, and my honest opinion is this is a matter in which the US system is worse than that of the other major English-speaking countries.
I can also point to examples of the opposite, where I think the US system does it better – e.g. the abolition of the dock.
> For what purpose would it serve to give up the right to a jury trial in order to mitigate the extreme outlier cases which bump up the averages and which do not actually get any money into the hands of the plaintiffs?
Bernstein's primary argument isn't about outliers, it is about predictability and consistency – judges are much more consistent in the damages they award than juries are. Where juries are in charge of damages, it can turn into a lottery, where some successful plaintiffs win big, and others win small, just based on the luck of the jury pool draw. He argues that's unfair to those less lucky successful plaintiffs, and I think he is correct there. Of course, there can be a similar phenomena with random selection of trial judges, but the variability due to different judges tends to be significantly smaller than the variability due to different juries, since judges are subject to pressures for consistency which do not exist for juries
> You want to destroy a constitutional right because...
Under US constitutional law as it stands, there is no federal constitutional right to a jury trial for civil cases in state courts. The 7th Amendment right to jury trials in civil suits only applies federally, it has not been incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment. This is unlike the 6th Amendment right to jury trials in criminal cases, which has been incorporated under the 14th (except for the vicinage clause). The piecemeal application of the incorporation doctrine seems rather arbitrary and difficult to rationally justify, but that's SCOTUS precedent as it stands.
Some state constitutions have a state constitutional right to civil jury trials, others don't. For those that don't, there would be no constitutional obstacle to a state legislature implementing Bernstein's proposal to remove damages decisions from juries and shift them to the judge–which is already the norm in every other major English-speaking country. As to those states who do have such a state constitutional right, whether Bernstein's proposal would be compatible with it depends on precisely how that right is worded, and how the state courts choose to interpret those words.
> you think people are too dumb and swayed too easily by lawyers that we can let them decide life or death but can't let them decide how much money someone is owed?
I'm opposed to the death penalty so I don't believe any jury should be deciding life or death.
That said, criminal matters and civil matters are so different, it is rational to hold that juries should be required for one and not the other. Criminal matters are supposed to have a very high burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), where requiring 12 ordinary people to make a unanimous decision can be viewed as an additional protection against wrongful convictions. Civil matters are decided on a much weaker standard (balance of probabilities), so it is not clear whether juries are as necessary for civil cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the cheap materials roof weighs less, and so the whole building under the roof can get away with being built cheaper. In order to have a better roof, you probably must have a better entire house under it also.
This. Houses in the US are tinker-toys. They don't gave the structural strength to support a decent roof. Where I live in Europe, roofs are usually ceramic shingles, which should easily last 50-100 years or more. Of course, the down side of higher quality building standards is cost. Building a houses here costs a minimum of half-a-million, and quickly hits a million...
A tar roof has an unavoidable time limit on the whole thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the cheap materials roof weighs less, and so the whole building under the roof can get away with being built cheaper. In order to have a better roof, you probably must have a better entire house under it also.
This. Houses in the US are tinker-toys. They don't gave the structural strength to support a decent roof. Where I live in Europe, roofs are usually ceramic shingles, which should easily last 50-100 years or more. Of course, the down side of higher quality building standards is cost. Building a houses here costs a minimum of half-a-million, and quickly hits a million...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some insurance companies will allow trampolines -- at a cost. We had to get rid of ours because the cost and liability just wasnt worth it.
So in the richest country in the world parents can't let their kids play on trampolines because a neighbours kid having an accident on one would bankrupt their insurance company. Meanwhile, toddlers do active shooter drills like they are fire alarm drills. Totally logical country you got there with a perfectly reasonable approach to risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it not a good thing if insurance is more accurately priced? Insurance isn't a redistribution mechanism. And dilapidated roofs aren't a social good. Municipalities have actual redistribution schemes to make these kinds of repairs. I'll note that there's nothing at all redistributive about sneaking a trampoline onto your property, too. Further, I'll note that working class people also take pride in their houses…
> Why is it not a good thing if insurance is more accurately priced? Another poster here, Scoundreller, recently responded to one of my comments on another topic with this insight: > The funny thing about insurance is that as it becomes perfect at assessing risk, it becomes worthless. > Oh, you’re about to have a $x claim this year, your premium is $x + y% admin fee. > Just self insure and save yourself the y%. There…
Yes, if you could 100% guarantee that someone was going to have a $Y valued claim, their premium would fairly be 100% of $Y at least in order to allow for their contribution to the risk pool. Problem is, you cannot 100% predict the future, and there is no model capable of doing so, nor will there likely ever be. Nor can you predict that any other insured risk might not materialise in the meantime.
More to the point, it fundamentally misunderstands what insurance is and how it works, not least the commercial considerations involved. If there is a 100% risk of risk X materialising, the insurer won't rate your premium at the cost of risk X; it will simply exclude risk X from your policy and rate your premium based on all the other myriad risks that might arise that year in an attempt to win your business and collect premium for what, to them, is a better bet.
This already happens, incidentally; travel insurance policies will exclude pre-existing conditions or recurrences of previous illnesses as a matter of course, because if someone (e.g.) has cancer, the odds of them needing to claim on their policy - and as such draw down from the pool more than they paid in premium - skyrocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On 1-3 occasions over the course of an insured's entire life, they'll be confronted with the paperwork for the insurance contract for the most expensive asset they'll ever buy. They should read it.
I wasn’t actually confronted with the paperwork. When I purchased my house, the insurerer that was selected by my bank informed me (several times) that they were unable to provide the complete coverage details and contract until after the insurance contract was in place. Even then, it took me several calls and interactions to get them to send me the actual detailed insurance contract. They tried to fob me off several…
Its doesnt matter what mumbo jumbo they come up with, if you cave to peer pressure then accept the risks. Or vote with your wallet.