Slashdot Mirror

Mutual insurance was introduced to the US by Benjamin Franklin.

But lately the execs at such companies have been unhappy that the mutual structure prevents them from showing high profits to justify pay raises and makes it hard for them to raise investment capital to buy out competitors to justify pay raises. So they've been demutualizing http://www.insure.com/articles/lifeinsurance/demutualization.html into traded stock companies ... but pretending that they didn't demutualize by creating a new "mutual holding company" and moving all the insurance business to separate non-mutual companies.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/southcentral/partingshots/2001/04/30/18694.htm has a little explanation of how the mutual company execs use this maneuver to siphon decades of value growth from the mutualized owners into the personal pockets of the execs.

I think I can say that your premiums would probably be higher if the primary care doctor visits weren't included.

Let me quote the first link in my google search: For example, a major medical plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida for a nonsmoking 21-year-old female, with a low $250 deductible and $2,500 out-of-pocket limit after the deductible, would cost $29 per month.

Thats $29/month while comprehensive plans are $500/month and up.

I am not an actuary either, but I don't fucking guess. When I speak I know what I'm fucking saying, and I do not say this next thing lightly:

Most of you need to learn what insurance is for. Insurance is for unlikely events that you cannot afford to have happen to you. You and other like-minded people form a risk pool and pay a small premium above what such events will cost the entire poll on average. In this way, if an unlikely event happen to you, you do not have to go bankrupt. Your annual checkup doesn't qualify as something that needs to be insured for, ever.

Judging by this: this It seems to me that...

• 1) The Affordable healthcare act has made this a more reasonable proposition by eliminating caps on annual benefits (a catastrophe could easily cost millions)
• 2) The Affordable healthcare act would make it possible to switch to a better plan if the nature of the "catastrophe" were a chronic drug regimin

So to my mind Obamacare has improved this approach, not ruled it out. Besides, healthcare the way it is costs taxpayers billions each year, there has to be a better way than what we have now. The uninsured today don't lack insurance because it is unavailable

I can't imagine how catastrophic coverage would have been at all workable under the old system as my idea of a catastrophe includes long-term health issues

Anyway, restricting your expenditure to doctors bills hardly covers all health expenditure.

This is no better than the Interlock device.

Because there will be a buck to be made here and someone's pet crusade will be satisfied, we'll all have to deal with it.

Looks like 400-500 people die on the road over the thanksgiving holiday each year. It will be interesting to see if this number increases in 2010.

This is what I do. I use PasswordSafe, and have it autogenerate a 16 character string for these questions. It's kind of funny, that a high percentage (16%) of identity theft is done by those who know you, and yet their security questions, are ones that could easily be figured out by someone you know. Not only that, but the actual answers are very hard to remember. Especially ones such as "What is your favourite x?", as tastes change.

"The employee would have to declare that they need domestic partner health benefits. Google isn't "snooping", it's information the employee is providing."

And what is the procedure to verify they need domestic partner health benefits? Do they "test" for gayness? Here's a statement some employers make employees sign:

"--Have lived together at least six months.
--Are both age 18 or older.
--Share a close personal relationship and are responsible for each other’s common welfare.
--Are exclusive.
--Are not married to anyone else.
--Are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the state.
--Share the same regular and permanent residence, with the current intent to continue doing so indefinitely.
--Are jointly financially responsible for "basic living expenses," defined as the cost of basic food, shelter and any other expenses of a domestic partner because of the domestic partnership. (Domestic partners need not contribute equally or jointly to the cost of these expenses as long as they agree that both are responsible for the cost.)
--Were mentally competent to consent to the contract when the domestic partnership began."

I'm not gay but I've had male roommates and if I can get a few more dollars per hour (average $1,069 a year according to the article) by signing by all means I'm going to do that. Can someone be denied domestic partner health benefits? If a co-worker believes someone is scamming the system, are Google managers prepared to call employees into their office and tell them they're not gay?

I can't see this ending well

The law says *maximum* - not mandatory. If you plow into a crowd of people at a bus-stop and kill a bunch of them (not hypothetical - it HAS happened here), you really should face more than a fine and token jail time.

The courts consider how many people you've harmed/killed, the level of intoxication, and the number of repeat offenses.

If you repeatedly drive drunk, you should have your license suspended for life since you've shown you're not capable of behaving like an adult and you can't learn from past mistakes.

Also, just because someone else didn't get hurt or killed is no reason to be all that lenient. Look at Cheetah Woods - driving while stoned on prescription drugs, ended up SNORING on the street. What would be so bad about a minimum one month mandatory sentence in cases like that? Or do you wait until an impaired driver actually maims someone to act?

Do you let people drive drunk after you host a party? Or do you take their keys away from them - as required by law in most jurisdictions because the host is legally liable .

37 states have adopted some form of "social host" law or set a legal precedent that allows you to be found liable if a guest injures himself or someone else as a result of alcohol consumption at your party (see list). Some social-host laws have conditions. For example, in South Carolina and Nevada, liability applies only if your guests are under age 21.

Why should I pay for your stupidity?

• Odyssey EX-L and Touring - 17/25
• Sienna - 17/23
• Odyssey LX and EX - 16/23
• Tacoma 4x2 - 17/21
• Sienna AWD - 16/21
• Tacoma 4x4 5 speed - 16/20
• Tacoma 4x4 6 speed - 14/18

So only the Sienna AWD models get worse gas mileage than a Tacoma. I recognize it's not that big of a difference, so other factors will weigh more heavily in the purchasing decision, but mileage is not something that your truck is better in, unless you're willing to divulge your trucks exact model and year. Keep in mind that you can't compare what you get with estimates, you have to compare estimate with estimate. Also keep in mind that the EPA recently changed how they calculate mileage and so you have to compare recent numbers.

All the searches I've done so far on insurance (no, I haven't bothered with getting quotes) indicate that minivans are generally cheaper to insure than SUVs. Some SUVs are cheaper than the cheapest minivan, but the most expensive minivan is much cheaper than the most expensive SUV. My google-fu failed me in finding much in the way of insurance for trucks but this indicates that trucks have a wide range seeing as the GMC Sierra was the 3rd least expensive and a Dodge Ram was the most expensive. The only place I did see a Tacoma listed shows that insurance is several hundred dollars more, however, it is generally in your favor in that it shows that 5 years out you may be ahead with a Tacoma over either the Odyssey or the Sienna (depending on the model you choose). The bulk of the difference actually lies in the depreciation, so it also depends on how long you tend to own your vehicles and whether you buy used or not.

And speaking of the convenience factor, you also mentioned that you want to load up the family and go on vacations. You could do that with a four door Tacoma, I suppose. But it would be much more convenient to be in a minivan. Also, minivans are easier for kids and grandma to get into and out of than pickup trucks. They also drive more like a car, which is to say, they are nicer to drive, more responsive, handle better, etc.

So the math does work out in your favor of a Tacoma over an Odyssey or Sienna (depending on models chosen, way you drive, how often, there are other comparisons, etc). But you'd be a fool to not see that SUVs and trucks are generally more expensive than other vehicles. Especially when you start to get people who only want it for the image and not for its utility, which is what the vast majority do. Maybe not you, but the vast majority. So it's a stereotype. You'll just have to live with the fact that you do something that lumps you into that category.

Lol.. And you know nothing. Nothing at all. I don't believe anything like that. I believe that if you can afford your own health care, then you should be paying for it, not some nanny state. I believe that just because you decided to skip out on your own health care obligations and opt for the Cell phones, the brand new cars, the recreational vehicles, the larger house, the luxury anything, or whatever, that you are not now all the sudden too poor to afford your own health care.

There is a difference that idiots like you will probably never see. It is called personal responsibility and if everyone would practice more of it, the world would be a better place. It would be better in many ways but most readily observable would be you pay would be higher because you wouldn't be distracted by all the bling surrounding you when your paying for your own health care instead of wasting what little money you make on a new Wii or the latest Xbox. You would see that your making peanuts and demand more money or maybe even trade more work for more money.

It isn't a Fuck you DIE, it is get a loan and pay for it yourself situation. If you weren't so damn selfish in the first place, you would have been paying for insurance instead of blowing your money on meaningless crap which would have covered your illness and it would make everyone else's insurance premiums cheaper in the process. I'm sick and tired of hearing people cry that they can't afford insurance when they spend $70 a week on smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day and half that or more in beer each week. I'm tired of watching people sit in front of their brand new plasma or big screen TV, flipping through the 25 some premium channels claiming they can't afford their own health care. I'm tired of people pulling up in their brand new cars telling me that the government should be paying for their health care because after their inflated payment and the full coverage car insurance that is hyped because they have speeding tickets, there just isn't enough left over to get insurance.

In 2004, the average employer health plan costs a whopping total of $12,100 a year, that's just over $3000 per person and the employer covers a sizable portion of that. A working family with two income earners can afford that pretty easily. The average single person coverage was around $4,400 a year. That comes out to around $360 a month or about $84 a week but the annual premium isn't that much in reality until people start reaching the ages of 55 or older. The $100 a month cell phone plan and $80 per month cable bill covers half of that easily and for the majority of people, would also cover their single coverage premiums.

And that doesn't start to count the programs already availible that cover a good portion of people making low incomes. In fact, National estimates claim that just over half of the children eligible for existing government paid health care programs are actually enrolled. There is a disturbing number of eligible people who don't take advantage of the existing programs for whatever reasons. And that isn't just limited to health care, you will find reports talking about food stamps and other government services too.

So lets recap, if you can afford it, pay for it. If you can't, take advantage of the existing programs. Once that happens, if the programs need to be expanded, then do so. But it is bullshit to lay claim to something that people can afford themselves if they would only chose to do so. There is no reason why the government should be responsable for paying something that most of us can more than afford. And no, that's not a let them DIE attitude, it's a take some fucking responsibility for your own life attitude.

Actually, because of lawyers, you can now say "I'm sorry" in several states (Arizona, Colorado, ...)
http://www.insure.com/articles/statesinsurance/ca/sorry-law.html
http://www.bishca.state.vt.us/InsurDiv/medmal_studygroup/June29_meeting/imsorry_summaryof_laws.pdf

I agree. For some reason people like to blow this out of portion. There are some people who can handle it (alcohol) better then others, the legal limit is supposed to be low enough to weed the one who can't out.

I have no problem staying under the legal limit when I drive. I used to have a chart back when the limit was .01, at 230lbs and being a male, I could drink on the order of 3 to 4 beers in an hour before being over the limit. I have gained weight and now come in at over 300lbs and I now can drink about 7 drinks in an hour and be under the limit. You lose almost one drink an hour for each hour it takes you to drink. This calculator adjust for male and female and uses the formula the national highway transportation safety agency uses to estimate alcohol levels. The chart the parent showed appears to be for a woman which show higher amounts from less drinks for some reason.

I have semi proved that calculator by getting the opportunity to blow in a field breathalyser. I wasn't pulled over, An off duty cop brought a couple on into a bar I was at and made some rounds showing people how close to or over the legal limit they where. 9 beers over 5 hours and weighing in at 326 lbs put me just under .06 BAC which is where I though I should be. Some of the people there had no clue they were over the limit, the cop had a bunch of volunteers with him to give rides home to anyone who wanted it. I usually don't trust cops but we didn't know he was one until later, he wasn't from out town and out of uniform.

At one point in the night, he played a game complete with prizes (tickets to the fire mans ball Which is about $20 and worth it for the BBQ alone). He had people enter and guess the BAC of each other. Then after testing, the person closest to the correct answer without going under won. I guess it was to get us use to judging friends and determining if they should drive or not. It was a fun night although somewhat weird after finding out he was a cop. I guess you can buy hand held BAC machines pretty cheap from Ebay and other places.

And the people who had two beers are probably not the ones over .08, the ones downing a case are.

There is no need to sit perfectly still in a parking lot. If you don't understand the effects alcohol has on a person, you probably shouldn't be talking about it.

But anyways, It is according to this calculator. I weight in at a healthy 325lbs and the alcohol changes it's behavior based on your weight. When I do drink, Unless I'm at a party, I usually drink over about a 4-5 hour period (23:00 - 02:30 when the bars close. If I am at a truck pull, in that case I will start at about 11:00 or around noon and go on till about 21:00 at night drinking about 12-15 beers and end up driving home at about 23:00 that night. I'm not impaired in any way except maybe for being tired which I would be without the alcohol.

Many employers keep people at or below 32 hours so that they don't have to provide benefits to the employees.

Nobody has to provide benefits to their employees, there is no law mandating that part time, or even full time, employees get health insurance or other benefits...

oh wait, you mean the CEO signed a contract with a group health insurer stating that every employee meeting a certain criteria will be enrolled on the health plan so that the CxOs could get their viagra cheap? I think you're using a misleading version of "have to" here.

Private insurance companies profit on FEMA flood insurance:

"private insurance companies that sell flood insurance compete on service, not on price. These "Write Your Own" companies make their profit from service fees"

Private insurance companies also sell additional flood coverage for additional profits:

"Some insurance companies are willing to expose themselves to higher risks and take on policies in some of the developed barrier areas. Instead of $340 in premiums offered through the government program, a few private companies will charge about $3,000 a year for flood coverage of slightly less than $200,000."

As you point out, these insurance companies aren't liable for the costs of payouts: American taxpayers are. But they do get government-guaranteed profits for keeping the bureaucracy beefed up. Corporate welfare. And, when they start calling the shots, fascism.

I lived in New Orleans, in a 200 year old building that has survived hundreds of hurricanes and storms, to say nothing of constant exposure to merely torrential rains and 95% humidity. Some houses will have do be recycled. Many will not. The costs will be staggering - many times the investment cost of preparing to mitigate the damage - but anyone who's lived in New Orleans knows this disaster is not a "total loss".

You would be surprised what is and is not covered under some insurance policies.

Besides, Acts of God can also sometimes be covered under insurance - after all, what's the point of wasting all that damn money on insurance if they can just turn on you and say, "Nope, that tree falling on your house last night during the freak ice storm was an Act of God" ?

So, for those too lazy to click the link above, meteors are covered the same as airplanes under home insurance, "objects falling from the sky." Now, the reason this is covered is precisely because it doesn't happen very often. Just as people on the coast pay extra for hurricane damage insurance and folks in the midwest pay extra for tornado insurance, if there were an area where meteors were common, there'd be extra clauses for meteor damage.

Insurance is, largely, a racket.

I may have misunderstood what your meaning, but, execpt for a few states, (Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) the goverment requires mandatory liability insurance on cars. See for yourself here. The laws are at the state goverment level, and vary from state to state, but it's still a goverment insurance mandate.

...or charge the elderly more for auto insurance, even though they're a higher risk.

I don't believe that one. I know that they charge teenagers more because they're a higher risk. How would it be illegal to charge the elderly more?

The Insurance Services Office (ISO), a statistical-gathering group for the insurance industry, suggested back in 1997 eliminating the insurance premium discount for motorists over age 75 due to their declining driving records. The ISO says its research shows drivers over age 75 experienced more losses -- property damage and bodily injuries -- relative to other drivers, so the ISO recommended eliminating the 20 percent discount, which would effectively be a rate increase. Approximately one-third of all auto insurers in the nation subscribe to the ISO's research and have the option to use it in setting their own premium rates.

Insurance companies cannot single out elderly drivers and raise premiums solely because of age -- that's against the law. Rather, if the insurer can show that drivers over age 75 are more risky, and when they are involved in crashes, they suffer more debilitating, long-term injuries than younger motorists, their premiums can legitimately increase.

Knowledgeable industry sources say Colonial Penn and USAA have raised rates for elderly drivers within the last couple of years. Those sources expect that trend to continue among other insurers.

The Hartford says premium increases are a reflection of driving histories, not age. The Hartford markets auto insurance to senior citizens through the AARP.

My point is simply that discrimination against certain groups is taboo, and will not soon be tolerated regardless of whether it is statistically justified. This is obvious from the anti-discrimination laws themselves, which make no allowance for discriminating on the basis of statistics.

Don't be silly - Everybody knows most Philly drivers don't have insurance (or a license, registration, inspection, etc.). Why do you think they are starting LiveStop?

These differences do not strike me as statistically different.

The U.S. is the highest in these categories of all western countries. The difference is usually attributed to the availability in Canada and western Europe of free pre-natal care and free regular checkups that result in early detection of problems. It's an example of how the simple availability of care is more effective than sophisticated procedures to deal with illness well after it appears.

Not for six months anyway.

It varies by province. In Ontario, the residency requirement is 3 months. But the point is that health insurance is guaranteed regardless of medical condition. In the U.S. laid off employees who apply for personal insurance will be denied if they have a pre-existing health condition. This problem is a particular concern for older employees who would naturally have a higher incidence of health problems.

Monopolies are generally bad for the consumer.

The usual economic formulas don't apply to health care, nor should they. Health care is heavily regulated because consumers cannot be expected to know enough to make an informed choice everytime they choose a physician, a medical procedure or go to an emergency room. Hospitals and physicians in no sense compete for customers.

It's significant that the only reason laid-off workers have any medical coverage is because of federal regulation. Under the free market model, insurance companies simply raised premiums or denied coverage to people for the sole reason that they lost their job. The fact that this process makes some kind of economic sense in no way justifies it.

It is the same with health insurance. The objective is delivery of health care to sick people, not the efficient running of a business. A profitable insurance company at the expense of a high infant mortality rate is skewed set of values for sure. I believe you used the term "barbaric".

Why do so many people leave themselves open to vulnerability? Of course we cannot protect ourselves from every possible misfortune that might happen to us, but we can limit our risks. Why should society have to pay for others misfortunes? I believe in helping others, but others must also help themselves.

If one is concerned about not being able to work in their own occupation as a result of a disability, they should buy a disability insurance policy. For about $2000 a year a healthy person can buy a disability insurance policy that will pay them $2000 a month for as long as they are unable to perform their own occupation up to the age of 65. To many people, like myself, the peace of mind is worth the price. If one does not want to pay the price to limit their risks should they become disabled, the rest of us should not be obligated to pay the price of supporting their lifestyle after they are disabled.

If you feel disability insurance is too expensive, think of how much the insurance company may have to pay if you were to become disabled. Think of it this way: If you were offered two identical jobs, one paid you $50,000 a year while you worked, but nothing if you were ever sick or hurt. One paid you $47,000 a year, and 60% of your income tax free if you were ever sick or hurt, which would you take?

http://www.insure.com/health/longtermdisability.ht ml
http://www.guardiandibrokerage.com/

It isn't all bad news, young people pay less for health and life insurance. I would gladly pay teenage male rates for auto insurance if it included an 18-year old body :-).

The insurance industry indirectly discriminates on the basis of other factors, due to the practice of setting rates on the basis of ZIP code. My insurance rates increased noticably when I moved to my current residence, which is in an area with lower incomes and higher crime rates than my previous residence.