h a l f b a k e r yBone to the bad.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
These days you can get (in fact you can hardly avoid having to get) insurance for nearly every eventuality. You can get property insurance, health insurance, car insurance, redundancy insurance, fidelity insurance etc, etc, continue ad infinitum. However, the one thing that you can’t get insurance for,
it seems, is having to get insurance. I would like to see a company develop a policy which insures you, at least partly, against the risk of having to take out other, more specific policies at a later date.
Clearly, safeguards would have to be put in place to stop people from taking out policies just to get a payout from their Insurance insurance and a careful judgement about pricing would need to be made in order for the policy to be a worthwhile investment, but these are things that the insurance industry is used to doing and the statistics for calculating the risk are all ready to hand, so bring on Insurance insurance!
'Umbrella' Insurance
http://en.wikipedia.../Umbrella_insurance
Recommended to cover the unexpected [csea, May 10 2009]
[link]
|
| |
where will it stop? insurance insurance insurance? |
|
| |
there's certainly scope for more generalised insurance.. in fact, perhaps the government could just take it directly from our salaries and pay for things that our insurance misses out on, like health care. We could call it 'tax' and the benefits 'social welfare' or something. |
|
| |
I don't even want to think about how this would effect the re-reinsurance market. |
|
| |
What about insurance against other insurance companies not paying out on existing insurance should the need arise? |
|
| |
//call it 'tax' and the benefits 'social welfare' //
Except that it's an entirely voluntary insurance policy and taxation isn't.
I'm all in favour of the iterative approach to insurance. I see new and exciting business opportunities ahead! |
|
| |
Not all insurance is entirely voluntary. I for example, am required to have insurance, or a large sum of money tucked away to stave off the possibility of a terrible car accident for as long as I choose to drive. |
|
| |
I can ignore this requirement, if I desire, but doing so will get the police to impound my vehicle, and may result in fines, jail time, and the revocation of my drivers' license, depending on how I am caught without my insurance. |
|
| |
If I chose to go without insurance legally, I must store a large sum of money somewhere. That comes with certain difficulties as well. |
|
| |
Taxation for my driving priveledges are remarkably similar to the insurance itself, except in the matter of who holds on to the money. Considering how useless my insurance company was at the only time I suffered an accident, I'd just as well have the government run the thing. At least then I could vote for who gets to abuse my hard-earned dollars. |
|
| |
I give this idea a bun, as it is one of the most poignant and relevant satires I have stumbled across here. I fear, however, that it is also the most likely to get baked. |
|
| |
[po] Don't be silly. That's covered by the No-claims protection policy! |
|
| |
But . . . this would require taking out another insurance policy. |
|
| |
//If I chose to go without insurance legally, I must store a large sum of money somewhere.//
Well, that's a reasonable argument, but only from the point of view of a law-abiding citizen. My experience of dealing with uninsured drivers is that the fine imposed by the courts is generally less than the cost of the insurance. It's not exactly a responsible attitude to your fellow man but it seems to be a financially viable model. Sadly. |
|
| |
There is a type of insurance policy called "umbrella insurance" which covers liability, etc beyond the standard coverages. It seems fairly inexpensive for the protection it provides [link]. |
|
| |