h a l f b a k e r yIf you can read this you are not following too closely.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
You've had two or more accidents recently? technically,
you're not due for another for quite a while. Why not scale
insurance prices in a way that takes this into account
rather than that pesky system that they use now?
Insurance rant
http://prologue.nom...my.co.uk/Rant5.html
[angel, Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
I would think that anyone who has been in two accidents recently is more likely to be in another than someone who hasn't been in one for over 10 years. |
|
| |
As your idea stands, it really isn't "reversed insurance" it's just "scaled differently insurance based on accident history". Reversed insurance would entail the insurance co. sending *us* checks.... |
|
| |
If the current system didn't make the insurance companies very wealthy, they wouldn't use it. |
|
| |
It can be argued that since the world hasn't ended yet, every day we come closer to the end of the world. And if we purchase "End of the World Insurance," then [jon3]'s theory actually holds up. (If the world actually did end, it wouldn't really matter if they made any money anyway.) |
|
| |
HOWEVER in dealing with chance/probability of events that already tend to happen (like car crashes, "acts of God" and burglary/death), your chance of occurrences occurring is continuously in flux, rather than snowballing over time into a huge abominable snowman of overdue apocalypse. The present conditions and past historical patterns both determine likelihood. |
|
| |
[calum] is correct. They want to make $$$, and if you cost them $$$ then they don't want you on their list. |
|
| |
// technically, you're not due for another // |
|
| |
Technically you're not: you're no less likely to toss a head after you've tossed two tails in a row. |
|
| |
One could argue, though, that your probability of accident decreases after an accident as you're more likely to behave safely. |
|
| |
The insurance companies probably work on the theory that your probability of having an accident doesn't vary much, but that they don't know what your probability is at first. If you have a couple of accidents, this indicates that your probability of having an accident is higher than they thought (say, because you drive drunk, or like to speed through school zones, or you're cursed by fate, or whatever --- the reason is immaterial). |
|
| |
You don't seem to understand how insurance premiums are calculated. If *anyone* makes a claim which involves the insurance company paying out, *everyone* pays higher premiums. |
|
| |
Believe me, I've found from experience that the person who had the incident gets the greater premium increase. As well, their claims are restricted for the [EDIT: next] few years. |
|
| |
Of course, but I stand by what I said. My house insurance premium increased hugely "because of September 11th". |
|
| |
Greedy bastards are always looking for a buck, danger notwithstanding. |
|
| |
Of course, though not by as much. |
|
| |
This is utter nonsense but very enjoyable. Thanks! + |
|
| |
Insurance underwriters assume that "accidents" are
nearly 100% preventable, thus not "accidents" at all,
but "predictable events" based on the insured's past
history of negligence. |
|
| |
Still, you're slightly less likely to crash just after you've had an accident (or gotten a speeding ticket) since you'll be more careful for a while. This could be factored into the price. |
|
| |