The Residential Real Estate Crash Index Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bank Holding Company who wrote (229726)	11/21/2009 12:11:54 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) of 306849

It will likely hurt me. I use insurance in the only way it offers value: as risk averaging with other people for very expensive (too expensive for me to pay) but statistically unlikely events. Hence I carry a high deductible, but have high upper limits. From what I've read so far, the paternalistic Dems will chide me for being so horribly exposed at the the low end ($10K deductible, about $20K total low end exposure), and will likely encourage insurers to eliminate that category and replace it with more "reasonable" lower deductibles at of course higher premiums. I can of course cover my deductibles because I save money, get some interest on it, and keep it available for rainy days. I'd rather not have to pay higher premiums instead and have 30% sucked off by the insurer for stashing the remaining 70% away for a rainy day for me. I realise not every American can keep their hand out of the cookie jar, so for some, perhaps the Dems have a point... At the upper end, the Dems think $2M upper caps (which I have) are not enough and would like no cap. Unfortunately, we must all place a price on our lives, and removing the upper cap will start a cycle of Doc's spending ever more money to save some few additional moments of our fleeting mortal existence. I don't know the details, but I assume the "analysis" performed on estimating the effects of this change (said estimates being low IMHO) are based on a static analysis of current practices. When the cap comes off, practices will start evolving and the costs will increase more over time than the static analysis predicted. I will grant you that spending $1T more on healthcare over a decade is likely a better value than having already spent about that amount in a couple of wars. The ROI of bombing other people is not great. Its still a lot of money. I would like to see IBM commit to developing an expert system similar to their chess systems which could beat 90% of General Practitioner Docs for accuracy of diagnosis.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next