On Mar 24, 9:31*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:56:15 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:34*pm, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:49:44 -0500, CRNG
wrote:

I've noticed EWs are often discussed here. *It looks like the lame
stream media is finally getting a clue.

Don t buy the extended warranty ever
http://shopping.yahoo.com/blogs/digital-crave/don-t-buy-extended-warr...

Like most generalizations it's usually true but not always. *For big
ticket items where the repair cost would be a killer sometimes the
warranty is worth the protection. *The fallacy many people make is
that they think if they pay $1500 for the warranty and only need it to
cover $400 in repairs they were on the losing end. *That's not true,
the expectation with ANY insurance (that's what these warranties
really are) is that for the vast majority of purchasers the insurance
will cost more then the financial benefit you get. *You don't really
buy them expecting to break even or come out ahead, you buy them for
piece of mind...

The problem is that in probably 95% of the cases,
the extended warranty is way overpriced and that peace
of mind comes at a very high price.

Just like you buy homeowners insurance. *Just because
you'll almost assuredly NEVER have your house burn down very very few
people are willing to risk that cost should it happen. *Is it worth it
on every $100 printer you buy, almost definitely not. *However, if you
are buying that printer as a give for your grandmother who is living 3
states away on *social security perhaps it might make sense so she
doesn't fret about the printer breaking and *not having the money to
fix it.

An extended warranty on a $100 printer for grandma
still sounds like a very bad idea to me. *If it breaks,
you just buy grandma a new one. *The comparison to
homeowner's insurance isn't a very good one either.
Homeowner's covers you for huge losses that most
people could not self-insure. *Most of the extended
warranties in question are in the range that self-insurance
is possible and a better choice for most people.
If you can't cover the cost of a $400 tv, you probably
shouldnt be buying one.

I don't have any specific disagreement. *But what's acceptable risk to
you or me may not be to the guy next door. *I see no logic to the idea
that if you can't buy a SECOND $400 TV you shouldn't be buying the
first one for $400 +a $50 extended warranty. *An extended warranty
that the buyer can afford may make sense to the person you say should
not even buy the TV.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's paying for dumb stuff, like an extended warranty on
a $400 TV that leads to the person not being able to
afford to replace the $400 TV themselves. You already
have at least a one year warranty. By that time, everyone
knows that a $400 TV will cost $300. If you just put that
$50 into a jar for each appliance, you could self insure it
and come out way ahead. In short, I just don't buy the fact
that someone buying a $400 TV, has to insure it because
a year later they can't afford to replace it if it blows up.
Even folks on welfare have cable, AC, TVs and playstations.
What's next? Rent to own is a good idea?