I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

My policy renews every year in June. This year, I received notice that
earthquake coverage would no longer be offered by my primary carrier.
Until now, the premium for that coverage was $250. $1000 deductible,
full replacement cost plus contents, liability and medical, and we've
kept the amounts current to the replacement value of the property.

Instead, my carrier said, I can buy separate earthquake insurance from
an outfit called CEA, or California Earthquake Authority. From what I
gather, CEA is a privately funded publicly managed organization that
fulfills the mandate that insurers in California must offer earthquake
insurance.

The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to a
whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

From what I've read, the premium and the deductible is so high because
CEA is required by law to have sufficient funds to cover losses in a
"500-year event." They have about $4 billion in reserve, which is not
enough, so they spend 40% of that on supplemental insurance in case of
such an event.

I don't live in LA or San Francisco. There are no major fault lines
near my home, although there are lots of little ones. I've lived in
this town since 1951 and the biggest earthquake I've experienced was
about a 5.3, fifty miles away. Strong enough to knock some dishes off
their shelves but that's about it.

I don't think this is a good deal. If there's an earthquake strong
enough to cause $50,000 worth of damage to my home, I'd be better off
getting a loan to cover it. Anything over that, I'd torch the place and
move on.

What do you think?

Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com

On 5/26/2012 10:29 AM, Frank J Warner wrote:
I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

My policy renews every year in June. This year, I received notice that
earthquake coverage would no longer be offered by my primary carrier.
Until now, the premium for that coverage was $250. $1000 deductible,
full replacement cost plus contents, liability and medical, and we've
kept the amounts current to the replacement value of the property.

Instead, my carrier said, I can buy separate earthquake insurance from
an outfit called CEA, or California Earthquake Authority. From what I
gather, CEA is a privately funded publicly managed organization that
fulfills the mandate that insurers in California must offer earthquake
insurance.

The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to a
whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

From what I've read, the premium and the deductible is so high because
CEA is required by law to have sufficient funds to cover losses in a
"500-year event." They have about $4 billion in reserve, which is not
enough, so they spend 40% of that on supplemental insurance in case of
such an event.

I don't live in LA or San Francisco. There are no major fault lines
near my home, although there are lots of little ones. I've lived in
this town since 1951 and the biggest earthquake I've experienced was
about a 5.3, fifty miles away. Strong enough to knock some dishes off
their shelves but that's about it.

I don't think this is a good deal. If there's an earthquake strong
enough to cause $50,000 worth of damage to my home, I'd be better off
getting a loan to cover it. Anything over that, I'd torch the place and
move on.

What do you think?

Frank

You know best your total financial posture. Insurance is intended to
pay for losses that you choose not to pay for yourself or cannot
realistically afford. If you believe that your are in good enough
financial shape to absorb the cost of potentially high-value damage to
your home and contents, don't buy insurance. One caveat: If you have a
mortgage, make sure that your mortgage holder does not require you to
carry earthquake insurance.

In article , Peter
wrote:


You know best your total financial posture. Insurance is intended to
pay for losses that you choose not to pay for yourself or cannot
realistically afford. If you believe that your are in good enough
financial shape to absorb the cost of potentially high-value damage to
your home and contents, don't buy insurance. One caveat: If you have a
mortgage, make sure that your mortgage holder does not require you to
carry earthquake insurance.

Yeah. I should probably check that caveat. Thanks for one more thing to
worry about :/

Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com

In article ,
Frank J Warner wrote:

In article , Peter
wrote:


You know best your total financial posture. Insurance is intended to
pay for losses that you choose not to pay for yourself or cannot
realistically afford. If you believe that your are in good enough
financial shape to absorb the cost of potentially high-value damage to
your home and contents, don't buy insurance. One caveat: If you have a
mortgage, make sure that your mortgage holder does not require you to
carry earthquake insurance.

Yeah. I should probably check that caveat. Thanks for one more thing to
worry about :/

Frank

Talk to some people in the Fl Keys if you want to know the next steps
in state-run calamity insurance. IT isn't pretty what is happening down
there on wind-hurricane insurance.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:29:43 -0700, Frank J Warner
wrote:



The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to a
whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

From what I've read, the premium and the deductible is so high because
CEA is required by law to have sufficient funds to cover losses in a
"500-year event."

What do you think?

Frank

Put the money in the bank and in 500 years, you'll have saved enough
to cover the event.

I'd move to Nevada. Or Nebraska.

In article , Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:29:43 -0700, Frank J Warner
wrote:



The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to a
whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

From what I've read, the premium and the deductible is so high because
CEA is required by law to have sufficient funds to cover losses in a
"500-year event."

What do you think?

Frank

Put the money in the bank and in 500 years, you'll have saved enough
to cover the event.

Yes. Well. I plan to live forever, so I put $1 in a CD deposit yielding
1.25%. When forever comes I'll own everything.

Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com

In article , Kurt
Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Frank J Warner wrote:

In article , Peter
wrote:


You know best your total financial posture. Insurance is intended to
pay for losses that you choose not to pay for yourself or cannot
realistically afford. If you believe that your are in good enough
financial shape to absorb the cost of potentially high-value damage to
your home and contents, don't buy insurance. One caveat: If you have a
mortgage, make sure that your mortgage holder does not require you to
carry earthquake insurance.

Yeah. I should probably check that caveat. Thanks for one more thing to
worry about :/

Frank

Talk to some people in the Fl Keys if you want to know the next steps
in state-run calamity insurance. IT isn't pretty what is happening down
there on wind-hurricane insurance.

That's not a bad idea. MIL lives in Florida (for which I'm grateful,
living here in California). I'll have SWMBO call her and ask what she's
doing about hurricane insurance.

Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:29:43 -0700, Frank J Warner
wrote Re California earthquake
insurance?:

I don't think this is a good deal. If there's an earthquake strong
enough to cause $50,000 worth of damage to my home, I'd be better off
getting a loan to cover it. Anything over that, I'd torch the place and
move on.

What do you think?

Looks like a risky strategy to me.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:40:27 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


Talk to some people in the Fl Keys if you want to know the next steps
in state-run calamity insurance. IT isn't pretty what is happening down
there on wind-hurricane insurance.

The premiums should be astronomical and attune to the risk. The funds
that pay for hurricane damage should mostly come from people that
insist on building in some of those places. You want beach front?
Fine, but don't bitch to me when it floods.

At least building codes are getting them to build houses that can take
some of the beating.

On 26 May 2012 15:36:00 GMT, ktos wrote:



Those companies are crazy to offer earthquake insurance at all.

Why is that? It's a lot of premium money. If an insurance company
goes bankrupt, the operators can just move on to start another
insurance company, or go to work for one that didn't go bankrupt.
Maybe the taxpayer bails them out, like with AIG.
Insurance companies aren't dopes. They have the odds figured out
pretty well.

--
Vic

On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:54:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:40:27 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


Talk to some people in the Fl Keys if you want to know the next steps
in state-run calamity insurance. IT isn't pretty what is happening down
there on wind-hurricane insurance.

The premiums should be astronomical and attune to the risk. The funds
that pay for hurricane damage should mostly come from people that
insist on building in some of those places. You want beach front?
Fine, but don't bitch to me when it floods.


On the other side of the risk equation, I live in northern Illinois,
and have earthquake insurance.
Might be useless, but it's dirt cheap.
There was a little tremor up here about the time I was renewing my
homeowners a few years ago. So out of curiosity I asked my agent how
much earthquake coverage cost. He was stumped, because nobody ever
asks. Said he'd get back to me, and did the next day. $40 bucks.
So I told my wife when she asked who was on the phone.
Then when renewal got close, I had to think about that, and decide if
I wanted earthquake insurance. I knew my wife knew what it cost.
Since there's that big New Madrid fault down in Missouri, which can
reach up here, and some others, and nobody can predict them, I
imagined an earthquake.
We escaped to the basement, and survived the house collapsing around
us. We managed to crawl outside, nursed our cuts and scrapes, and
felt lucky to have no broken bones, except my left arm and her right
leg and collarbone.
As we looked at our collapsed house, a total loss, my wife looked at
me and asked,
"Did you pay that 40 bucks for earthquake insurance?"

--
Vic

On 5/26/2012 1:06 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On 26 May 2012 15:36:00 GMT, wrote:



Those companies are crazy to offer earthquake insurance at all.

Why is that? It's a lot of premium money. If an insurance company
goes bankrupt, the operators can just move on to start another
insurance company, or go to work for one that didn't go bankrupt.
Maybe the taxpayer bails them out, like with AIG.
Insurance companies aren't dopes. They have the odds figured out
pretty well.


Actually they are being very smart. We live a few miles away from a
flood plane. After numerous floods the insurance companies paid off the
right politicians to have the start the Federal flood insurance. That
way they could keep their much more lucrative and predicable core
property insurance business.

On 5/26/2012 12:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:40:27 -0400, Kurt
wrote:


Talk to some people in the Fl Keys if you want to know the next steps
in state-run calamity insurance. IT isn't pretty what is happening down
there on wind-hurricane insurance.

The premiums should be astronomical and attune to the risk. The funds
that pay for hurricane damage should mostly come from people that
insist on building in some of those places. You want beach front?
Fine, but don't bitch to me when it floods.


For sure. I was watching a show one day and they were interviewing
someone whose home on "breezy point" got trashed in a hurricane. The
owner cheerfully noted that "the insurance" has already rebuilt the
house twice so things really work out OK and they have that great view.
You want a great view and build your house on breezy point don't
complain when they actually increase the insurance premium to cover the
risk.


At least building codes are getting them to build houses that can take
some of the beating.

On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:34:05 -0400, George
wrote:

On 5/26/2012 1:06 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On 26 May 2012 15:36:00 GMT, wrote:



Those companies are crazy to offer earthquake insurance at all.

Why is that? It's a lot of premium money. If an insurance company
goes bankrupt, the operators can just move on to start another
insurance company, or go to work for one that didn't go bankrupt.
Maybe the taxpayer bails them out, like with AIG.
Insurance companies aren't dopes. They have the odds figured out
pretty well.


Actually they are being very smart. We live a few miles away from a
flood plane. After numerous floods the insurance companies paid off the
right politicians to have the start the Federal flood insurance. That
way they could keep their much more lucrative and predicable core
property insurance business.

It's even better than that for the insurance companies.
Private insurance companies get a cut of federal flood insurance
premiums.
My son just bought a house on a so-called "100 year flood plain."
His neighbor's been there 40 years and says it never got close to
flooding. Anyway, I can't argue about what's a flood plain.
Mortgage lender requires flood insurance.
$600 a year just for the flood insurance, on a house that cost $115k.
That $600 is paid to State Farm, which gets a cut and profits by
servicing the insurance. But they have absolutely no risk.
FEMA has all the risk.

--
Vic

Frank J Warner wrote:
I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

My policy renews every year in June. This year, I received notice that
earthquake coverage would no longer be offered by my primary carrier.
Until now, the premium for that coverage was $250. $1000 deductible,
full replacement cost plus contents, liability and medical, and we've
kept the amounts current to the replacement value of the property.

Wow! That's 1/3 of what I pay here in Seattle. And the deductable is 15% of the
houses value IIRC.


Instead, my carrier said, I can buy separate earthquake insurance from
an outfit called CEA, or California Earthquake Authority. From what I
gather, CEA is a privately funded publicly managed organization that
fulfills the mandate that insurers in California must offer earthquake
insurance.

The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to a
whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

That's near to what I've been paying for years.


From what I've read, the premium and the deductible is so high because
CEA is required by law to have sufficient funds to cover losses in a
"500-year event." They have about $4 billion in reserve, which is not
enough, so they spend 40% of that on supplemental insurance in case of
such an event.

I don't live in LA or San Francisco. There are no major fault lines
near my home, although there are lots of little ones. I've lived in
this town since 1951 and the biggest earthquake I've experienced was
about a 5.3, fifty miles away. Strong enough to knock some dishes off
their shelves but that's about it.

I don't think this is a good deal. If there's an earthquake strong
enough to cause $50,000 worth of damage to my home, I'd be better off
getting a loan to cover it. Anything over that, I'd torch the place
and move on.

What do you think?

Welcome to the real world.

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:29:43 -0700, Frank J Warner
wrote:

I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

Tell me what town you're in and I'll offer advice.

-Zz,
PG, CHG, BS, MS (geology)

In article , Zz Yzx
wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:29:43 -0700, Frank J Warner
wrote:

I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

Tell me what town you're in and I'll offer advice.

-Zz,
PG, CHG, BS, MS (geology)

No thanks. I don't need geologic advice.

Unless you know something every seismologist in the world hasn't
managed to figure out yet.

Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com

On Sun, 27 May 2012 07:50:37 -0700, Zz Yzx wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:29:43 -0700, Frank J Warner
wrote:

I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

Tell me what town you're in and I'll offer advice.

I don't even need to know which town he's in; move out of Kalifornica.

Bob F wrote:
Frank J Warner wrote:
I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

My policy renews every year in June. This year, I received notice
that earthquake coverage would no longer be offered by my primary
carrier. Until now, the premium for that coverage was $250. $1000
deductible, full replacement cost plus contents, liability and
medical, and we've kept the amounts current to the replacement value
of the property.

Wow! That's 1/3 of what I pay here in Seattle. And the deductable is
15% of the houses value IIRC.


Instead, my carrier said, I can buy separate earthquake insurance
from an outfit called CEA, or California Earthquake Authority. From
what I gather, CEA is a privately funded publicly managed
organization that fulfills the mandate that insurers in California
must offer earthquake insurance.

The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to
a whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

That's near to what I've been paying for years.

I just opened my new bill. $802 for earthquake coverage out of $1389 total for a
year.

In article , Bob F
wrote:

Frank J Warner wrote:
I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

My policy renews every year in June. This year, I received notice that
earthquake coverage would no longer be offered by my primary carrier.
Until now, the premium for that coverage was $250. $1000 deductible,
full replacement cost plus contents, liability and medical, and we've
kept the amounts current to the replacement value of the property.

Wow! That's 1/3 of what I pay here in Seattle. And the deductable is 15% of
the
houses value IIRC.


Instead, my carrier said, I can buy separate earthquake insurance from
an outfit called CEA, or California Earthquake Authority. From what I
gather, CEA is a privately funded publicly managed organization that
fulfills the mandate that insurers in California must offer earthquake
insurance.

The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to a
whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

That's near to what I've been paying for years.

You're in the shadow of Mt. Rainier. You probably have volcano
insurance, too.


From what I've read, the premium and the deductible is so high because
CEA is required by law to have sufficient funds to cover losses in a
"500-year event." They have about $4 billion in reserve, which is not
enough, so they spend 40% of that on supplemental insurance in case of
such an event.

I don't live in LA or San Francisco. There are no major fault lines
near my home, although there are lots of little ones. I've lived in
this town since 1951 and the biggest earthquake I've experienced was
about a 5.3, fifty miles away. Strong enough to knock some dishes off
their shelves but that's about it.

I don't think this is a good deal. If there's an earthquake strong
enough to cause $50,000 worth of damage to my home, I'd be better off
getting a loan to cover it. Anything over that, I'd torch the place
and move on.

What do you think?

Welcome to the real world.

Not a good time to be living in the Yellowstone area.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com

In article , Bob F
wrote:

Bob F wrote:
Frank J Warner wrote:
I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

My policy renews every year in June. This year, I received notice
that earthquake coverage would no longer be offered by my primary
carrier. Until now, the premium for that coverage was $250. $1000
deductible, full replacement cost plus contents, liability and
medical, and we've kept the amounts current to the replacement value
of the property.

Wow! That's 1/3 of what I pay here in Seattle. And the deductable is
15% of the houses value IIRC.


Instead, my carrier said, I can buy separate earthquake insurance
from an outfit called CEA, or California Earthquake Authority. From
what I gather, CEA is a privately funded publicly managed
organization that fulfills the mandate that insurers in California
must offer earthquake insurance.

The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to
a whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

That's near to what I've been paying for years.

I just opened my new bill. $802 for earthquake coverage out of $1389 total for a
year.

There you go.

Bottom line is that the insurance companies can't cover catastrophic
losses. It's NOT like your house catches on fire and they have to build
a new chateau for you and yours. That's small change for them (although
your future premiums will skyrocket). They have to rebuild your entire
block, your entire town, your entire region.

It's like a casino. They took the bet. They lost the bet. They should
pay when they lose, even if you end up owning the casino when it's all
over. Now they're hedging their bets because they like that cash
machine.

The CEA is a specific example. $4 billion in assets and they've yet to
pay out a single claim.

Where can I get a job like that?

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com

On May 27, 6:31*pm, Frank J Warner
wrote:
In article , Bob F
wrote:









Bob F wrote:
Frank J Warner wrote:
I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

My policy renews every year in June. This year, I received notice
that earthquake coverage would no longer be offered by my primary
carrier. Until now, the premium for that coverage was $250. $1000
deductible, full replacement cost plus contents, liability and
medical, and we've kept the amounts current to the replacement value
of the property.

Wow! That's 1/3 of what I pay here in Seattle. And the deductable is
15% of the houses value IIRC.

Instead, my carrier said, I can buy separate earthquake insurance
from an outfit called CEA, or California Earthquake Authority. From
what I gather, CEA is a privately funded publicly managed
organization that fulfills the mandate that insurers in California
must offer earthquake insurance.

The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps to
a whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

That's near to what I've been paying for years.

I just opened my new bill. $802 for earthquake coverage out of $1389 total for a
year.

There you go.

Bottom line is that the insurance companies can't cover catastrophic
losses. It's NOT like your house catches on fire and they have to build
a new chateau for you and yours. That's small change for them (although
your future premiums will skyrocket). They have to rebuild your entire
block, your entire town, your entire region.

It's like a casino. They took the bet. They lost the bet. They should
pay when they lose, even if you end up owning the casino when it's all
over. Now they're hedging their bets because they like that cash
machine.

The CEA is a specific example. $4 billion in assets and they've yet to
pay out a single claim.

Where can I get a job like that?

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:http://www.sharpbywarner.com


I'm in Florida - Tampa Bay area. There has not been a hurricane to
hit this area in 90 years. When I moved here my first year the
insurance was $325 a year.... last year it was almost $2000...with
good old State Farm (who I had been with for 50 years) long before
moving to Florida. Now I can only get insurance from one company --
its Citizens. Run by the state of Florida....and it's what everyone
in my county has. There is a sinkhole problem in this state -- and it
is very hard to get coverage for that. I am not covered....I would
have been glad to pay for it but the agent said I probably wouldn't be
able to get it. My neighbors all have the same problem. Most of us
are senior citizens and our houses are paid for so we don't have to
have insurance. Most of us do have it -- in addition to FEMA flood
insurance -- because we are responsible adults and want to do
everything to protect ourselves. But the price is high and is getting
higher -- and our income isn't rising in proportion to the price of
insurance. If we have a hurricane or sinkhole -- a lot of people will
just move away and abandon their property. Won't have much choice.
Its the world we live in. People in the mid-west have problems with
tornadoes and still choose to live there. Its silly to say "they
chose to live there so they should pay" .... what we should be doing
is trying to find a reasonable response to these problems. The people
in charge of regulating insurance need to find a better way to handle
this and stop bending over backwards to protect the insurance
companies.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 27 May 2012 07:50:37 -0700, Zz Yzx wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:29:43 -0700, Frank J Warner
wrote:

I live in California. I've had earthquake insurance on my house since
the day I bought it in 1989.

Tell me what town you're in and I'll offer advice.

I don't even need to know which town he's in; move out of Kalifornica.

OK. Lessee.

Floridah - hurricanes (every freakin' year!)
the Carolinas - see above
Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi - see above, with crawfish, catfish
and rednecks, and levees
The Eastern Seaboard - see above and Nor'westers
Georgia - see above, and still ****ed about Appomattox
the Dakotas - snow and ice and darkness; too effing close to Canada
Kansas, Arkansas and most of the midwest - tornadoes, seasonal. Too
much Jesus. Don't buy a trailer. Jesus hates trailer parks
Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico. Nevada - drought, steer manure, oil,
millions of acres of cactus, prostitution (hey! It's not ALL bad!)
Oregon, Washington - deluge, vegetarians, Starbucks, Mt. St. Helens, no
black people
Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa - fat, stupid people; birthplace of
Walmart, where your bacon comes from; Ted Nugent
Idaho, Montana - no speed limit (hmmm), highest ratio of guns per
capita (watch your speed, pardner, you're slowing me down.)
New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania - politicians, terrorists
and other rude people
The Appalachian states - Deliverance, dueling banjos, Foxfire
Maine - how much lobster can one man eat? And why are those trees
orange? Seriously? The frost level is 3 inches?
Hawaii - A loaf of bread costs $10. (Also, tsunamis)
Alaska - bears, Sarah Palin

California - 10 miles to a pristine beach, 30 miles to a pristine
mountain, 30 miles to a pristine desert, 2 hours to one of the most
beautiful parks on Earth, 60 miles to one of the major cities on the
planet, bikinis, oranges, almonds, movie stars, no toll roads, fresh
air.

And a nice earthquake once per decade. The ultimate E-ticket ride.

For which I am currently uninsured.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com

On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:05:32 -0700 (PDT), Dottie
wrote:



I'm in Florida - Tampa Bay area. There has not been a hurricane to
hit this area in 90 years. When I moved here my first year the
insurance was $325 a year.... last year it was almost $2000...with
good old State Farm (who I had been with for 50 years) long before
moving to Florida. Now I can only get insurance from one company --
its Citizens. Run by the state of Florida....and it's what everyone
in my county has. There is a sinkhole problem in this state -- and it
is very hard to get coverage for that. I am not covered....I would
have been glad to pay for it but the agent said I probably wouldn't be
able to get it. My neighbors all have the same problem. Most of us
are senior citizens and our houses are paid for so we don't have to
have insurance. Most of us do have it -- in addition to FEMA flood
insurance -- because we are responsible adults and want to do
everything to protect ourselves. But the price is high and is getting
higher -- and our income isn't rising in proportion to the price of
insurance. If we have a hurricane or sinkhole -- a lot of people will
just move away and abandon their property. Won't have much choice.
Its the world we live in. People in the mid-west have problems with
tornadoes and still choose to live there. Its silly to say "they
chose to live there so they should pay" .... what we should be doing
is trying to find a reasonable response to these problems. The people
in charge of regulating insurance need to find a better way to handle
this and stop bending over backwards to protect the insurance
companies.

It's a big problem, but just part of the Florida landscape.
Here's a couple articles that show how complex it is.
http://www.insuringflorida.org/artic...ce-market.html
http://corner.advisen.com/Florida.pdf

Maybe the problem is not thinking out of the box.
What I thought when you described your problem was, one way to cut the
premium in half is to cut the coverage in half.
So you self-insure for half the value. I don't know how the insurance
companies would look at this, because I don't know how they figure
losses. It might mean on $50k of repairs you have to cough up $25k.
Big hit, but there may be ways to offset that. The $25k from the
insurance might be enough make the home habitable, and you can
take your time fixing the rest of the damage, getting better prices.
Sure, that could change your home life style for a while, but consider
it a cost of "living in paradise."
Even with a total loss, being paid half the loss will at least keep
you off the streets.
That's all only for those without a mortgage.
There were a lot of people without insurance hurricane insurance after
those big ones 6-8 years ago.
My sister has a condo in Punta Gorda that got hit by Charley, and she
went without hurricane insurance for a while after that.
One mistake people make is insuring for too much, like the entire
amount they paid for the house, or current market value.
A big chunk of that is the value of the land, which is retained even
if the house is blown away.
Anyway, I've been thinking of eventually moving to Florida.
Insurance will be a big consideration in my decision.

--
Vic

On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:05:32 -0700 (PDT), Dottie
wrote:





I'm in Florida - Tampa Bay area. There has not been a hurricane to
hit this area in 90 years.

None of this affected you?
Twenty years ago, Hurricane Andrew roared into South Florida as a
category 5 storm. Its toll: 15 deaths directly from the hurricane, $30
billion in property damage, 250,000 left homeless, 82,000 businesses
left damaged or destroyed. The stories below reflect on the changes
that came out of this catastrophic event. We also wanted to take this
time to remind you about Hurricane Charley, a storm that had been
predicted to come ashore in Tampa Bay as a category 2 in 2004.
Instead, it took a hard turn right and slammed into Punta Gorda as a
Category 4 storm. The devastating storm caused 10 deaths in the United
States and $14 billion in losses. Many in that area were caught
unprepared, thinking the storm was going to hit Tampa Bay. And what if
it had? Would you have been prepared?






Its silly to say "they
chose to live there so they should pay" .... what we should be doing
is trying to find a reasonable response to these problems. The people
in charge of regulating insurance need to find a better way to handle
this and stop bending over backwards to protect the insurance
companies.


Why is it silly? If you choose to live in a high risk area, why
should I have to pay for your losses?

Are you willing to pay more for car insurance because teenagers cause
a lot of accidents and they don't want to pay higher rates? Should we
all pay the same?

On 5/27/2012 6:21 PM, Frank J Warner wrote:


Not a good time to be living in the Yellowstone area.

-Frank




Insurance or where you live (in the world) would be of no benefit if
that goes off:

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...ervolcano.html

Geologists say its way past due to blow its top.

John

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Are you willing to pay more for car insurance because teenagers cause
a lot of accidents and they don't want to pay higher rates? Should we
all pay the same?

How about health insurance? (Serious question)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:46:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Are you willing to pay more for car insurance because teenagers cause
a lot of accidents and they don't want to pay higher rates? Should we
all pay the same?

How about health insurance? (Serious question)

Smokers should pay more.. (Serious answer)

Smoking is a choice, same as living in a beach front house. Or below
sea level.

Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and
intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.

On 5/27/2012 5:31 PM, Frank J Warner wrote:
....

Bottom line is that the insurance companies can't cover catastrophic
losses. It's NOT like your house catches on fire and they have to build
a new chateau for you and yours. That's small change for them (although
your future premiums will skyrocket). They have to rebuild your entire
block, your entire town, your entire region.

It's like a casino. They took the bet. They lost the bet. They should
pay when they lose, even if you end up owning the casino when it's all
over. Now they're hedging their bets because they like that cash
machine.
....

A) +1 w/ the observation that it isn't so much "can't" as it is "can't
at single-loss actuarial rates".

B) They're not "hedging a bet" they're adjusting the odds to reflect
actual risk for widespread events. If "you end up owing the casino"
there's no benefit--they're bankrupt and all you've got is the return of
what assets there were which clearly wouldn't have been sufficient to
cover the losses or they wouldn't have the problem...

In reality, the spate of hurricanes the precipitated the insurance
problems in the SE US was a result of them not adequately addressing the
first point above. As hard as it is to believe they could be so
oblivious to the realities, actuarial rates had been set on very similar
models as those used for individual homes and had not adequately
addressed the "common-mode failure" factor of large-scale events and the
exponential growth in total value in the coastal regions over a period
of years.

It's a reflection of changing to meet the real risk and higher potential
payouts that are the root cause. It's not clear to me whether the state
mandates help or hurt more in terms of actual coverages offered--I tend
to think likely it's counterproductive in that companies will simply
choose to not accept the risk rather than face excessive regulatory burdens.

There's severe weather here but it's much more isolated in general altho
when a large metro area gets a direct hit like Joplin did last year it
can add up pretty good. Still, it doesn't cover anything like the area
nor have the tremendous flood damage potential of a major hurricane.
So, rates here aren't terribly affected by the tornado risk.

--

On 5/28/2012 8:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:46:53 -0400, Kurt
wrote:
....
How about health insurance? (Serious question)

Smokers should pay more.. (Serious answer)

Smoking is a choice, same as living in a beach front house. Or below
sea level.

Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and
intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.


The biggest problem in health insurance imo is the selective creation of
pools that many are shut out of--like the self-employed, etc., that are
forced into individual policies that prevent any benefit of pooling w/ a
larger multi-age group of similar general health levels.

Here is where I think there should be some additional regulation that
creates a general pool for the population as a whole rather than the
present employer-based pools that skew the market.

The issue of voluntary "opt-out" by the young and relatively healthy is
a problem as well--they tend to either not participate at all or to have
very minimal coverage so they skew the system in two ways--they don't
add much (relatively speaking) to the premium base and so when do have a
major illness are added to the un-/under-insured pool essentially no
differently than the indigent. 'Tis a quandary; I don't have a good
answer on how to improve the maturity of the immature...

--

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:46:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Are you willing to pay more for car insurance because teenagers cause
a lot of accidents and they don't want to pay higher rates? Should we
all pay the same?

How about health insurance? (Serious question)

Smokers should pay more.. (Serious answer)
How about other things like obesity? How about with medical conditions
that cost extra?


Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and
intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.

I would argue that we don't have health insurance any more and haven't
since the demise of the old Major Medical policies, but that is a story
for another day.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article , dpb wrote:


The biggest problem in health insurance imo is the selective creation of
pools that many are shut out of--like the self-employed, etc., that are
forced into individual policies that prevent any benefit of pooling w/ a
larger multi-age group of similar general health levels.

This is an almost inevitable result of employer-based insurance
system that evolved out of WWII.


Here is where I think there should be some additional regulation that
creates a general pool for the population as a whole rather than the
present employer-based pools that skew the market.
I don't know. I have, however, long advocated a reinsurance pool. It
is well established that really small numbers of people spend the
overwhelming largest % of the money, with 5% of the population spending
almost half of the money. I think it would make sense to have an extra
surcharge on health insurance premiums to fund it. Then when a person
hits a specific amount spent (which could vary based on the size of the
group), their care would be paid for by the reinsurance fund. It is used
in many area for Property and Casualty insurance for instance. The REAL
problems with the small groups and individual insurance occurs when they
have an expensive patient and few people to spread the costs around.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:56:05 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:46:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


How about health insurance? (Serious question)

Smokers should pay more.. (Serious answer)
How about other things like obesity? How about with medical conditions
that cost extra?


OK on obesity, but pretty much anything else should be nixed. They
are behavioral traits that you have some control over. Heart disease,
blood disorders, and that sort of thing happens potentially to anyone
and is just part of the pool. See my comment below.


Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and
intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.



I would argue that we don't have health insurance any more and haven't
since the demise of the old Major Medical policies, but that is a story
for another day.

Sure is.

On 5/28/2012 1:05 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , wrote:


The biggest problem in health insurance imo is the selective creation of
pools that many are shut out of--like the self-employed, etc., that are
forced into individual policies that prevent any benefit of pooling w/ a
larger multi-age group of similar general health levels.

This is an almost inevitable result of employer-based insurance
system that evolved out of WWII.

Well, yes, I recognize that--the comment was on current situation owing
tb demographics and employment patterns having evolved markedly since
the 60's and that model doesn't fit an increasingly large fraction of
the present population.

Here is where I think there should be some additional regulation that
creates a general pool for the population as a whole rather than the
present employer-based pools that skew the market.
I don't know. I have, however, long advocated a reinsurance pool. It
is well established that really small numbers of people spend the
overwhelming largest % of the money, with 5% of the population spending
almost half of the money. I think it would make sense to have an extra
surcharge on health insurance premiums to fund it. Then when a person
hits a specific amount spent (which could vary based on the size of the
group), their care would be paid for by the reinsurance fund. It is used
in many area for Property and Casualty insurance for instance. The REAL
problems with the small groups and individual insurance occurs when they
have an expensive patient and few people to spread the costs around.

Possibly at least a partial solution although I still think the pools
ought to be something like a state overall population or somesuch
instead of simply a group of employees--after all, employees are for the
most part the healthy sub-group since they are at least still employable
(if perhaps not all productive ). Thus it is, in essence,
cherry-picking the cream of the crop and leaving the rest to make up the
problem cases.

Thus the self-employed has the problem of the latter above that I raised
earlier.

--

On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:05:37 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:





Here is where I think there should be some additional regulation that
creates a general pool for the population as a whole rather than the
present employer-based pools that skew the market.

Yes.


I don't know. I have, however, long advocated a reinsurance pool. It
is well established that really small numbers of people spend the
overwhelming largest % of the money, with 5% of the population spending
almost half of the money. I think it would make sense to have an extra
surcharge on health insurance premiums to fund it.

There are problems with that. Without the statistics, I can only
speak in generalities. Much of that 5% are elderly and can least
afford the surcharge. Since I'm getting closer to elderly every day,
I'm well aware of it. In addition, in 2010 my wife's medical bills
were about $150,000. Most covered by a good insurance policy. My
employer could have chosen a less costly policy with less coverage and
more expense to me.

We do have choices as to coverage. Since that time, we are both on
Medicare and we both have the top supplement offered. To get that
good coverage, we pay a higher premium than others. I guess we are
paying that surcharge you speak of.



Then when a person
hits a specific amount spent (which could vary based on the size of the
group), their care would be paid for by the reinsurance fund. It is used
in many area for Property and Casualty insurance for instance. The REAL
problems with the small groups and individual insurance occurs when they
have an expensive patient and few people to spread the costs around.


The company I work for has 17 employees. Of the 17, one is under 30,
but seven of us are 60+. That is bad for the census that determines
the rate. It may be a benefit though, that some of us are now out of
the company plan and into Medicare.

Getting back to that 5% again. much of the money is spent near or at
end of life. At some point, it is probably best to say "goodbye"
rather than keep a poorly functioning body alive so family members can
sit and watch it. In a few rare cases, the euthanasia advocates make
sense.

Frank J Warner wrote:
In article , Bob F
Instead, my carrier said, I can buy separate earthquake insurance
from an outfit called CEA, or California Earthquake Authority. From
what I gather, CEA is a privately funded publicly managed
organization that fulfills the mandate that insurers in California
must offer earthquake insurance.

The premium jumps to a whopping $631.00, and the deductible jumps
to a whopping $57,000 for a $380,000 home.

That's near to what I've been paying for years.

You're in the shadow of Mt. Rainier. You probably have volcano
insurance, too.

Not as far as I know. And the $802/yr I pay is only the earthquake part of the
insurance.

Ranier threatens the south end of Seattle suburbs with floods, but not the north
where I live.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:39:07 -0700, Frank J Warner

Oregon, Washington - deluge, vegetarians, Starbucks, Mt. St. Helens,
no black people

You sound a little racist, as well as full of other bigotry.

And clueless.

On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:08:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:46:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Are you willing to pay more for car insurance because teenagers cause
a lot of accidents and they don't want to pay higher rates? Should we
all pay the same?

How about health insurance? (Serious question)

Smokers should pay more.. (Serious answer)

Should those who have chronic illnesses pay more? They use more.

Smoking is a choice, same as living in a beach front house. Or below
sea level.

So is going without insurance.

Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and
intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.

So you approve of Big Brother.

On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:39:20 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 5/28/2012 8:08 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:46:53 -0400, Kurt
wrote:
...
How about health insurance? (Serious question)

Smokers should pay more.. (Serious answer)

Smoking is a choice, same as living in a beach front house. Or below
sea level.

Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and
intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.


The biggest problem in health insurance imo is the selective creation of
pools that many are shut out of--like the self-employed, etc., that are
forced into individual policies that prevent any benefit of pooling w/ a
larger multi-age group of similar general health levels.

There is nothing stopping you from creating your own pool. The real problem
is that those pools are limited to the states. You couldn't have members from
the various states and have insurance companies compete for the business. In
several states there is *very* little competition at all.

Here is where I think there should be some additional regulation that
creates a general pool for the population as a whole rather than the
present employer-based pools that skew the market.

The issue of voluntary "opt-out" by the young and relatively healthy is
a problem as well--they tend to either not participate at all or to have
very minimal coverage so they skew the system in two ways--they don't
add much (relatively speaking) to the premium base and so when do have a
major illness are added to the un-/under-insured pool essentially no
differently than the indigent. 'Tis a quandary; I don't have a good
answer on how to improve the maturity of the immature...

On 5/28/2012 1:55 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
....

Insurance spreads the risk, a good thing, but if you knowingly and
intentionally increase the risk, you should pay for it.

So you approve of Big Brother.

Actuarially-based rates owing to behavior reflect the realities of the
resulting consequences (on a statistical basis, not individual outcome)
and it's actually more nearly reflecting personal responsibility to
shoulder the additional burden for that choice.

--