Insurance Premiums, Risk and floods

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

If you build where land may flood... sorry, I don't think the government should be bailing you out.

Our society is built on the fact that the government is supposed to help us in these times of need.

Too egalitarian? Probably. And this notion is independent of (and results in the same action) the incumbent government (on all of local, state and federal levels... and that is after the three levels stop bickering over who subsidises or bails out who, whose books have to be cooked and so on and so forth).

Some people say that they are entitled to compensation as part of their rights as a citizen in a democracy (read: revenge and some quid-pro-quo because we pay taxes - can't say much about those who don't but oh well - they have a democratic-capitalist entitlement mentality too).


Precedent aside - and I believe that it would not have much effect otherwise - any government who didn't offer any such help of compensation (whether to those who could or could not help themselves in mitigating damage etc.) would likely be derided. That said, when was the last time that the people actually moved the government of any level to do squat (bar near election times)? The last time I think the government was forcibly shipped out was Gough Whitlam, and that wasn't the people as such - that was the Governor-General, so big <expletive> deal.


Times like this I think socialism or communism is a better governmental model.

 

[JohnK]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

We've all been paying through the nose for car & house insurance due to the disgusting gangs of the bigger cities - whats the difference?

Why? Because this flood cause is getting on my nerves.

My parents were asked to pay ~15% more to assist. I am still paying 1% levy that was supposed to be a once off thanks to Labour Government.

Accept responsibility that you made a mistake buying in a flood plain and stop expecting the "True blue" Aussie spirit to help you out.

And you know what? I am really struggling to help myself yet I should help someone else supposedly in need. By all means ask me first if I can/want to help before forcing me....

 

[Mal]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

By all means ask me first if I can/want to help before forcing me....

Which is one reason why the official qld flood relief fund this time is struggling to raise funds. People Are burnt from two years ago. I certainly "donated" way too much to the cause....

 

[Mal]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Oh I should add that I own shares in a bank which gave an ex workmate a very large ex gratia payment for their flood damage. On top of that, I had to listen to them moaning and groaning for months about the situation. Yes they also picked up funds from the govt.

And I am sure if I checked the available maps that their place was well listed as a flood risk. It was likely flooded in 1974.

 

[amaroo]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Why? Because this flood cause is getting on my nerves.

My parents were asked to pay ~15% more to assist. I am still paying 1% levy that was supposed to be a once off thanks to Labour Government.

Accept responsibility that you made a mistake buying in a flood plain and stop expecting the "True blue" Aussie spirit to help you out.

And you know what? I am really struggling to help myself yet I should help someone else supposedly in need. By all means ask me first if I can/want to help before forcing me....

What about the people that have suffered from fire & drought over the years.....they all get assistance from the everyday tax payer.

I didn't like paying the AN levy however, cough happens!

 

[JohnK]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I didn't like paying the AN levy however, cough happens!

Sorry but I do not buy that line.

Please help me with my gambling debt. It wasn't my fault. Why make some people suffer and help others. Makes no sense....

 

[Mal]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

What about the people that have suffered from fire & drought over the years.....they all get assistance from the everyday tax payer.

I didn't like paying the AN levy however, cough happens!

Sh! Does happen. But I get sick of paying for every ones else lack of Preperation. Where does insurance come into play? In the case above of my workmate he chose not to insure for flood. Yet the bank came to his rescue due to a technicality.

I won't be paying much tax in Australia in the future but am quite surprised how the funds work vs the UK where I currently live. More personal responsibility is the key to many disaster type payments.

 

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I didn't like paying the AN levy however, cough happens!

Ah yes... a private company falls flat and the government is somehow completely responsible for ensuring the benefits and wages of the affected employees is paid out. How logical. Not.

Needless to say, company law as well as general indifference meant that the members of the board up to the dying ages of the company were never going to be responsible more than the value of their shares, and even then. But the fact that the government was all of the sudden responsible (granted, they may have shared some culpability...)

The only equitable thing was that it was flyers who mainly bore the burden of paying out AN employees, not the entire population per se. In the end, it was still a shoddy effort in getting every AN employee who was affected at least minimal payout (i.e. do it right or don't do it at all).

 

[medhead]

The totally off-topic thread

I can't believe the naive comments about insurance here. Insurance is a risk pool. It is entirely based on subsidisation. What's the risk? X in Y. Ok so for even Y customers we have we need to collect enough to cover the costs if X. It is really frustration to read comment about a subject that seem to totally ignore the basics.

As for the flooding. It has become pretty apparent that the operators of wivenhoe did not do what they were suppose to do.

 

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I can't believe the naive comments about insurance here. Insurance is a risk pool. It is entirely based on subsidisation. What's the risk? X in Y. Ok so for even Y customers we have we need to collect enough to cover the costs if X. It is really frustration to read comment about a subject that seem to totally ignore the basics.

As for the flooding. It has become pretty apparent that the operators of wivenhoe did not do what they were suppose to do.

So to what degree do you segregate the different risk pools?

For example, with travel insurance, the regular package usually doesn't cover extreme sports and the like. Those who want that extra cover must pay accordingly on top of regular policy holders. So the pool for those kinds of people is smaller (but then there are specific covers there with those kinds of payouts).

Same thing for flood coverage (e.g. which is useless for an area not near any creeks, lakes or a shoreline); one could also argue, for example, coverage from particular types of fires when near dry bushland (i.e. bushfire prone areas).

 

[Mal]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

If the insurance companies didn't cop a beating from various governments then they might Actually properly price for risks.

Instead pollies like Anna blight put political pressure on them when a natural disaster occurs.

Granted insurance companies are quite happy to deny claims for many reasons but I despise paying More due to inapropriate government interference.

 

[amaroo]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Ah yes... a private company falls flat and the government is somehow completely responsible for ensuring the benefits and wages of the affected employees is paid out. How logical. Not.

The only equitable thing was that it was flyers who mainly bore the burden of paying out AN employees, not the entire population per se. In the end, it was still a shoddy effort in getting every AN employee who was affected at least minimal payout (i.e. do it right or don't do it at all).

GEERS/FEG - General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS) | Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

We're all chipping in for these payments......

 

[Deleted member]

The totally off-topic thread

Well you cant have the insurance companies going broke

A broke insurance company isn't much use to anyone. In fact underwriting profit was once a standard requirement, having been out of General Insurance for over 10 years, I can't attest to the current requirements being the same.

 

[Deleted member]

The totally off-topic thread

So to what degree do you segregate the different risk pools?

For example, with travel insurance, the regular package usually doesn't cover extreme sports and the like. Those who want that extra cover must pay accordingly on top of regular policy holders. So the pool for those kinds of people is smaller (but then there are specific covers there with those kinds of payouts).

Same thing for flood coverage (e.g. which is useless for an area not near any creeks, lakes or a shoreline); one could also argue, for example, coverage from particular types of fires when near dry bushland (i.e. bushfire prone areas).

The pool remains the same. Your contribution to it changes to reflect the increased risk

 

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

GEERS/FEG - General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS) | Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

We're all chipping in for these payments......

GEERS was barely set up in the same year that Ansett collapsed. I can't find out what month it was set up, though. (Ansett first started the process of eventually getting buried in September 2001).

In any case, the government set up a special loan - SEESA - to partially cover entitlements. The seat levy was intended to protect the taxpaying public in general from the financial burden of the loan. And in the end I'm wondering whether all the former AN employees actually got their entitlements anyway; in the mean time, I wonder if the administrators efficiently sold assets to pay back SEESA; on top of this, Air NZ - who IMO probably shoulders the greatest culpability in AN's collapse - paid off the government to escape further litigation (though this was probably a concession by the government in order to procure funds quickly).


In any case, we truly are still bailing out irresponsible companies who have no guarantee for their employee's benefits. Barring prima facie white collar crime or fraud, we can't take such irresponsible CEOs etc. to court - they are entitled to pay out however much their shareholding states and then that's it - any other assets (including the mansion, the luxury boat or the Ferrari gifted to the wife) can't be touched.

On top of that, I know that AN employees should have gotten their benefits, but in the end some employees were really portraying themselves as very militant, advocating that the entire Australian population owed them a huge favour to give them their benefits that their collapsed company could not provide.

 

[Deleted member]

The totally off-topic thread

If the insurance companies didn't cop a beating from various governments then they might Actually properly price for risks.

Instead pollies like Anna blight put political pressure on them when a natural disaster occurs.

Granted insurance companies are quite happy to deny claims for many reasons but I despise paying More due to inapropriate government interference.

Insurance is market driven as well. People want cheap premiums. So the insurers restrict what you are covered for. Net result , unhappiness at claim time. It's a bit like expecting a QF J experience when booking a Y fare on a LCC. The difference is that you get to experience your flight differences now. The cheap premiums for 5 or 10 years and exactly what they cover fades into the background. On reality ( and this goes for life insurances as well) you the customer need to take responsibility for your actions and make time to sit with your broker and discuss exactly eggs is and isn't covered. I bet a fair number here have been invited by their insurance adviser to review annually or at least semi annually their insurance. I will also bet most of you won't do it. Lets face it. It's a boring subject and will likely mean more expense. Of so. Song come whining at claim time.

 

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Insurance is market driven as well. People want cheap premiums. So the insurers restrict what you are covered for. Net result , unhappiness at claim time. It's a bit like expecting a QF J experience when booking a Y fare on a LCC. The difference is that you get to experience your flight differences now. The cheap premiums for 5 or 10 years and exactly what they cover fades into the background. On reality ( and this goes for life insurances as well) you the customer need to take responsibility for your actions and make time to sit with your broker and discuss exactly eggs is and isn't covered. I bet a fair number here have been invited by their insurance adviser to review annually or at least semi annually their insurance. I will also bet most of you won't do it. Lets face it. It's a boring subject and will likely mean more expense. Of so. Song come whining at claim time.

I think Mal's point though is that even in the face of the insurance companies operating as such, governments should not interfere, as it distorts the reality of the situation and there's no conceivable reason why the government should intervene.

 

[Pushka]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I always say that if something bad happens to you, like a house fire, then make sure it happens to people around you. Otherwise the government doesn't give a damn.

Isn't the government all about making people dependent on them so that they parent us rather than govern us, thereby shoreing up their vote until we hopefully realise we are grown up. Except for some, hopefully for the government, enough to vote them back in, rather like the thought of being cared for and not be independent.

 

[Hvr]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I always say that if something bad happens to you, like a house fire, then make sure it happens to people around you. Otherwise the government doesn't give a damn.

Isn't the government all about making people dependent on them so that they parent us rather than govern us, thereby shoreing up their vote until we hopefully realise we are grown up. Except for some, hopefully for the government, enough to vote them back in, rather like the thought of being cared for and not be independent.

So when does looking after one's self come into play? I've had insurance ever since I moved out of home. Have claimed a couple of times and generally been fortunate that I haven't had a major calamity such as flood or fire directly affect me. However, if it did then I'd be fine.

What annoys me is people who refuse to buy insurance then expect others to give them everything to recoup their loss. If they didn't think their house, possessions etc weren't worth insuring well, you took the risk and effectively 'self insured' then you get to wear the loss.

 

[markis10]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

GEERS was barely set up in the same year that Ansett collapsed. I can't find out what month it was set up, though. (Ansett first started the process of eventually getting buried in September 2001).

GEERs was not set up in 2001, it's first pilot ran in Nov 2006. Ansett staff were never paid any monies from the special ticket tax as a grant and in fact some are still waiting for payments, the money was instead invested in Aviation security. What money was paid was for up to 8 weeks wages only and was repaid from asset sales.