Entries from February 2010 ↓

This is the word you see most often when insurance companies talk about the best way to get a reduction in your premium rates. All you have to do, the smooth voice says, is increase the deductible and we’ll give you a 10% discount. And, it’s a fact. It sounds like a good deal. So why are insurance companies so keen for you to increase the deductible? The answer could not be more simple. Whatever deductible you sign up for is the amount you pay if you are involved in a traffic accident or incur a liability of some kind connected with your ownership of a vehicle. That means you pay and not the insurance company. This is a cool idea (from the insurer’s point of view). You insure yourself. All the premium pays for is cover in case your losses amount to more than the deductible. This is really great. The insurer collects a premium and you pay the first however many dollars of the claim. Since the majority of claims are for small amounts – fender benders rarely cost that much to repair – the insurer is on a winner. In fact, the bigger the deductible you sign up to accept, the better off the insurance company is. OK, the company does give you a discount, but it’s rarely an adequate amount.

Let’s see how it works out. Suppose you opt to pay the first $1,000 of every claim and the insurer gives you a 10% discount, are your savings $83 a month? If they are and you are unlucky enough to have an accident at the end of the year, you will have broken even. Your $1,000 in savings just got paid out as a lump sum at the end of the year. Except, of course, there’s a Parkinson’s Law of money in operation – spending wipes out money available. In other words, we usually spend what we have. This leaves you without savings and so that cash sum has to go on your credit card with interest until you can pay it off. In reality, most people end up out of pocket if they have to pay the deductible on one accident. Now imagine the case if your luck is really bad and you have two accidents in the same year. Do you really have $2,000 lying around on the off chance of two insurance claims? Continue reading →

The world of politics is never supposed to make any real sense. After all, once you pit people’s cherished beliefs against each other, passions are roused and the arguments soon become bitter. It would be better if everyone was just allowed to do what they wanted. But, when it comes to organising medical care for the population, it takes a government to put the right kind of infrastructure in place. People have to be trained as care givers. This takes years and costs a small fortune. Hospitals and clinics have to be built. And then we come to all the support staff who drive the ambulances, keep the places clean and keep the accounts. Ah, yes, the money. All of this work over years has to be paid for. So the $64,000 question is who should foot the bill? It’s at this point that emotions get in the way of common sense.

Talk to one side of the argument and they will tell you people who want access to medical care should carry private insurance. Talk to the other side and they will tell you the state should pay for the service out of the tax revenue. It’s never really clear why people disagree. Only people who are in work pay tax. Only people who earn can afford to pay the premiums on insurance. It’s the same money. The only difference is the way it’s collected – one as tax and the other as premiums paid to an insurance company. But wait! There is a difference! If the state collects in the money, it can use it more efficiently because, unlike the insurance industry, it does not intend to make a profit. So the only reason to support the current system is to allow the insurance industry to continue making an ever larger profit.

As the Senate is currently set up, forty-one senators can stop any reform. That’s forty Republicans plus one other. Yet when you look at the number of people these Republican senators represent, it’s only 36% of the US population. This is somewhat unfair. The party with the majority of representatives was voted in by 64% of the population. The Democratic platform could not have been more clear. It was to be reform of healthcare provision. Yet when you look at the media, all you see reported is the opposition to reform. The “tea party” movement captures all the headlines. But in all this, there is one really big irony that gets very little coverage. Continue reading →