Global Market Reviews

This might sound strange to you if you have spent the money on putting an insurance policy in place, but there are times when you should consider not making a claim. It really can protect you from greater losses if your premium rates suddenly rocket up or, worse, the insurance company decides it would prefer you to take your business elsewhere. So let’s take it one step at a time. Almost every policy imposes a duty on homeowners to make claims either within a set time or a “reasonable” time. If you miss out on a time limit, you have no right to claim. When is a claim made on a “timely” basis? You will be expected to notify the insurer of a theft or vandalism within days. Reports of serious damage will be expected within two weeks and certainly never longer than 30 days. This can put you under pressure if the policy requires you to get estimates from local contractors, but no-one ever said a policy was going to be worded in your favor. So, if you have reliable estimates of the amount lost and/or costs of repair, now comes the big decision.

As a general rule, you should only make claims if the amount is greater than the deductible. If you are going to pay out of your own pocket in any event, silence will benefit you in most cases. However, be careful if there is a third party liability element involved. Suppose the wind lifts two or three roof tiles and one blows down into the street, hitting someone on the sidewalk. The cost of repairing the roof may be small but the risk of a major claim for personal injuries cannot be ignored. Always make a claim when you cannot put numbers on a possible third party claim. Now comes the difficult part. Every time you make a claim, it’s recorded in a national database called the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange (CLUE). If you make multiple smaller claims, or one or two large claims, this will stay in CLUE for seven years and may deter other insurers from writing a policy for you or encourage them only to quote high premiums. You should therefore consider absorbing losses up to $3,000. You may be lucky – the insurer pays your claim in full and does not raise the premiums. But suppose you have a deductible of $1,000 and the insurer raises your premium for $500 for the next two years. You never know the real costs of the claim until after the event but setting a higher minimum amount for a claim gives you a margin of safety. You should at least break even on the smaller claims. Read the rest of this entry »

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. For insurer this is a cool idea. 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? Read the rest of this entry »

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. Read the rest of this entry »