|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|05-17-2011 06:58 AM|
Boy has this thread gone off topic!!!!! Took me 15 minutes to work out the stuck boat is free!!!
|05-16-2011 01:38 PM|
Insurance is not only for your boat, or someonoe else's boat, but also the environmental damage you could do in a grounding- Coral damage or diesel spill in the water. Here in Hawaii boaters have been fined $100's of thounsands of dollars for damage to coral reefs while anchoring (anchoring on live coral).
The other think I found funny, back during the March Tsunami, many boats in Hawaii were damaged or totaled. They were at dock when the Tsunami hit. Many of these boats were live aboard and were sunk. One retired man lost everything and the boat was his house. A few weeks ago these boaters were crying at a meeting with the state (hawaii) asking what the state was going to do to help them! None of the boaters had insurance.
For $500 a year to insure my boat and $300K in liability I think insurance is a good deal. Even if you are in the right someone can still sue you. At least your insurance company will defend you at no cost (you hope at least).
|05-16-2011 11:15 AM|
Back to the beginning, it appears the owner of the boat that broke
loose did not have "liability" insurance, so the owner of the boat he
damaged has to pay for the other person's negligence. If you have any
assets and want to keep them some form of liability insurance may
help you do that. If you don't have assets worth going after, no worries,
short of going to jail.
|05-16-2011 09:19 AM|
Originally Posted by dhays View Post
I'm just glad the guy got his boat out of Lake Hillsmere.
|05-16-2011 01:49 AM|
Originally Posted by HeartsContent View Post
|05-16-2011 12:42 AM|
|05-16-2011 12:08 AM|
This is pretty funny.
Insurance is meant to protect "your" assets. There are two ways in which your "assets" can be in danger:
1) Your negligence
2) Someone else's negligence
If you have "assets" then you would be wise to protect them. It's not everyone else's responsibility to protect "your" assets so act accordingly.
If I do not have 2 nickels to rub together and total your Mercedez, I hope you were wise enough to purchase insurance to protect your assets. If not, it's your lack of responsibility to protect your assets. In this scenario, since I have no assets to protect, it makes no sense for me to have insurance.
It's really interesting how easily people will quickly and thoughtlessly surrender their freedoms for a perceived protection. It's why we are where we are today. It's the sense of entitlement felt at all levels that makes us weak and easily controlled.
If you have something to lose protect it. Expecting someone else to bail you out is simply not going to happen. No matter what the insurance companies, backed by the government will profit - be smart.
|05-15-2011 10:59 PM|
Thank you for so eloquently wording what I failed to convey. Particularly the
helmet use issue, and the cost to society part hits right on as well.
you said in one post what I failed to express in several.
I just cannot let what might happen keep me from doing what I need to do,
|05-15-2011 10:43 PM|
Granted, most of us believe that liability insurance is responsible and full-coverage is good risk diversification.
Granted, Joe's enjoying throwing gasoline on the fire. Most of us, I hope, see some good points in there*.
But really, isn't the factual record of the thread that a sailor salvaged his boat without adding to the collective insurance risk history, by working hard and being patient? Yes, there is some talk to the effect that the damaged party was at risk of not being paid, but we have no (or little) factual support for the assertion that the parties were not or are not going to reach a fair settlement (perhaps I missed something). I think it was a very happy ending, as happy as can be expected.
* I have worked mountain rescue and I can assure you that a very disproportionate share of the injured wear helmets, while most climbers do not. This seems counter intuitive, since those wearing helmets must be more safety conscious.
That conclusion contains a fallacy in logic; wearing a helmet mean the climber bought a helmet, thinking it would protect him, not that he understood what it takes to be safe. Helmets are good for small falling rocks but do very little in the case of a fall; it's not their designed purpose.
I think too many people are like that with insurance; they will stand by and watch bad stuff happen or fail to take precautions they should, knowing they have insurance. We all pay for it.
Though I do not agree with Joe on all points, I think we have failed to make the case that Joe is more expensive to society than a sailor who has insurance and uses it as a crutch. On the average, I'm pretty sure I'm right. Insurance makes for an expensive society; I also think it is offset by the stability and predictability insurance brings, by freeing up capital.
I'll keep buying insurance for my own reasons. Yes, my net worth FAR exceeds my insurance coverage and I could pay a very large ticket. I just don't want to worry over it. However, in 30 years of boating I have NEVER had a claim, so I could buy a nice little cruiser with what I've spent!
|05-15-2011 10:16 PM|
Originally Posted by RichH View Post
Originally Posted by RichH View Post
However, it’s virtually impossible to keep politics out of a discussion such as this… This story is one largely about issues such as property rights, individual freedoms weighed against responsibilities to the larger community, the right of government to mandate participation in such schemes as insurance pools, and so on…. What is all that, if not a debate that will largely be informed by leanings and points of view that can only be construed as political?
Oh, and if the mere correction of the historical record to reflect that the global economic crisis actually occurred in ’08 as opposed to ’09 is now to be construed as “Drinking the Kool-Aid”, well… then color me guilty…
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|