Anthropogenic Global Warming ... how hot is it ?

sear said:
Perhaps. BUT !
a) To accumulate such $buffer would require over-charging by the amount needed to accumulate the amount you have in mind.
b) As S2 observed, the insurance bidness is competitive. So if one insurer does that, and a different insurer doesn't, the latter insurer will have lower premiums, and thus a competitive advantage in the insurance market.
Click to expand...

The idea is that when the money is not used due to claims, then the insurance company takes it as profit.
And what I am suggesting is that the insurance company then is not really providing anything, and is worthless.
Instead, the people should simply share a risk pool they agree upon how much they should all put in.
There is no point to allowing a company to take this pooled money reserve as profit.
The insurance company does not prevent the events that lead to claims, so they are essentially worthless.
It is the people making payments who provide all the money when there is a claim.
 
Rigby5 said:
"The idea is that when the money is not used due to claims, then the insurance company takes it as profit.
And what I am suggesting is that the insurance company then is not really providing anything, and is worthless." R5 #481
Click to expand...
My experience with applied statistics suggests to me while many insurance policy holders may never have a major claim, such as - my house burned down, all that's left is a broken bidet and a tennis racket, -
for an insurer of industrial size, the month to month operation costs are fairly stable. There may be a spike higher or lower here or there, but they're probably well within 3 sigma (I'm guessing).

Is a seatbelt "worthless" unless it keeps you from hurtling through the windshield into the grill of the truck that would otherwise have killed you?
Is a spare tire "worthless" unless it's twirling on the axle?

Seems to me insurance is about contingency. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Rigby5 said:
"Instead, the people should simply share a risk pool they agree upon how much they should all put in.
There is no point to allowing a company to take this pooled money reserve as profit.
The insurance company does not prevent the events that lead to claims, so they are essentially worthless.
It is the people making payments who provide all the money when there is a claim." R5
Click to expand...
It's a government regulated industry. Perhaps you're misunderestimating the administrative costs of holding a policy, even when there's no claim.
 
sear said:
My experience with applied statistics suggests to me while many insurance policy holders may never have a major claim, such as - my house burned down, all that's left is a broken bidet and a tennis racket, -
for an insurer of industrial size, the month to month operation costs are fairly stable. There may be a spike higher or lower here or there, but they're probably well within 3 sigma (I'm guessing).

Is a seatbelt "worthless" unless it keeps you from hurtling through the windshield into the grill of the truck that would otherwise have killed you?
Is a spare tire "worthless" unless it's twirling on the axle?

Seems to me insurance is about contingency. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.


It's a government regulated industry. Perhaps you're misunderestimating the administrative costs of holding a policy, even when there's no claim.
Click to expand...

The seat belt costs about $30.
The spare tire about $100.
The fire insurance costs more $50,000, with fewer than 1% of homes ever having fires.
The administrative costs of insurance policies seem pretty much nil.
They just take your money unless you ever file a claim, and neither require any significant staff of expertise.
 
Rigby5 said:
"The seat belt costs about $30.
The spare tire about $100.
The fire insurance costs more $50,000, with fewer than 1% of homes ever having fires.
The administrative costs of insurance policies seem pretty much nil.
They just take your money unless you ever file a claim, and neither require any significant staff of expertise." R5 #483
Click to expand...
We're in luck!
If the insurin' bidniss is inadequately regulated, the king of the planet can get out his DOGE chainsaw and fix it.

I'm not disputing your figures. But I suspect there's more to it than that.
 
sear said:
We're in luck!
If the insurin' bidniss is inadequately regulated, the king of the planet can get out his DOGE chainsaw and fix it.

I'm not disputing your figures. But I suspect there's more to it than that.
Click to expand...

Insurance used to not be a popular thing until 1957 when the IRS decided to allow employers to be able to write off employee benefits like health insurance.
Since then, insurance companies have used their vast assets to create horizontal and vertical monopolies.
So then yes, its a question of needing more regulation.
 
Last edited:
Rigby5 said:
The fire insurance costs more $50,000, with fewer than 1% of homes ever having fires.
Click to expand...
How many homes do you know where the insurance premium is more than $50,000. A friend of mine used to head up the underwriting department of a company that specialized in truly high end homes - the ones where the premium was in that order of magnitude were rare but usually had features like an indoor pool for when the weather was too cold to use the outdoor one and so forth.

As an aside, homeowners insurance covers a lot more than fires.

The administrative costs of insurance policies seem pretty much nil.
Click to expand...
How to say that you know nothing about insurance without saying you know nothing about insurance.

They just take your money unless you ever file a claim, and neither require any significant staff of expertise.
Click to expand...
You really have to learn something about insurance and operating an insurance company.
 
Shiftless2 said:
How many homes do you know where the insurance premium is more than $50,000. A friend of mine used to head up the underwriting department of a company that specialized in truly high end homes - the ones where the premium was in that order of magnitude were rare but usually had features like an indoor pool for when the weather was too cold to use the outdoor one and so forth.

As an aside, homeowners insurance covers a lot more than fires.


How to say that you know nothing about insurance without saying you know nothing about insurance.


You really have to learn something about insurance and operating an insurance company.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the total cost, not just the annual premium.
Insurance has never covered much of anything in my experience.
They even try to claim that hurricanes and forest fires are not covered, as "acts of god".
 
Shiftless2 said:
Ever heard of Lloyds of London - started in a coffee shop doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

Insurance like Lloyds of London is a great idea, because they allowed risk pooling on risky but highly profitable ventures like risky ships to China.
But these days, insurance has gotten out of hand by legislating mandates without proper controls to regulate costs.
 
Rigby5 said:
We are talking about the total cost, not just the annual premium.
Click to expand...
What "total cost"? You pay your premium for this year. That premium only covers losses that happen this year. Other than taxes (sales and premium taxes) there are no other costs. So what are you talking about?

Insurance has never covered much of anything in my experience.
They even try to claim that hurricanes and forest fires are not covered, as "acts of god".
Click to expand...
Have you actually read your policy? I mean actually read it to see exactly what it does and does not cover.

BTW, hurricanes are covered - otherwise insurers wouldn't have to purchase catastrophe reinsurance ("cat covers") and there are reinsurance companies that specialize in that. Further modelling companies like AIR and RMS wouldn't have a business.
 
Shiftless2 said:
What "total cost"? You pay your premium for this year. That premium only covers losses that happen this year. Other than taxes (sales and premium taxes) there are no other costs. So what are you talking about?


Have you actually read your policy? I mean actually read it to see exactly what it does and does not cover.

BTW, hurricanes are covered - otherwise insurers wouldn't have to purchase catastrophe reinsurance ("cat covers") and there are reinsurance companies that specialize in that. Further modelling companies like AIR and RMS wouldn't have a business.
Click to expand...

First of all, most people are not told that insurance excludes "acts of god" and that most policies do not cover them.
{...
Acts of God are generally not covered by insurance policies unless the policy explicitly includes them. Here are some common exclusions found in insurance policies:
...}

Second is that it would be immoral fraud for insurance to cover just on just an annual basis, because then no one should get health insurance until they are old enough to start needing medical care.
 
Rigby5 said:
First of all, most people are not told that insurance excludes "acts of god" and that most policies do not cover them.
{...
Acts of God are generally not covered by insurance policies unless the policy explicitly includes them. Here are some common exclusions found in insurance policies:
Click to expand...
First those covers are generally available as an endorsement. The homeowners have to buy them - I know when I was running the actuarial department for a primary carrier we sold those covers.

As an observation, those reinsurers providing catastrophe reinsurance also sell reinsurance for earthquakes.

BTW, it's "interesting" that you've dropped hurricanes from that list.

First of all, most people are not told that insurance excludes "acts of god" and that most policies do not cover them.
Click to expand...
That's the fault of their broker (or agent as the case may be).

Policyholders should carefully review their insurance policies and consult with their insurance agents to understand the coverage details and any potential exclusions related to Acts of God.
Click to expand...
Interesting that now you claim that people should read their policy and consult with their agent. But you just said that most people are not told - that's the fault of the agent (and of course the policyholder who didn't read his policy)

Second is that it would be immoral fraud for insurance to cover just on just an annual basis, because then no one should get health insurance until they are old enough to start needing medical care.
Click to expand...
With the exceptions of whole life insurance and pensions pretty much all insurance works that way and always has - you pay your premium for coverage for the current year. And that includes health insurance.
 
Shiftless2 said:
First those covers are generally available as an endorsement. The homeowners have to buy them - I know when I was running the actuarial department for a primary carrier we sold those covers.

As an observation, those reinsurers providing catastrophe reinsurance also sell reinsurance for earthquakes.

BTW, it's "interesting" that you've dropped hurricanes from that list.


That's the fault of their broker (or agent as the case may be).


Interesting that now you claim that people should read their policy and consult with their agent. But you just said that most people are not told - that's the fault of the agent (and of course the policyholder who didn't read his policy)


With the exceptions of whole life insurance and pensions pretty much all insurance works that way and always has - you pay your premium for coverage for the current year. And that includes health insurance.
Click to expand...

First of all, when I post something inside brackets, {... ...}., that is a quote, not my text.
I did not leave out hurricanes, the AI did.
I was in Texas during Katrina, so I know insurance did not cover hurricanes like Katrina.

Obviously makes no sense to consider health insurance as an annual event since then all insurance companies would have to do in order to avoid payouts is to drop anyone who got old enough to be at risk. And that clearly should be illegal.
 
Rigby5 said:
I was in Texas during Katrina, so I know insurance did not cover hurricanes like Katrina.
Click to expand...
That was probably available as an endorsement for an appropriate premium. And if it wasn't covered please tell us how all those Texas companies and their reinsurers managed to get dinged for those losses.

Obviously makes no sense to consider health insurance as an annual event since then all insurance companies would have to do in order to avoid payouts is to drop anyone who got old enough to be at risk. And that clearly should be illegal.
Click to expand...
Actually it does - or do you expect any individual insured to stick with the same insurance company for his entire life?

That said - there is a concept called "moral hazard" which includes a number of things like an insured suddenly decides he wants health insurance because one of his tests came back with a concerning level. Or the guy who never bought property insurance but discovers that there's a tropical storm just off the coast. Or ....
 
Shiftless2 said:
That was probably available as an endorsement for an appropriate premium. And if it wasn't covered please tell us how all those Texas companies and their reinsurers managed to get dinged for those losses.


Actually it does - or do you expect any individual insured to stick with the same insurance company for his entire life?

That said - there is a concept called "moral hazard" which includes a number of things like an insured suddenly decides he wants health insurance because one of his tests came back with a concerning level. Or the guy who never bought property insurance but discovers that there's a tropical storm just off the coast. Or ....
Click to expand...

Thousands had to leave Louisiana and move to Texas due to the fact insurance did not pay for fixing things.
 
Shiftless2 said:
So?

How is that the fault of their insurance company?
Click to expand...

I only heard the rumor in Texas, so just now asked AI.
Here is what the AI said:
{...
Yes, insurance did pay for the damage done by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. The estimated insured losses from Katrina were around $41 billion, with private insurers covering approximately $25.5 billion of those losses. However, many homeowners faced significant challenges, as insurance companies often paid out less than what families believed they were owed, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and lawsuits against insurers for underpayment or denial of claims.
...}
 

In a warming world, freshwater production is moving deep beneath the sea​

By ANNIKA HAMMERSCHLAG Updated 9:07 AM GMT-5, January 15, 2026
CARLSBAD, Calif. (AP) — Some four miles off the Southern California coast, a company is betting it can solve one of desalination’s biggest problems by moving the technology deep below the ocean’s surface.
OceanWell’s planned Water Farm 1 would use natural ocean pressure to power reverse osmosis — a process that forces seawater through membranes to filter out salt and impurities — and produce up to 60 million gallons (nearly 225 million liters) of freshwater daily. Desalination is energy intensive, with plants worldwide producing between 500 and 850 million tons of carbon emissions annually — approaching the roughly 880 million tons emitted by the entire global aviation industry.

OceanWell claims its deep sea approach — 1,300 feet (400 meters) below the water’s surface — would cut energy use by about 40% compared to conventional plants while also tackling the other major environmental problems plaguing traditional desalination: the highly concentrated brine discharged back into the ocean, where it can harm seafloor habitats, including coral reefs, and the intake systems that trap and kill fish larvae, plankton and other organisms at the base of the marine food web.

“The freshwater future of the world is going to come from the ocean,” said OceanWell CEO Robert Bergstrom. “And we’re not going to ask the ocean to pay for it.”
apnews.com

In a warming world, freshwater production is moving deep beneath the sea

Climate change is driving a global boom in desalination as regions turn to the sea for drinking water.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Rigby5 said:
Yes, insurance did pay for the damage done by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. The estimated insured losses from Katrina were around $41 billion, with private insurers covering approximately $25.5 billion of those losses. However, many homeowners faced significant challenges, as insurance companies often paid out less than what families believed they were owed, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and lawsuits against insurers for underpayment or denial of claims.
Click to expand...
Again they've probably never read their policies. And if they did they probably didn't understand it - that's a reason to go over your policy with your agent (or broker as the case may be).

But why would the insurance company pay more than the policy says it covers (i.e., the amount of protection that the policy holder actually purchased)?
 
sear said:

In a warming world, freshwater production is moving deep beneath the sea​

By ANNIKA HAMMERSCHLAG Updated 9:07 AM GMT-5, January 15, 2026
CARLSBAD, Calif. (AP) — Some four miles off the Southern California coast, a company is betting it can solve one of desalination’s biggest problems by moving the technology deep below the ocean’s surface.
OceanWell’s planned Water Farm 1 would use natural ocean pressure to power reverse osmosis — a process that forces seawater through membranes to filter out salt and impurities — and produce up to 60 million gallons (nearly 225 million liters) of freshwater daily. Desalination is energy intensive, with plants worldwide producing between 500 and 850 million tons of carbon emissions annually — approaching the roughly 880 million tons emitted by the entire global aviation industry.

OceanWell claims its deep sea approach — 1,300 feet (400 meters) below the water’s surface — would cut energy use by about 40% compared to conventional plants while also tackling the other major environmental problems plaguing traditional desalination: the highly concentrated brine discharged back into the ocean, where it can harm seafloor habitats, including coral reefs, and the intake systems that trap and kill fish larvae, plankton and other organisms at the base of the marine food web.

“The freshwater future of the world is going to come from the ocean,” said OceanWell CEO Robert Bergstrom. “And we’re not going to ask the ocean to pay for it.”
apnews.com

In a warming world, freshwater production is moving deep beneath the sea

Climate change is driving a global boom in desalination as regions turn to the sea for drinking water.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...

Interesting, but fragile.
In order to be able to use the pressure differential, they have to run a tube from down deep, up to the surface.
It would have to hold up to currents, storms, winds, etc.
The diffusion membrane will have to be able to withstand the pressure, and still will need frequent replacement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top