Do you carry your own liability insurance??? Well, you should.

1. Life Insurance, car insurance, house insurance, flood insurance, health insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance.
Those are no brainers as they all have evidence supporting the need for the claim. I do not insure products, appliances, etc. Upsale based on fear.
2. I base my purchases on value. There is no value in me throwing away $100 on a plan that to date, in all the decades of its existence can present a case which does exactly what I requested above in prior comments. Even less value for the "average" paramedic who counts on overtime to make his rent or other bills. Might as well throw the $100 in the slot machine and pull the handle, better return potential.
 
Last edited:
akflightmedic said:
1. Life Insurance, car insurance, house insurance, flood insurance, health insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance.
Those are no brainers as they all have evidence supporting the need for the claim. I do not insure products, appliances, etc. Upsale based on fear.
2. I base my purchases on value. There is no value in me throwing away $100 on a plan that to date, in all the decades of its existence a case which does exactly what I requested above in prior comments. Even less value for the "average" paramedic who counts on overtime to make his rent or other bills. Might as well throw the $100 in the slot machine and pull the handle, better return potential.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. So, about the flood insurance: Do you live in an area that floods a lot? And about the $100: Can you see yourself ever spending $100 on something without assured value, but with the remote possibility of great value, sort of like your slot-machine example? I'm not criticizing -- just asking.
 
Health insurance - DUH

Life Insurance... MAYBE only if you have a need and then in appropriate amounts. A single 23 year old medic doesn't need it. A married medic with kids arguably needs it. A very well off family may not need it if they have sufficient assets. There are a ton of plan types and a lot of them are poor value, so choose carefully.

On your Home Insurance or Renters Insurance (yes it is a thing and you should have it) make sure you have sufficient coverage and I mean that for replacing the house and for liability. For car insurance, make sure your liability coverage is sufficient.

If you have significant assets or a family, such that declaring bankruptcy could be denied or doing so would disrupt your life, then buy an Umbrella liability policy. An umbrella policy is a backup coverage if your home/auto doesn't cover you or doesn't have enough coverage. Usually, you can back your home/auto liability coverage off some (the umbrella will stipulate how much you need). You can usually get an Umbrella for a similar amount to what you'd pay HPSO, except it will cover you in vastly more circumstances and maybe even the same depending on the policy (never personally looked into professional riders).

Most dental policies are losers for regular services, but they can save you if major services are needed (crowns, maxillofacial surgery).

If your employer offers a prepaid legal service policy, TAKE IT. Seriously... one of the best things I ever have had access to!

Short term disability insurance % buy up through your employer - debatable... depends largely on what kind of cushion you have and what their terms are. Big cushion? Don't take. Live month to month? Buy up!

Full buy in disability plans outside your employer? Through your employer usually the prices are good. Through a third party (union, professional organization, etc) the prices are often onerous and not worth it.

Travel insurance? Depends... read the policy EXTREMELY carefully because the exclusion can make it completely useless. I have bought it once for a long trip to rural China but I had to choose one that would cover mountaineering. Be sure to look at what it covers medically vs your health insurance policy coverage for out of country. I do have a DAN policy that I ensure is active if I am diving because SCUBA is excluded by virtually all other policies, this covers evac too.

Rescue Insurance: When I go to Europe to ski, I buy Carte Niege but most of the policies out there like GEOS are questionable...

IANAFA

ABOVE ALL, READ AND UNDERSTAND YOUR POLICIES, WHAT THEY COVER, AND WHAT THEY EXCLUDE
 
Yes, I live in FL, my property and surrounding property is low level marsh/flood zones, we get lots of rain and hurricanes.

Yes, I can spend $100 bucks carelessly, but I am not paycheck to paycheck kind of guy. For someone who is (I spent many years there), this policy is a rip off and is sold based on fear. My whole point (AGAIN) is not whether or not you have $100 to blow, the point is does this policy TRULY do anything for you? And if so, where is the proof? And when the seller of the goods cannot answer this, then why should I listen to fear mongering? Why should a hard working, overtime dependent paramedic throw $100 away on this each and every year? It would be better value sitting in a savings account at .02% interest than throwing it away to "successful" marketing campaign.
 
Ok, and my point is, even in the absence of proof, a minor expenditure -- $100 in this case -- can still have a favorable cost/benefit ratio. Just because I can't prove it's a good idea doesn't make it a bad idea, especially when the cost is so low.

You're correct the money might be wasted, but taking the time to vet lots of opinions and advice in favor of spending the money -- even if all of that input turns out to be nonsense -- costs more in time than the fee itself. Lots of times we make cost/benefit decisions that way: How much risk do we perceive, how big is the penalty associated with that risk, and how much does it cost to eliminate, or drastically reduce that risk? Sometimes the people we give our money to make out like bandits. Sometimes we come out ahead because they're not charging enough. Sometimes it's a fair exchange.

I just bought a water filter for my kitchen sink. I did it because a family friend who works in a nearby hospital commented that she's seen more kidney stones in this part of the country than other places she's worked, and believes it's related to impurities in our drinking water. She has no proof of that, and I'm not assuming she's right. But I've had kidney stones, there are impurities in almost everyone's tap water, and I'm willing to spend $30 a few times a year in case she's right about the connection. I don't have a better use for that $60 or $90 a year. If the cost were, say, over $200, I probably wouldn't be buying those filters.

So, you and I have two different points of view on this, and I think they're both valid.
 
Your friend made an anecdotal observation and then concluded that it has to do with tap water and further concluded that a water filter could prevent the problem. Is their anecdote backed by data? Did you check the publicly available information on your tap water mineralization? Do you know what type of stones you have had in the past? Did you check if your filtering solution actually reduces calcium?

Wait... that is unnecessary... Did you bother to see if there is actually evidence to support the idea that filtering water reduces kidney stones? I checked... this is unsupported.

So when you ask how you should spend $100 or $200...

Do you have any debt you are paying interest on?
Are you maxing out your 401K and IRA?
Do you have all the other more valuable insurance products?

If not, then you do have a better use for that $60, $90, or $100 for a water filter or HPSO policy.

Or... I give up... send me $150 and I'll cast a magical spell that will reduce your chance of being sued and your chance of kidney stones. It is cheaper than a water filter and HPSO policy combined and just as effective!
 
Your first-paragraph questions: No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Then the stuff about it being unsupported -- yeah, I get that. Unsupported; not necessarily untrue. But I digress.

Based on your criteria, we agree it's ok for me to spend $60, $90 or $100 for a water filter or HPSO policy. I'll have to put a little of the water-filter money towards the HPSO policy. That's ok, maybe I'll only get really tiny kidney stones.

So that means I don't need the magic spell, right? But here's the thing: If you were standing right next to me, and gave me a convincing story, without proof, about your ability to cast magic spells, and asked for, say, a quarter to do that, I'd give it to you. That would be my cost/benefit assessment. Before you make me an offer from wherever you are, you'd have to factor in the postage.
 
mgr22 said:
Your first-paragraph questions: No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Then the stuff about it being unsupported -- yeah, I get that. Unsupported; not necessarily untrue. But I digress.

Based on your criteria, we agree it's ok for me to spend $60, $90 or $100 for a water filter or HPSO policy. I'll have to put a little of the water-filter money towards the HPSO policy. That's ok, maybe I'll only get really tiny kidney stones.

So that means I don't need the magic spell, right? But here's the thing: If you were standing right next to me, and gave me a convincing story, without proof, about your ability to cast magic spells, and asked for, say, a quarter to do that, I'd give it to you. That would be my cost/benefit assessment. Before you make me an offer from wherever you are, you'd have to factor in the postage.
Click to expand...

Hey if you are putting in $18K to your Roth 401K (or equivalent) and $5.5K to your Roth IRA and you have all that insurance, you are doing better than 90% of the people out there, statistically speaking. Nice work!

That being said, your outlook of "I don't care if it doesn't work or if it has been proven ineffective... worst case I'm out some money!" is the very mindset that underpins many scams and profitable snakeoil ventures (like homeopathy, healing crystals, magnetic bracelets, HPSO policies, and more than a few of the ACLS intrarrest drugs).

Maybe I'm in the wrong line of work...
 
Agree Summit.

I do not think mgr22 likes my request for ONE single piece of evidence. He has yet to directly address that and the fact that the very company who sells it cannot produce what I am asking.

Guess it is time for me to start company #4. Insurance for EMS Workers.

And I love being educated on cost/benefit or risk benefit scenarios...first time I ever heard of or experienced any of this. The irony is if you actually employed this model, you would find there is no benefit for the cost.
 
Summit said:
Hey if you are putting in $18K to your Roth 401K (or equivalent) and $5.5K to your Roth IRA and you have all that insurance, you are doing better than 90% of the people out there, statistically speaking. Nice work!

That being said, your outlook of "I don't care if it doesn't work or if it has been proven ineffective... worst case I'm out some money!" is the very mindset that underpins many scams and profitable snakeoil ventures (like homeopathy, healing crystals, magnetic bracelets, HPSO policies, and more than a few of the ACLS intrarrest drugs).

Maybe I'm in the wrong line of work...
Click to expand...

Did I really say that stuff about "I don't care if it doesn't work..."? That sounds so unlike me. "Worst case I'm out some (small amount of) money" definitely sounds like me, though.

I just realized the only down-side to this discussion is I'm probably going to be inundated with offers to sell me all kinds of stuff. Hmmm...healing crystals...haven't tried them. Do they prevent kidney stones?
 
mgr22 said:
Did I really say that stuff about "I don't care if it doesn't work..."? That sounds so unlike me. "Worst case I'm out some (small amount of) money" definitely sounds like me, though.
Click to expand...

You are looking at cost benefit like this:

(potential benefit) / (cost)

You need to look at things like this instead:

(potential benefit) * (chance of encountering need) * (chance of receiving benefit if needed) / (cost)

Look at HPSO the first way:

(high)/(low)=win

The second way:

(high) * (near zero) * (low) / low = near zero

That is step 1. Step 2 is compare it to the cost benefit of other uses (the opportunity cost).

I just realized the only down-side to this discussion is I'm probably going to be inundated with offers to sell me all kinds of stuff. Hmmm...healing crystals...haven't tried them. Do they prevent kidney stones?
Click to expand...
THEY MIGHT!!! But only if you buy from me... $99.95!
 
Summit said:
You are looking at cost benefit like this:

(potential benefit) / (cost)

You need to look at things like this instead:

(potential benefit) * (chance of encountering need) * (chance of receiving benefit if needed) / (cost)

Look at HPSO the first way:

(high)/(low)=win

The second way:

(high) * (near zero) * (low) / low = near zero

That is step 1. Step 2 is compare it to the cost benefit of other uses (the opportunity cost).


THEY MIGHT!!! But only if you buy from me... $99.95!
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm considering the expected value. I know you know what that is, so I'll just add that my perception of probabilities is such that I come out ahead buying the insurance. Also with filtering my water.

Your price quote is compelling :-)
 
Isn't an EV the sum of all values multiplied by the possible occurrence?

If so, then an occurrence which has yet to be proven is 0

My kids common core math tells me anything X 0 is still ZERO. Right?
 
Yes, the expected value is the probability multiplied by the cost of each occurrence. You believe the probability of needing the insurance we're discussing is zero. I believe it's fractionally higher than that. Only a fraction of a percentage point of likelihood is needed when multiplied by, say, $2,000,000 to make spending $100 worthwhile.

You keep coming back to the thing about lack of proof = zero probability. Am I paraphrasing you correctly? I feel differently -- i.e., I don't think you have to prove something is true for there to be a possibility it's true.
 
All I ask for is a single case. So until then it is zero.

You can play this game on most things I suppose but this particular situation is seemingly an absolute and easy to prove or disprove. Unless you want to go all advanced and say there are no absolutes. Either way this horse is dead pretty much. I would say the burden of proof resides with the one making the claim. But even the creator or protector of the potential claims cannot prove it, so oh well.
 
lack of proof doesn't = zero probability, but YOU CAN CONSTRAIN THE PROBABILITY:

Look at it from the reverse: if you want to be simple about it, if you pay $100, the agent gets $15, and lets say $15 in overhead for the insurer and that they aren't making anything off of investing the premiums. If they are going to break even they need your chance of needing 2 million in coverage have to be less likely than 1:28,500 per annum. Screw it. Let's let them have a reasonable profit and make it 1:50,000.

Let's say everything works out for you, that's 5:1 against you if you looks at (risk * benefit) / cost for what would likely be their minimum benefit.

Except if it were 1:50,000, shouldn't there be a massive number of examples of the benefit from the last few decades?

There aren't.

Is it because nobody buys their product? No...

It is because their product is nothing but premium and overhead with essentially zero payout in claims.

That is why they can offer a price so low it is hard to find many insurance policies of any level of coverage for any type of risk with a lower annual premium. HPSO is priced to overcome consumer resistance for an unneeded SUPPLEMENTAL policy with 1:20,000+ premium:coverage while an OBGYN is paying 1:10 (and there is competition in that market) or you pay 1:400-1:100 on for your auto policy.

The only policies that approach that level of premium:coverage are umbrella policies, another type of supplemental liability policy but one that covers a much broader set of risks with a lower supplementation threshold.

If they sold EMS liablity policies for what they were worth, they wouldn't get enough money to pay their operating overheads even if they didn't pay the agents a dime.
 
Last edited:
I know that no proof does not equal no chance however we are not discussing beliefs systems. :)

It would seem that an insurance company could produce one single case after numerous decades to support its claim. Every other insurance policy I have can do so...and gladly. To do so would garner more sales.

My intensity on this thread is three fold. One, it is a company which preys on lower wage workers and fear mongers to do so. This is unethical.

Two. Regardless of the cost it is a useless product. I don't like useless products. Ever since my Flowbee refused to suck while cutting and left me with a bowl cut...

Three. Intelligent educated people suspending facts to support feelings.
 
YOU CAN CONSTRAIN THE PROBABILITY:

Look at it from the reverse: if you want to be simple about it, if you pay $100, the agent gets $15, and lets say $15 in overhead for the insurer and that they aren't making anything off of investing the premiums. If they are going to break even they need your chance of needing 2 million in coverage have to be less likely than 1:28,500 per annum. Screw it. Let's let them have a reasonable profit and make it 1:50,000.

Let's say everything works out for you, that's 5:1 against you if you looks at (risk * benefit) / cost for what would likely be their minimum benefit.

Except if it were 1:50,000, shouldn't there be a massive number of examples of the benefit from the last few decades?
Click to expand...

Further constraining, this was the only data I could find on insurance rates for EMS providers... 25% of paramedics (of the 37% of NJ EMT-Ps that responded) had coverage... just assume it is a representative sample. http://www.monoc.org/research/Malpractice Abstract 0304.pdf

So there are 345K medics... that means that roughly 86K have personal malpractice policies. If it was 1:50,000 of needing the policy, then 1-2 medics would have their butts saved every year (actually much higher if you do a more complex analysis) and HPSO would have stories to tell. If it was 1:2,000,000 then we should at least have one story from the last few couple decades! Except we don't... if we had one success story we could constrain your (risk * benefit) / cost to 1:200 against you or worse.

So do the math... the insurance industry has been paid 100s of MILLIONS of dollars in premiums over the last several decades by EMS providers, and we can't produce a single case study of where it has saved the provider.
 
But, but.....I FEEEEEL better. I am leaving now to head down to the 7-11 to play the poor man's retirement game...cause probabilities and all...SOMEONE always wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top