Talk:Insurance/Archive 1

message: There is no mention of any kind of legal expenses insurance, legal protection insurance, defense insurance or whatever it might be called by the insurance corporation. This is a type of insurance getting more and more important for the everyday person. I am hoping that an expert in this area will step up. Thanks. John sej (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal insurance not covered 

message: I updated the first section on prinicples of insurance. I'm not too sure about what I said about the NAIC and Guaranty Funds (factually I'm sure but in terms of placing, relevenece I'm not). My limited time limits my contribution but I will ocme back and visit to work on it some more. NOte to anyone who would like to tackle a factual information section, the insurance information institute has lots of figures and statistics, etc and could be a useful place to look. . I agree that legal principle like moral hazard and adverse selection need desperatley to be tackled.  
----
This article seriously needs input from economists and marketing people. I'll do what I can when I have the time, but it reads like a current affairs piece and doesn't contain any discussion of fundamental features of insurance markets like information assymetry, moral hazard and adverse selection and the associated marketing techniques to avoid them.
----
Private health insurance is a major matter only for travellers and citizens of the US.  It does not deserve this much space in this article.  Move it to a more specific article like US health insurance.  Most people reading this are not Americans, and don't care.  What you say can be said in about one paragraph on that issue.
:Private health insurance is available even in (nearly all) countries with public health insurance, and is worth discussing.  I do think there could be a whole article on the ethical debate.  Tempshill 20:21, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Old topics

message: I removed the portion of this that mentioned poorer policyholders not understaing the fees in insurance documents. I suppose I felt uncomfortable connecting lack of financial resources with lack of intellectual ability.
I feel this section needs more work, as does the rest of the article - I plan on adding to the introductory section, perhaps including concepts such as insurable interest, insurability, underwriting etc. Perhaps contrasting insurance with gambling (as is done on the gambling page).
--Socs 09:30, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Knowledge of Policyholders 

message: Added statistics and an external link. Johnwhunt 00:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added

message: *Taxman suggested developing salvage plans for this article.  While many groan at the notion of committees, they do share one drawback in common with democracy: being the worst possible choice, except the rest.  In any case, anyone is welcome to add to, or amend, the 'agenda' items below.  The agenda will simply draw from the above suggestions for now, but perhaps will be prioritized later; meanwhile, another go at reworking the article... Ombudsman 03:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework agenda

message: Ok, most of that looks pretty good. I was looking for more of a simple text outline, but this works too. I didn't want to comment in the table, but what do you mean by "fuzzy-logic gutwrenchers" and "touchy feelings:". I don't know if you're going to get much of a committee, you might be it. Also I think we should flesh out the material in the article sections, and make fixing up a lead section to the last thing. First, maybe we should decide what topics need their own sections, what are the top level sections, etc. - Taxman Talk 14:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
*Unlike insurance contracts, agenda section titles need brevity, without the complexities that disengage them from a mere mortal's sensory realities.  The blue and green agenda sections address absolute, straightforward content issues that can be handled in a relatively objective manner; sky is blue, green light kinda stuff.  Encyclopedic content, by definition, is extruded through deductive, algorithmic superficial processes, perhaps filtered in the upper agenda sections; moderation of subsurface POV issues and political compass matters can be addressed in the lower sections.  The laws of organizational entropy ensure the influence of absolutist objectivity may well consolidate issues in the upper section, finding enhancement through the ministrations of small tent, blue sky expert worshipper minions (see Post Autistic Economics).  The orange and soft rose sections deal with relative, absolutely subjective matters; 'shortest path isn't a straight line', 'Danger, Will Robinson!', 'rose colored glasses' sorta stuff.  Discussion of relatively subjective issues will find sanctuary in the wilderness of this talk page, perhaps protected in the lower sections, where non-Aristotelian laws, obeyed by Church of the Holy Donut congregants and their ilk, govern survival of the fittest beyond the tent shielding whatever it is the prevailing paradigm happens to be.  The committee idea may seem over the top for the moment, but this aspect of the agenda is intentionally open-ended, as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Insurance is anticipated; the Wiki will be around long term, yes? Ombudsman 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: agenda discussion

message: The dictionary definition of a bet is to risk a sum of money against someone else’s on the basis of the outcome of an unpredictable event. I can see why one might want to compare this to insurance but the resemblance is specious. The funademental difference is that (i) prior to me making a bet there is no risk, whereas with insurance the risk that my house burns down or my car is stolen already exists (even if I do not take out insurance), and (ii) by taking out insurance I will not profit if I experience an insured event, I will simply be indemnified by the insurance company for the loss I suffer, however gambling is about profiteering. If the section on gambling is to remain I think it should highlight these differences.
I do not see the relationship with moral hazard and think it requires further explanation.
The reason the Amish avoid insurance is not (simply) because it is like gambling (which it isn’t) but because they have no need for it and it would imply a lack of trust in God. I do not think their beliefs should be misstated.
You reasoning that most societies could not afford a similar system of mutual support for individuals when disaster strikes is is also mislaeading – this is exactly the logic of insurance. If your house burns down, instead of me coming around to help you rebuild your house as I would if we were Amish, our insurance company takes a portion of my insurance premium and a portion of the premiums from other policyholders and gives it to you in order that you may pay a specialist to rebuild your house. A quite elegant solution and one fitting for a modern society??
Hm, article should at least mention religions and societies don't always accept insurance.82.93.133.130 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the Gambling Analogy 

message: Perhaps this article could be expanded with a reference to a good book, or article, about the workflow of insurance (quotation->policy->claim), and the underlying laws and principles? Other articles have excellent references, which is really useful for amateurs, like myself, who likes to know more about a subject.
Well I have 2 books, one for my state (Michigan laws) and one for general (Life and Health), but the general one is written for the company I work for and so I worry if my book isn't a good reference. What do you guys think?82.93.133.130 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answers.com takes its information from wikipedia, so that is circular, and not allowed . -- Avi 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: There is significant opportunity for improvement in the quality of this article. Specifically, I refer to spelling and grammar. For instance, the syntax used in the gambling analogy section is highly convoluted (antecedents, negation, etc). It's difficult to parse.
I realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but I am a new user and unfamiliar with the etiquette and norms of this group; thus, I am loathe to modify the article.
Great article overall, and with a little work it could be even better in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.79.85  (talk • contribs) .
:Have at it. The article is pretty terrible. It needs to properly survey the topic and not belabor any minor details. No one has really gone after it, so it might as well be you. Why not get a login name though, so we can respond to you more easily, etc. - Taxman Talk 13:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural quality 

message: Appear highly duplicative to me. IMHO, the "How the Insurance Company Makes Money" section should be a sky high overview, while "Rate Structure" should have the details instead of having full definations of "float" in both. Joncnunn 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the Insurance Company Makes Money & Rate Structure sections (DONE)

message: Seems totally out of place with the rest of the article to me. Add a disambig page. Joncnunn 18:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of it; see changes made on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insurance&oldid=50205125 Thanks, -- Argon233 T C @ ¶  17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurance in Blackjack section 

message: I think this article could use a paragraph on how mandatory insurance [insurance required by law and/or as a requirement for loans] came about and also how it's similar and different to traditional insurance. Joncnunn 18:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory isurance 

message: First paragraph says,
"Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a potential loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium and duty of care"
'From one entity to another' -- I'm assuming this means from the individual to the insurance company, though this is not really accurate.  Insurance spreads individual risk to all members of a group; the insurance company merely facilitates and manages this risk-sharing, and takes a fee for its services.
Suggested Changes:
-It should probably be changed to convey that insurance spreads risk from one entity to many others - not one entity to one other.
-The risk is not really "transferred," since the individual still shoulders some of his own risk; just less of it.
-It should specify who these "entities" are: individual subscribers, and the group of subscribers (but not the insurance company itself).
:Your understanding is incorrect. It is in fact the insurer as an entity that is legally liable to pay for the loss, not the other policy holders. So while your understanding has some elements of truth on a conceptual level, it gets it wrong where it comes to the suggested problem. There are assessment groups where the entity is not responsible to pay the loss, the whole group is, but that's not modern insurance. But of course the industry is varied and it is possible that in some jurisdictions there are assessable policies defined as insurance. To support that, you would need a reliable source to back your position. See the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. - Taxman Talk 23:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most accurate definition? 

message: i am troubled reading this article.  i need to revisit again to tighten up the concepts.joe 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article on Insurance is Weak

message: Not sure I follow:  How is a duty of care "exchanged" in an insurance transaction?  (Sorry about all the in-line comments -- figured that was what the hidden comment feature was for.)
Insurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of catastrophic financial loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a potential loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium and a duty of care.McTavidge 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duty of care?

message: 1. There must be a larger number of similar objects so the financial outcome of insuring the pool of exposures is predictable. Therefore it can calculate a "fair" -- NOT SURE HOW FAIRNESS ENTERS THE EQUATION. SHOULDN'T THE PREMIUM BE BASED ON WHAT MAKES SENSE ECONOMICALLY, BOTH TO THE INSURER (AND ULTIMATELY TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS) AND TO ITS CUSTOMERS. CHARGE TOO LITTLE AND INSURER BECOMES INSOLVENT AND/OR ISN'T GOING TO PAY ITS SHAREHOLDERS AN ACCEPTABLE RETURN; CHARGE TOO MUCH AND NO CUSTOMERS BUY. -- premium.McTavidge 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fairness" in the premium?

message: The loss must be significant: The legal principle of de minimis dictates that trivial matters are not covered.  Furthermore, rational insurance uses existing insurance when the transaction costs dictate that filing a claim is not rational.  Actually, de minimis does not come into play here.--THIS IS CONFUSINGLY WRITTEN.  THE READER IS FIRST LED TO BELIEVE THE DE MINIMIS PRINCIPLE GOVERNS THE MATTER; IMMEDATELY AFTERWARD WE'RE TOLD IT DOESN'T.  WHAT GIVES?-- The reality is that it costs too much to insure frequent and/or small losses. It is much more cost effective to not transfer small loss potential to insurance companies by taking the largest deductible that you can stand (given adequate price reduction). As for filing small claims, if the insurance company contractually should pay for it, you should file it. --IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THIS COULD BE EXPLAINED.  SOME PEOPLE AVOID FILING SMALL CLAIMS, THAT THEY FEEL THEY CAN COVER WITHOUT TOO GREAT A BURDEN, SO THAT THEY CAN AVOID THE PREMIUM INCREASE THEY THINK WILL FOLLOW A CLAIM, ESPECIALLY IF IT BLEMISHES AN OTHERWISE PERFECT RECORD (SOME INSURERS OFFER NO-ACCIDENT DISCOUNTS, E.G.).-- This is the difference between deciding before the contract the parameters and after following through.--THIS SENTENCE IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND -- IS THAT ECON JARGON?  MIGHT BE NICE TO UNPACK IT A LITTLE.McTavidge 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing paragraph

message: THIS PARAGRAPH (BELOW) DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT WANTS TO BE WHEN IT GROWS UP.  IT STARTS OFF SUPPLYING ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR RISKS INSURERS ASSUME (OR NOT, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE CRITERIA ARE SATISFIED).  AT THE MENTION OF INSOLVENCY, HOWEVER, IT DETOURS INTO STATE GUARANTY FUNDS (US).  RATHER THAN STICKING WITH REMEDIES FOR INSOLVENCY, IT THEN U-TURNS INTO PRE-INSOLVENCY STANDARDS/REGULATIONS (UK COMPANIES ONLY).  SOLVENCY REGULATION (BOTH US AND UK AND FOR THAT MATTER WHEREVER ELSE ANYONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT IT) AND POST-INSOLVENCY GUARANTEE/REMEDIAL REGIMES HAVE A LEGITIMATE PLACE IN THIS ARTICLE, BUT I SUBMIT THEY'RE MISPLACED HERE AND IN ANY CASE COULD DO WITH MORE THAN A SENTENCE EACH.
The loss must not be catastrophic: If the insurer is insolvent, it will be unable to pay the insured. In the United States, there is a system of guarantee funds that operate at the state level to reimburse insureds whose insurance companies have become insolvent. This program is run by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).  In the United Kingdom, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which regulates all insurance companies, has its own standards of solvency which are legally required to be adhered to.McTavidge 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixing apples and oranges?

message: Could someone (presumably an economist) unpack the term materialized utility, as in the following paragraph?
Finally, claims and loss handling is the materialized utility of insurance. Claims handling management in insurance companies is to balance the triangle elements of customer satisfaction, administrative handling expenses, and claims overpayment leakages. Within this triangle, insurance fraud is a major business risk to manage and overcome.McTavidge 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Materialized utility

message: I was under the impression that the problem with insuring speculative risks like gamblers and stocks is that the element of chance is too great, the risk of loss not predictable enough to price these risks, not that these risks have an element of intentionality, as suggested by the excerpted paragraph below.  Besides, what's intentional about stock price movements anyway?
Additionally, “speculative risks” like those incurred through gambling or through the purchase of company stock are uninsurable. Insurable risks should have **accidental and not intentional** losses, and they should have economically feasible premiums, meaning that chance of loss must not be too high.McTavidge 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not that the risk of loss is not predictable (for example, calculating the odds on a bet on the toss of a coin is far easier to do than calcualting the odds of an automobile accident) but that since most 'speculative' losses are in some sence controllable, they are not fortuitous.  Gambling is not insurable also because gambling contracts are not enforceable in law, as I understand it, and it is possible to insure against declines in portfolios of stocks, or at least it was in the not too distant past.  --Bob Herrick 18:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If so, should the sentence in question be revised?  McTavidge 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gambling insurance

message: Anyone know the unit of weight in the excerpt below? 
Achaemenian monarchs were the first to insure their people and made it official by registering the insuring process in governmental notary offices. The insurance tradition was performed each year in Norouz (the beginning of the Iranian New Year); the heads of different ethnic groups as well as others willing to take part presented gifts to the monarch. The most important gift was presented during a special ceremony. When a gift was worth more than 10,000 Derrik (an Achaemenian gold coin weighing 8.35-8.42 --WHAT UNIT?), the issue was registered in a special office. McTavidge 04:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History question

message: The following paragraphs are at the end of the history of insurance section.  While interesting topics, they're not much about history.  Where should they go?
In the United States, regulation of the insurance industry is highly Balkanized, with primary responsibility assumed by individual state insurance departments. Whereas insurance markets have become centralized nationally and internationally, state insurance commissioners operate individually, though at times in concert through a national insurance commissioners' organization. In recent years, some have called for a dual state and federal regulatory system for insurance similar to that which oversees state banks and national banks.
In the state of New York, which has unique laws in keeping with its stature as a global business center, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has been in a unique position to grapple with major national insurance brokerages.  Spitzer alleged that Marsh & McLennan steered business to insurance carriers based on the amount of contingent commissions that could be extracted from carriers, rather than basing decisions on whether carriers had the best deals for clients.  Several of the largest commercial insurance brokerages have since stopped accepting contingent commissions and have adopted new business models.McTavidge 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-sequiturs

message: I added sections on builder's risk and marine cargo/marine insurance. Dharmasattva 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional categories of insurance 

message: The term has different meanings depending on context.  In the context you cite, it is equivalent to a deductible - the amount you will pay out of pocket before the insurance begins to pay.  It is similarly used in the phrase 'excess insurance,' which, as opposed to 'primary insurance' is insurance that begins after a lower level policy has paid out it's limit - i.e., the excess policy is in some sense 'above' the primary policy.  More than one excess policy can exist; in that case we speak of 'layers' of coverage, the first of which is a primary, followed by a first excess, second excess etc.  
The equivalent term in investment banking is 'tranche.'
Note that one could fine a 'primary' policy that had 'excess' (higher layer) above it and contain an 'excess' (deductible).
The use of the term 'excess' is usually found in the UK and sometimes, because London is a center for a lot of European insurance, on the Continent.  You might find some of us American's that use the term, but we would be affected types.
You will also find the term 'franchise' used as a term for deductible, although technically it is a very specific type of deductible in English usage.  In France, if I recall correctly, you would find 'franchise' quite commonly used.   --Bob Herrick 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Excess 

message: It appears to me that this article could use a more coherent flow to it.  I am thinking, off the top of my head, about something like the following ToC
#Definition of Insurance
#History of Insurance
#Principles of Insurance
#Categories of Insurance
##Personal Lines 
##Commerical Lines
#Types of Insurance
##Life and Health 
##Property and Casualty
##Credit
#How Insurance is Delivered
##Mutual Insurance Companies
##Stock Insurance Companies
##Reciprocals
##Group Vehicles
##Captive Insurance Companies 
##Agents, Brokers, Direct Writers and Self-procurement
#Regulation of Insurance
#Admitted Insurance
#Non-admitted Insurance
#Foreign Insurance
#Issues in Insurance
Many of these topics are already covered piecemeal within the article and some are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Some appear to be missing entirely.  I would appreciate some suggestions on the TOC above (too much, too little, what's missing?).  Is this a good idea?  Anyone like to help?
Bob Herrick 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: The last two paragraphs of "redlining" need citations.  The information seems accurate, it's just unsourced.Reinoe (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlining 

message: I moved the Dental Insurance subsection out of the "Controversies" section and up into the list of different types of coverage (and put it under health insurance, since that's how it's generally classified in the US).  Someone's moved it back down into the controversies section.  I don't understand that, because I don't see any controvesy identified regarding dental insurance, and it's not included in the list of different types of coverage.  I don't want to start an edit war, though, so I'd like to suggest that we talk about it.  Is there a reason to put dental insurance under Controversies?  If so, we should probably do a better job of identifying what the controversy is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.79.247 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Dental Insurance out of the Controversies Section

message: Other than uncertain cash flows, Gambling and insurance practices today are unrelated. The science of probability had its start in games of chance, but that belongs in the probability article, not here. -- Avi (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gambling and insurance are fundamentally different.  However, this is a comparison that's often made by laypeople - "the insurance company is gambling that you won't die young [get sick, have an accident, etc.]."  I've even heard people in the insurance industry reference gambling in discussions of how insurance works (which is frustrating, because it creates more misconceptions than true understanding).    It seems appropriate to have a section in this article that addresses the differences between the two.  I would suggest moving it further down, though, because the original position appeared to give to much prominence to the analogy.EastTN (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gambling's relevance 

message: As people can see, I've done a bit of cleaning on this article. The main changes are,
* putting in a few "main article" headers underneath the sections - this is important in a general article like this one, which must necessarily summarise the material and encourage people to expand on the sub-pages
* adding a few pictures - it looks better
* taking the exclusively US material and moving it to a newly created Insurance in the United States page - this needs work on its own
* reordering a few sections, to put things on the same issues under the same sections
* adding a header calling for more source citations - it's a long article, and I see there's already a few in the notes section; but more I think is needed
I hope it helps, and the page will further develop in a more structured way. There's a lot of good material here already. Wikidea 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Just a heads up: the text removed in this edit was never put back. However I couldn't find a way to re-add it, because of the cleanup that has been done since. Graham87 06:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the text back in the "Life insurance section". Graham87 06:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unreverted removal of text 

message: is it possible to break this article up?  there is just too much information to cover in one article.  i am new to this, so i am not real sure if we can do that or not.  i would really like to see it broken down by state also, such things as liability limits and standard and non standard companies operating in that state.  Rescuechick 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Summary style for the guideline on splitting broad articles like insurance. There is already an article about insurance in the U.S. at insurance in the United States, which is listed at the end of the see also section. Perhaps their should be a section like "Insurance around the world", linking to the main articles about insurance by country. Graham87 07:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  too broad 

message: The article doesn't sound right: My understanding from reading treatises like Appleman's is that the three great traditional branches of insurance (prior to the 20th century) were life, marine, and property/casualty (because in fact many of the earliest insurance schemes were marine-oriented).  That is, there are THREE major traditional branches, not two (prior to the proliferation of hundreds of types of special lines available today).  Is there any jurisdiction in which the traditional dichotomy is only two? --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't marine the third traditional major branch of insurance? 

message: I can understand removing the promotional aspect.  That being the trademark FastTrackClaim.  However, the refernce to the patent as an example is good.  So is naming the company that owns it.  However, for the sake of avoiding controvery I removed the refernce to Ultimate Claim Solutions, Inc.  -Dale  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale Menendez (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to pick an "example" for a clearly articulated concept.  It is also not a good idea for you to add a link to your patent.  Please read WP:COI when you get an opportunity.  Thanks. Kuru talk 23:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurance Patents 

message: The NPOV tag in the Criticism section is dated September 2008 but I don't see any controversy or discussion about that section here. I just revised that section in an attempt to neutralize it some and wonder if anyone would object if I removed the tag. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure who put that tag there but I have no problem with you removing it. The bigger problem, now that you've brought it to my attention, is that there are no sources cited for those bizarre critiques of the industry.  In particular, the argument about excessive exclusion clauses makes no sense.  There have to be exclusion clauses in an insurance contract for the business model to function at all.  Otherwise we end up with insurers being forced to cover irrational, unpredictable freak risks, like paying out life insurance on suicides or having to provide a defense under liability insurance to hit men being sued by their victims' relatives or people suing themselves (yes, people have really tried to find coverage for all these things).  Similarly, it makes no sense for insurers to cover houses which they know will be flooded or young drivers who are certain to get into crashes.  If there's a market failure, that's why we have governments to step in and provide services like assigned-risk pools or public insurers of last resort (for example, California has State Compensation Insurance Fund as the workers' comp insurer of last resort) to cover such insane risks.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Those citation tags have been there a long time I think. I propose we delete the whole section since no one's stood up to support the claims with references. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your proposal.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag in Criticism Section 

message: The funny thing about this article is that it lacks any mention of insurance company groups.  
In the U.S., it is very common for insurance companies to operate as groups of companies.  Often, one, two or three companies in a group will operate as the public "face" of the group, while the other companies actually exist only on paper as a bookkeeping mechanism for tracking premiums collected and claims paid.  Besides a nominal board of directors and some senior executives, they may have a few actuaries and underwriters, but they have ongoing contracts with the operating companies in the group which actually write the vast majority of policies, collect premiums, and handle claims.  The advantage of this structure is that some U.S. states have different operating requirements for insurers than others.  So each member of a group will be capitalized and managed to fit the requirements of a particular group of states, and then if one company gets hit with too many claims in one year, and pays out all its assets in claims and also runs through its reinsurance coverage, then it can be put into runoff and shut down while the rest of the companies in the group continue to survive and thrive.  
For example, GEICO actually operates as four separate insurance companies plus an attached insurance agency, but as far as most ordinary people know, they are simply dealing with GEICO and they do not pay much attention to which of the four companies in the group actually collected premiums on and wrote their car insurance policy.  Large insurers like Zurich have many companies in their group, as indicated by this list; it's fairly obvious that some of these companies share a lot of their core business functions as they all share the same headquarters address.  
Is this just unique to the U.S., or do insurers in other countries do the same thing?  If this is common to insurers in many countries, it should be mentioned in the article.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Insurance company groups? 

message: I put this in there because, although we all use the word "premium" without thinking about it, it is really an orwellian marketing term - if you look at the meaning of premium in wiki, the first two meanings are " a charge paid in addition to normal payments ;a marketing term for a something given free with the purchase of a product or service, which makes clear tha tin std american english, the main meaning for premium is either something for free, or something extra and beyond. However, in insurance, a premium is the normal, standard charge for a normal product.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.134.245 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: glossary premium = price

message: hi to you all can any one tel me if i am correct please...... my son is under 21 and has his own fullycomp policy i cought him driving his maates spots car i told him his insurance  would no cover him as he is under 21 am i correct yours ian............(Gillianboathian (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't to answer individual questions like yours - best bet is to call your agent (the person who sold the policy}. Best, CliffC (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  insurance 

message: Today in India more and ,more ulip plan sold in Life insurance , i hope this is wrong , always sale insurance, as per person requiermemt , thieir age , and income  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spbedmutha (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  life insurance 

message: I would like to suggest the insertion of what is a fair contract in what concerns insurance. 512upload (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be quite a bit of information here related to contractual components, and the instrument specific article at insurance policy seems to cover even more.  What did you have in mind? Kuru (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Contract 

message: I'd like to add an external link to a Guide to insurance, surety bond resources on the web. The page indicates that no more external links are desired, but this would add U.S. resources. What do you think?Dawsedit (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you have tried to add links to constructionweblinks to enough pages already. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link to resources? 

message: Why is the NHS listed as an example (in fact, the only example) of health insurance? The NHS is not an insurance company, even a "public" one - the whole point is that you do not need to purchase any kind of policy to receive treatment. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NHS

message: I'm proposing to revert back the lead paragraph to how it looked like on 10 June 2011 before Cmoras made a huge mess out of it. The lead now has a serious "too much information" problem which it did not have before, along with several bizarre typos (looks like Engrish).  Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cmoras messed up the lead on 10 June 2011, need to fix 

message: And do you think insurance is crediable? If the insurance company is going to make a profit from customers, then customers will definitely lose profit, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.123.200.135 (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurance question.