[Yogi]

Once again, another large apartment building has burned down,
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/01/21/c ... -resilient
resulting in the loss of home and possessions for more than 100 people. Some had tenants insurance, most do not.
The all-too- often heard pleas for help have started. The responsibility of course falls first to the community, then the rest of society. This puts a completely avoidable strain on emergency services.
A basic tenants insurance policycan be purchased for a little as $10.00 per month. Those who don't carry insurance claim " It costs too much. I can't afford it"! I, and most likely most of you have heard this time after time. I call bullshit!
They manage to afford cable t.v., internet, a few drinks of booze now and again, a night or two on the town, cigs, or smoke of choice etc.
Time for peeps to quit dumping their resposibilities on society.
And so easy to accomplish! All that it would take would be for landlords to be required to include the cost of the basic policy in the rent. A certificate of proof of insurance would be given to the tenant. The only way for a tenant to 'opt out' would be for 'them' to provide proof of insurance = to or better than the coverage provided by the landlords policy.

I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about this idea.

[Prof_Chomsky]

I'd agree. Anything that will ultimately burden the public with costs should be legislated.
But they need to do it right unlike most automobile insurance, because once you mandate everyone has to carry insurance it gives the industry a free hand to rape you in costs (ala US healthcare).
Honestly I think all insurance of this type, auto, health, term life, home etc should be a crown corporation and profitless. You can't tell me the private sector can possibly do anything to work actuary tables better. And public not for profit insurance would ensure everyone is always covered at a breakeven price.

[andyt]

We've got ICBC for vehicle insurance in BC. No problem for them to also take on basic tenant insurance, with the option for extra insurance also going to the private sector. That's the way it works for cars now.

I don't agree about life insurance - I don't agree that should be mandatory or public. That is an investment decision by individuals.

[Prof_Chomsky]

Life insurance no, but term life? i.e. Working age, unexpected, I have a wife and kid and died in a car wreck type death
I guess we sort of have it with widow and orphan benefits, but early death is always a burdon on society.

[andyt]

What if you have no wife and kids? Who does the money go to? Why should a guy/gal age 20 have to buy term life. Somebody 55 yrs old? To look after kids, make sure our poverty alleviation programs are beefed up.

[BartSimpson]

If a tenant does not want to pay for insurance that's their choice and risk. Mandating insurance will inevitably lead to subsidies for low income people and then you'll see the eventual collapse of the system under its own weight just the same as every other mandated insurance scheme has done.

[andyt]

ICBC, our mandated car insurance system, has not collapsed under it's own weight. The criticism, if anything, is that they make too much profit that the govt then siphons off.

[Lemmy]

Insurance companies are among the worst parasites we allow in our economy/society. Purchasing insurance is rarely a sound economic choice. It's a rigged game where the house always wins.

I agree with Bart that people ought to be free to set their own levels of risk and choose what sorts of financial protection they feel they require. I also agree with ProfChomsky in that insurance should, ideally, be run as a not-for-profit or co-operative entity. Mandated programs, such as automobile liability insurance, work much better in provinces where the policies are held publicly.

[Yogi]

BartSimpson wrote:

If a tenant does not want to pay for insurance that's their choice and risk. Mandating insurance will inevitably lead to subsidies for low income people and then you'll see the eventual collapse of the system under its own weight just the same as every other mandated insurance scheme has done.

Another 10 bucks a month isn't going to make any system collapse. Subsidies wouldn't be required to pay for this either. The 'tenants' already have the funds to pay for this, but choose to spend it on unneccessary purchases. Tenant ins. packages are a 'choice' right now. That is the problem I see. Too many 'choose' not to be covered, but then when disaster strikes, they are sucking on the public teat!

[andyt]

http://www.cooperators.ca/

[Yogi]

Lemmy wrote:

Insurance companies are among the worst parasites we allow in our economy/society. Purchasing insurance is rarely a sound economic choice. It's a rigged game where the house always wins.

I agree with Bart that people ought to be free to set their own levels of risk and choose what sorts of financial protection they feel they require. I also agree with ProfChomsky in that insurance should, ideally, be run as a not-for-profit or co-operative entity. Mandated programs, such as automobile liability insurance, work much better in provinces where the policies are held publicly.

Yup. For the most part anyway. I must say that whenever I have had to deal with my ins co. that I was always treated with respect and paid/replaced as expected according to my understanding of my policy. ( Replacement value).

ALL drivers are required to carry liability coverage. This protects 'the other guy'. So too would a mandatory tenants policy. By not burdening the 'publicly paid-for emergency & disaster services in the community.

[andyt]

Yogi wrote:

ALL drivers are required to carry liability coverage. This protects 'the other guy'. So too would a mandatory tenants policy. By not burdening the 'publicly paid-for emergency & disaster services in the community.

Say what? Now you're going to have tenants insurance pay for firefighters and ambulance? When people in BC get burned out without insurance, there's a general cry for citizens to donate both materials and money - no govt involved. I thought that's what the right wingers were all in favor of.

[Yogi]

andyt wrote:

Yogi wrote:

ALL drivers are required to carry liability coverage. This protects 'the other guy'. So too would a mandatory tenants policy. By not burdening the 'publicly paid-for emergency & disaster services in the community.

Say what? Now you're going to have tenants insurance pay for firefighters and ambulance? When people in BC get burned out without insurance, there's a general cry for citizens to donate both materials and money - no govt involved. I thought that's what the right wingers were all in favor of.

A tenants policy would at least pay for immediate/emergency housing and basic needs. Thereby not sucking resources out of Red Cross, et al. These emergency services need be accessed only for unavoidable disasters such as massive fires-Slave Lake,- or extreme flooding- Winnepeg,- Tornado- Edmonton, etc.Then, the ins co which has been paid by the tenant would be reponsible for getting the tenant relocated and 'back on their feet'.

[andyt]

The Red Cross doesn't receive any govt money. You are out to lunch here. Even if the tenant has insurance, it would take weeks for him/her to access that money - they would still need the same help as a person who doesn't have insurance. The Red Cross is only providing very short term help for a large group of people who have been suddenly displaced.

[Yogi]

andyt wrote:

The Red Cross doesn't receive any govt money. You are out to lunch here. Even if the tenant has insurance, it would take weeks for him/her to access that money - they would still need the same help as a person who doesn't have insurance. The Red Cross is only providing very short term help for a large group of people who have been suddenly displaced.

Now show me exactly where I inferred that Red Cross OR ANY OTHER agency was Govt!!!

Red Cross gets their funding through donations from peeps like me. And possibly you!

Why should the govt or anyone else have to foot the cost of re-establishing anyone because of their own selfish/ignorant refusal to provide for themselves?