Pete B Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Posted by TonyS on 21/11/2009 16:01:29:Frankly, if the Muppets were standing at the next election I'd vote for them. At least we'd have a laugh for 4 years..... They are, aren't they? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 We have to recognise that any businesses is not a benevolent organisations, be they general business, insurance company or banks. As customers we need to remember that we do have to be constantly looking for the best deal. This is a consequence of the free market. Controlled markets, be them government services or controlled (ala retail price maintenance, book agreements or art materials), ensure that the price is fixed, wherever you go. The down side that these services or goods are always a higher price than a free market. I do have insurance, my main concerns, can be a reluctance to of insurance companies to honour the policy. Although that is not always the case. With regard to the unemployed and benefits. The issue here is that your NI (National Insurance) pays out little if made unemployed, particularly if you have been prudent. The main beneficiaries appear to be those deemed to be in the greatest need. This is seldom those who work or have worked. Paradoxically NI pays less to high NI contributors than other groups, when they are in need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Beaumont Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 TonyS I could be one of the two in the balcony ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyS Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Erfolg, I know that businesses aren't charities, I run one. I am however of the view that if you take the mick (self-moderation) then you shouldn't moan when it goes wrong. One of the worst examples of shoddy government and bad business has just recently nearly ruined the economy. Massive bonuses to bank executives who were in fact doing a lousy job. In hindsight they should have been making better lending decisions, making less profit, paying lower dividends and of course, fewer bonuses. And when it went wrong, the government, instead of taking complete ownership as recompense to the public for using public money, they saved the existing shareholders from losing their investments. If they were happy to take risk and the big dividends in the past, they should have lost the lot. Insurance companies seem to be acting the same way, happy to make massive profits in the good times, and jacking up premiums to maintain profitability in the bad times. Looking for the best deal is always essential - that's how competition works. What happens though when there is no competition? Does the government do it's job and protect the public. Does it heck (more self-moderation)! Right from the smallest examples of monopoly exploitation - car parking meters that don't give change and only selling huge bags of crisps for 77p (!!!) at motorway services, to allowing petrol company cartels to overcharge for fuel - the government is a joke and we live in a country exploited as a consequence. Free market - - that's a laugh! Hey, I guess the rant wasn't over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Foreman Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 I only insure against things I can't afford to cover out of my own pocket. But I don't insure everything, like extended warranties a sort of insurance and not worth it IMHO, if I had extended the warranty on our TV 5 years ago they would have quite happilly taken £200 a year off me, at the time the TV cost £2k but now they can be had for £500, a risk I can afford to take! Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Ohhh To think that this discussion all started with floods in Cumbria. I have mixed feelings about banks. The government's charges of 12.5% interest to those banks forced to take government money seems a little high. Not withstanding the entry and exit charges to the bad dept scheme. All seems a nice little earner . If I were a Lloyd's shareholder, I would be livid, if what the papers (Telegraph and a few others) have written is true. In that Lloyd's attempted to back out of the HBOS deal and received threats from government. Both HSBC and Barclay's avoided government involvement, much to the anger of the UK Government, both remaining profitable, perhaps as a consequence. Still believe that insurance is by and large, a sensible product to use. I also have doubts about some. Those who take out Employment type products often seem short changed. The same often seems true of holiday insurance. In case you wonder, I was a civil service type. With no Insurance or Banking experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Mackey Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share Posted November 21, 2009 Yes we are getting a little off topic but no matter...its not a "serious" type thread, so fire away. I Agree about the so called extended warraties - wouldbnt touch them with a barge pole...but in keeping with the OP, it was more about the principle of having insurance for major things like houses and contents that I was debating - sure I like most folk think the Insuarnce game can be both hugely profitable, and downright devious in their escape tactics - however, in the case of a persons house burning down and they lose the lot.... complaining that they wouldnt pay out on certain items because of no receipts ( werent they burned too ? ) yes thats a bummer....... but hey, how much worse would things have been if the re was no insurance at all.Thats kinda my point...love em or hate em - I still would NEVER contemplate not having house and contents Insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Campbell Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Someone posted earlier in this thread about the insurance company failing to pay out on stuff because he didn't have the reciepts. I think, most companies will happily allow you to photograph all of your valued items and send them the photo collection as a matter of proof. I think however, the best bet if you are going to do this, is to contact them and ask if you can check with them what type of items are covered under your policy and what to do about items you have that you no longer have reciepts for. Most will happily accept photographic proof as long as you have cleared this with them before (god forbid) you have to make any claims. I know my broker, Swinton, advised I done this with anything i had, that I didn't have documented proof of. Just a thought, and you never know, it might just be the thing that helps dull the blow so to speak...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.