Talk:Insurance
|
|
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)
There is plenty to talk about insurance in general, e.g . reinsurance markets (see commodity markets for an example of how that could be structured), morbidity calculations, actuarial professions, use of insurance for portfolio management (very common as a tax planning instrument), etc., etc., etc., etc.
This page needs work. There's a lot more to be said about insurance. Also, the "abuses" section needs to be rewritten for NPOV. -- Cjmnyc 07:48, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Insurance is a complex and remarkably interesting subject. Someone smarter than I needs to work on this one.
I have been doing some work on [[List of civic, fraternal, service, and professional organizations American Fraternal Groups]] and note the large number of modern insurance companies who evolved from such groups.
| Contents |
what about insurance brokers?
such as Marsh&McLennan and Aon?
Lack of Knowledge of Policyholders
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)
Removed paragraph
Removed this paragraph: it is rambling, non-insurance-specific, and has no important point to make. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 00:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Large organizations have a much harder time managing money than individuals. While large organizations have more clout and are better and negotiating contracts, they lack the ability to micromanage their money. This has to do with scale. To a multi-billion dollar company a million dollars is an accounting blip, but to most people it is enough money to retire. As a result the organization sets the prices for policies and services at some level and acts as a monopoly. Without freemarket competition their is an incentive to increase prices.
The other paragraph added by the same anon is nearly as bad, very POV and very little information. I'll remove it for now and we can refactor it and put it back in. - Taxman 18:06, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- 'Law of Diminishing Returns'
- Insurance is based on the idea of managing risk, but what happens when everyone cashes in their policy. The net result is that insurance becomes a tax. Also insurers can deny policies based of preexisiting conditions and can limit the coverage of insurance. When combined with high premiums, what is the point of having insurance? It would be better to take the money spent on insurance and invest it. That way the policy holder will have control over how the money is spent. The only problem is accumulating enough money to make the system self sustainable. This is a chicken egg problem.
Lack of Marine Insurance & Air Cargo Insurance
Lack of Marine Insurance and Air Cargo Insurance. Need any expert from Insurance Business to input.
Added
Added statistics and an external link. Johnwhunt 00:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rework agenda
- 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)
| objective summary | date proposed | progress to date | completion date? |
| lightspeedy tasks: prompt attention needed | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| main proposal sounding board | |||
| separate Insurance ethics article needed | 3 Nov 2003 | ~ | ~ |
| separate US health insurance article? | 1 Oct 2004 | ~ | ~ |
| develop & expand Policy article | 16 Jun 2005 | ~ | ~ |
| need expert: Marine insurance, | 11 Jan 2005 | ~ | ~ |
| ins. market fundamentals: Moral hazards,
Information assymetry, Adverse selection, techniques to avoid such risks | 1 Oct 2004 | ~ | ~ |
| content addressing Insurable interest,
Insurability, Underwriting, etc. | 16 Jun 2004 | ~ | ~ |
| what about Insurance brokers? | 2 Jun 2004 | added brief mention of Marsh 6/15/05 | ~ |
| US fraternal insurers, history | 12 Dec 2003 | ~ | ~ |
| Reinsurance market, & its structure | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| Morbidity calculations & | 23 Jan 2003 | ~ | ~ |
| insurer (insured?) Portfolio management | 23 Jan 2003 | ~ | ~ |
| address: complexities of contracts,
fees; insured's misunderstanding | 16 Jun 2004 | ~ | ~ |
| Risk spreading, Risk pools | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| insurer portfolio mis-management and/or
separate Portfolio mis-management article | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| effects of September 11, 2001 attack; | 16 Jun 2005 | ~ | ~ |
| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| touchy feelings: NPOV or Pavlov needed? | |||
| input from economists, marketers | 1 Oct 2004 | ~ | ~ |
| private health insurance available
in countries with socialized medicine | 3 Nov 2003 | ~ | ~ |
| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| fuzzy-logic: content gutwrenchers | |||
| Start Insurance Wikiproject?
pinned (please do not remove) | 16 Jun 2005 | ~ | ~ |
| what should top level sections be?
(pinned - please do not remove) | 16 Jun 2005 | ~ | ~ |
| which topics need separate sections?
(pinned) | 16 Jun 2005 | ~ | ~ |
| insurers manage risk, but profit (unfairly?)
when policies cashed in early | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| private health insurance less common
outside US; deserves less space? | 23 Jan 2003 | ~ | ~ |
| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
agenda discussion
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</sup> 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)