|
Status:
What is the best way to get low premium / high-deductible health insurance? What specific agencies or companies should I look into? I never ever go to the doctors (I'd rather be a guy about it and suffer), and the only reason I *need* healthcare is in case my appendix blows up or I get into an accident...and my fiance is on my case about it. Once we get married I suppose I'll be able to get on her insurance, so this coverage only needs to get me through the next year. Also, since I'm self-employed how do I go about getting life insurance and disability insurance? Are health/life/disability insurance tax deductible for me since I'm self-employed? I don't want to just randomly call an insurance agent because I know I'll get roped into the first company I call. Thanks in advance.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Honestly I'd call an independent agent to have them go over the plans. You're going to pay a bit more than your fiance most like, but you should be able to swing it. A good agent will give you multiple options, just make sure they are independent. On disability same thing, but remember that is a different animal than health. Same thing, go independent, but make sure they know what the are talking about before committing. Again, several options should be presented.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Well, to be honest the best way to handle this is to have you both on ONE policy. You'll more than likely save money and it makes this question really easy to answer:) Jastiger posted:Well, to be honest the best way to handle this is to have you both on ONE policy. You'll more than likely save money and it makes this question really easy to answer:) YMMV, this was Oregon with State Farm and Progressive. My buddy and his girlfriend had a vehicle-totaling many tens of thousands of dollars of damage accident in her vehicle. He was driving and not insured, and they were both 18 (same age as my ~52k wreck). The carrier paid out with zero issues, and modified her policy to exclude my friend from his girlfriends cars, I think until he was 21, I do know an age was specified. This did not carry to a new carrier, new carrier was fine with him being a unlisted occasional driver (10x year typically). Now, to the question-asker - I 100% agree with combining your policies if you've been together a while. My girlfriend and I saved over a grand every 6 when I added her to my policy, after she had an accident in my car. Plus it makes things easier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Is this the spot to ask about trip insurance? I am going on a 4 week 13 flight trip including some pretty expensive hotels. Given the number of moving parts on this trip i would like to know about how best to protect the amount spent on travel if something were to happen. If this isn't the thread my apologies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
sellouts posted:Is this the spot to ask about trip insurance? Trip insurance isn't something I'm intimately familiar with. I did deal in event insurance which was anywhere from about $50 to $350 for most cases. I'd hit up a travel agency and ask for a referral to an agent that does this type of specialized policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
My wife swapped paint with a parked car in the parking lot at work yesterday. The person she hit took their car in already, the 'rough' estimate is $800, our honda will probably be similar. She's been on my policy since december/january. I haven't had a claim other than a mystery cracked windshield on the same car a couple months ago since 2009 when I switched from my parents' policy with State Farm in another state. We're with State Farm here and have 3 (about to be 2 hopefully) vehicles, renters, and an articles policy on a laptop with them. Are my rates going to shoot up because of this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Never mind, my question was dumb/answered it myself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Capslock Holmes posted:My wife swapped paint with a parked car in the parking lot at work yesterday. The person she hit took their car in already, the 'rough' estimate is $800, our honda will probably be similar. She's been on my policy since december/january. I haven't had a claim other than a mystery cracked windshield on the same car a couple months ago since 2009 when I switched from my parents' policy with State Farm in another state. We're with State Farm here and have 3 (about to be 2 hopefully) vehicles, renters, and an articles policy on a laptop with them. Are my rates going to shoot up because of this? The general rule of thumb is that an at fault accident will increase your rates come renewal time-- or cause you to lose any no accident discounts you have. The net result is a higher premium whether they raise your rate or remove the discount or whatever. It might not be a lot, but it probably will increase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Well, if your wife is at fault and its going to be a claim, then yeah, most likely your rate will go up. A lot of major carriers may have accident forgiveness so I'd ask them about that. It isn't a major accident so I would not expect it to shoot up, but maybe a hundred or so extra a year with am otherwise perfect record. Remember that they still look at your demographic information too. Age, etc. If you're mid 20s and up the hit shouldn't be bad if they hit you at all. Ask your agent to call in and ask for you though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
My wife did something similar, but with a light pole instead of another car, total cost was $1200ish (if you hear a loud scraping sound...just keep going, there are more body panels and doors to destroy, don't stop when it is just a fender). Our insurance went up close to 25% (from $600 to 750/6 months). That is for two cars, full coverage on both
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
I think my car insurance rates are going to be ridiculous for a while. Am I right? - 23-year-old female, licensed since I was 19. - One accident 18 months ago. My car was a total loss. The other driver was held responsible due to leaving the scene. - Present car: 2013 BMW 3-series. I drive about 12000 miles a year, maybe a bit less. Front and side airbags, ABS, lane departure and blind spot detection, anti-theft electronic key. Right now I'm paying about $135 a month and considering moving back to Connecticut from Virginia. I'd be driving even less if I lived there, but I'm still a fairly young driver with an extremely nice car in an area with lots of wild drivers. Is it reasonable to assume that my insurance will skyrocket? How much does one not-at-fault accident affect my record?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
If you aren't at fault, the accident should have no effect on your premiums. The only time it might is if you have a lot of accidents where you are not at fault. The insurance company may think there's either something fishy going on or you do something that makes you a greater risk for them to insure. Of course, this could all be different from company to company. The two companies I've worked for followed the above guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Your insurance is a little more than what I pay for two cars...but your car is worth a  Car insurance is so dependent on location that it is hard to tell. FWIW, I googled for a list of most expensive places for car insurance at CT insurance is much more expensive than Virginia (on average) according to this site: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/03/14/most-expensive-cheapest-states-for-car-insurance/. It should skyrocket due to the accident, but probably will be higher for the regional factors. Any chance you have a parent whose insurance you can join in on? My brother still does this at 33. ntd fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
How screwed am I if I need to upgrade a personal auto policy to $1 million CSL? It's required for a city contract. I have a 2008 F150 I use for personal & work. I don't currently have a commercial policy so I'm SOL if I get in a wreck while driving for work. Do they have like hybrid policies for these situations? Will any company even write me a commercial policy if I own 1 truck and 1 employee? Is $1 million CSL pretty expensive generally? Also the city wants to be listed as an additional insured with respect to liabilities caused by me. Is this a fairly easy thing to add to a policy or does that increase the cost even more?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Sancho posted:How screwed am I if I need to upgrade a personal auto policy to $1 million CSL? It's required for a city contract. Well a commercial policy will in general cost more and its easy to see why. Instead of just you driving it for personal use, you now have employees using it, and you're using it in a capacity where you could be found liable. If you run over a kid while working instead of them being mad at Sancho, you were on city business, so now the city is liable. So yeah, there is more risk when using a vehicle for commercial use. The good news is that a good agent should be able to solve this for you. A lot of carriers will still insure your vehicle if its used for commercial purposes. The only difference is usually its for self employment purposes like if you were a rancher or transported your own goods. If you're a private contractor here, you could still be alright with a simpler policy. The difference is if you're really going to have an employee using it as well. They will need to be listed. Adding the city as an additional insured shouldn't be too hard. Often banks or credit unions will do the same until you pay the car off in its entirety. Make sure you tell your agent that you're using it for work, you have an employee, and you need an additional insured. It will more than likely be more money, but it shouldn't be difficult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Awesome thank you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
A friend signed a contract to buy a new home and they are shopping for homeowners insurance. Two companies have turned them down due to the age of the roof. Any advice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Interlude posted:A friend signed a contract to buy a new home and they are shopping for homeowners insurance. Two companies have turned them down due to the age of the roof. Any advice? Well...uhh ..get a new roof? I hate to be blunt, but a roof is a pretty big part of it since many protections from perils rely on a good roof. The best thing is to either replace it or find am insurer that doesn't ask. I will say that if an insurer considers a roof too old to insure, then it is probably pretty old and maybe even unsafe. I just reread your post....the home is new or new to them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
My dad had the same roof issue on a rental he bought. He had to get the roof replaced. There was like zero flexibility in that requirement. You might want to look into ways to mitigate the cost. Some roofers will give you a deal if you have a place for the trash and tear off the old roof down to the wood first right before they get there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Can you explain these baby insurance plans like the Gerber Grow-Up Plan? Those commercials were always on the TV when I was younger and it always felt like a huge scam to me. My grandma had done something similar on my brother and I and she thought it was gonna pay out a bunch of money when we turned a certain age (like 26 or something) but it did not because she misunderstood something about the policy and she is super tore up about it. I feel bad but I didn't really have anything to do with it, I was a baby at the time. Wish she had put that money she was paying into some kind of savings account instead though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
I never sold the Gerber life plans, but I can tell you that the way they are SUPPOSED to work is that you pay on a Whole Life Insurance policy for a kiddo. The kiddo is insured for the amount that the policy says so if something were to happen to the kiddo then the policy would pay out. Kiddo doesn't die and reaches age 18, then the parents can gift the policy to the kiddo. The reason this is so good is because if the kid develops something that would affect their insurability, if they already have a policy with a guaranteed insurability clause in it, they can get insurance when they otherwise couldn't. They'd have to pay up the extra money to buy more of course, but the option may not be there otherwise based on their health if they have a development. It seems to me with the Gerber stuff and other policies you see on TV is that they are TERM policies. They may say something like "Guaranteed up to age 18", which is great, but there is no equity built into it. So when its done, its done, and there is nothing to give to the 18 year old unless they have a clause to continue the policy at the higher 18 year old premium. I always recommend that you get whole policies on kids if you can swing it. It builds equity, it protects the family, and its giftable to the child once they come of age. Does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I always recommend that you get whole policies on kids if you can swing it. It builds equity, it protects the family, and its giftable to the child once they come of age. This is really bad advice. Adding a term rider on the parent's insurance for funereal costs (for which the premium costs would be microscopically small) and investing the difference in even a middle of the road mutual fund and you'd end up with way more "equity" than a Whole Life policy. Plus it guarantees insurability at the end of the term. But hey, it doesn't pay nearly the commission of placing a new whole life policy so there is that. grack fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
grack posted:This is really bad advice. Its not bad advice. You are one of the folks who says "buy term, invest the rest". No problem, it works for some people. But adding a term rider to the parents' insurance only provides for funereal costs as you say. If its something you want to GIVE to the children for their own use and beyond then you get a Whole Life policy. If you want to cover only funeral costs and be done with it, then do what you recommend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Its not bad advice. You are one of the folks who says "buy term, invest the rest". No problem, it works for some people. But adding a term rider to the parents' insurance only provides for funereal costs as you say. If its something you want to GIVE to the children for their own use and beyond then you get a Whole Life policy. If you want to cover only funeral costs and be done with it, then do what you recommend. No, I'm not just "one of those folks". I'm a financial advisor by trade (including life insurance) and have been so for close to a decade, so don't try and snow me with Whole Life "building equity" bullshit. If you want to "give" something to your children you invest money in middle of the road mutual funds, not a Whole Life policy that they have to collapse to get the cash value. Hey, just for shits and giggles, why don't you tell the nice people what happens when someone dies with a Whole Life policy in place? Specifically the part about the insurance company keeping the cash surrender value and only paying out the death benefit? Or that to actually access the value of a whole life policy, you have to take a loan and pay interest (on your own money!)? Or that unpaid policy loans decrease the death benefit? S'funny that agents that sell permanent policies never really go over that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
grack posted:No, I'm not just "one of those folks". I'm a financial advisor by trade (including life insurance) and have been so for close to a decade, so don't try and snow me with Whole Life "building equity" bullshit. I don't want to snow you with anything. What you say is usually said by people that distrust Whole Life in the first place. The difference between life insurance and the investments is that life insurance is guaranteed. You know as well as I do that paying for guarantees is definitely worthwhile for some people. Life insurance benefits are also not taxed, while mutual funds are when transferred or cashed out. When you buy life insurance you're buying INSURANCE, not an investment. The investment part is secondary. I would also never tell someone NOT to invest and only buy life insurance, but I'm also not going to say "always invest". The guarantee is absolutely worth something. It depends on the life insurance company. Most do only pay out the death benefit. As I said, the cash value is something extra that is designed to benefit you while living. I don't see how that is a "hit" on life insurance since you're BUYING life insurance; you're investing (RISKING) money in mutual funds. Different products. The paying interest on your own money is again depending on the type of product. A lot of major carriers do not charge an interest rate if you take the money out, and if they do it is low. Like less than a percent. Also the ability to pay the money back in to rebuild your GUARANTEE is something you can't do with a mutual fund. Different products. Why wouldn't unpaid policy loans decrease the death benefit? If I gave you $100 to pay me $200 if I die, and I borrow $100 today, why would you still pay me $200 for free? I'll go over it every which way I can. I'm not about fleecing people, I made this thread so people can be informed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
"Buy a whole life policy because the investments are guaranteed. I mean the insurance company will take every penny of your investments when you die and your beneficiaries won't get any, but guaranteed!" Or "Buy a whole life policy because your investments are guaranteed. Of course, if you try and actually use the money you decrease the value of the insurance you've paid for for 50 years, but guaranteed!" Great choice, there. You'll find better investment rates on 30 year municipal bonds. If you're going to hold yourself out as an expert and give advice, you better damned well be ready to defend yourself when someone calls you our on giving actively harmful advice. grack fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
grack posted:"Buy a whole life policy because the investments are guaranteed. I mean the insurance company will take every penny of your investments when you die and your beneficiaries won't get any, but guaranteed!" I am ready to defend what I said. You're totally misrepresenting the point of life insurance. In your first option the death benefit will almost ALWAYS be bigger than the investment. That is the point of life insurance, to get back MORE than what you put away. If I invest say, over 50 years, $30,000 into a life insurance policy with a $500,000 death benefit and maybe $40,000 in investment, then I come out ahead. I had in equity $70,000 and my beneficiaries receive $500,000. How is that worse than investing $30,000 and having $70,000 taxable to my beneficiaries? Remember, Life Insurance is LIFE INSURANCE, not an investment. THe investment part of life insurance like Whole Life is an extra bonus on the back end, not a replacement for investment. You're paying for a guaranteed death benefit, not for liquid assets. The reason the Whole is good for kiddos is because it DOES gain cash value and it is a backstop in case the child becomes uninsurable in the future or needs emergency cash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
So why not Universal life, only funding the insurance portion? Or Term-30 so you can build an investment base and then roll over in to Term-to-100 at guaranteed rates for estate planning purposes? If you say the investments in Life Insurance contracts aren't that important, either of those options would be much cheaper than Whole Life, so why not? I mean, first you say guaranteed investments are really important, and then in your very next post you say that they're a bonus and not that important. Which one is it? Also, stop pretending compound interest doesn't exist. It just makes you look incredibly, incredibly stupid. grack fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I am ready to defend what I said. You're totally misrepresenting the point of life insurance. In your first option the death benefit will almost ALWAYS be bigger than the investment. That is the point of life insurance, to get back MORE than what you put away. If I invest say, over 50 years, $30,000 into a life insurance policy with a $500,000 death benefit and maybe $40,000 in investment, then I come out ahead. I had in equity $70,000 and my beneficiaries receive $500,000. How is that worse than investing $30,000 and having $70,000 taxable to my beneficiaries? This is really stupid. If the insurance is the important part, then what you really want is term insurance. If investment is the important part, you get more flexibility, lower fees, and more exposure to market appreciation by simply investing it yourself. You are right that you are paying for a guaranteed death benefit, but how many people actually need that? If I die at 90, my grown children don't need a death benefit. Basically, there are people for whom whole life is appropriate, but not that many. Insurance brokers push it without regard to its appropriateness because it makes the broker so much in commissions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:This is really stupid. If the insurance is the important part, then what you really want is term insurance. If investment is the important part, you get more flexibility, lower fees, and more exposure to market appreciation by simply investing it yourself. You are right that you are paying for a guaranteed death benefit, but how many people actually need that? If I die at 90, my grown children don't need a death benefit. And if you desperately need a permanent policy there are better ways to do it than Whole Life. Universal life with no investments or Term-to-100 both provide the same type of death benefit at cheaper rates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
grack posted:So why not Universal life, only funding the insurance portion? Or Term-30 so you can build an investment base and then roll over in to Term-to-100 at guaranteed rates for estate planning purposes? If you say the investments in Life Insurance contracts aren't that important, either of those options would be much cheaper than Whole Life, so why not? Because the Universal life doesn't have the GUARANTEE. With Whole Life you're buying the guarantee. Many new Universal life policies function in a similar manner with floor rates on returns and guaranteed insurability, but they do not build the cash value the same way Whole does. Otherwise you're looking at the Variable side of thing which is where the investment risk comes in. You can absolutely just fund the insurance portion, but every policy I looked at between a Whole Life and what was called the "Target" premium for Universal were very close in their premium outlay, though this does rely heavily on the person applying. For many people it may very well be worth it to spend an extra $10 a month to make sure you have a GUARANTEED value. I feel like you're just trying to do the best you can to poo poo up the insurance thread because you don't like specific types of policies. I said the guarantee is important for the whole life, but that if you're goal is to make money then you shouldn't be buying insurance. If your goal is to provide a guaranteed amount for beneficiaries, then you buy insurance. I also never said compound interest doesn't exist, you're just trying to pick a fight. Magic Underwear posted:This is really stupid. If the insurance is the important part, then what you really want is term insurance. If investment is the important part, you get more flexibility, lower fees, and more exposure to market appreciation by simply investing it yourself. You are right that you are paying for a guaranteed death benefit, but how many people actually need that? If I die at 90, my grown children don't need a death benefit. Are you sure your grown children wouldn't need it? I think life insurance is something that is handwaved away with exactly that thought. Its absolutely up to the individual on what they want their insurance to do for them. Let me run with your scenario. You invest $10,000 in the market and you die with it having accumulated to $50,000. Great, $40,000 in profit to your grown children. Its taxed, but you don't care, you're dead, and they don't really need it. You buy life insurance for $10,000 and you have a death benefit of say, $250,000. Great, you get a massive return on your purchase of insurance. Its not taxed, you don't care you're dead, but hey, its $250,000 for the kids to remember you by. You'll notice in both situations you're dead. Life insurance isn't for you, its for your family and beneficiaries. If you plan on dying with all of your money in the market, its silly to not have it in insurance because you're going to get more money back 9 times out of 10 than you put into it if you're still insurable. If you're goal is to just cover burial, buy a small piddly policy and be done with it. The difference with the Whole Life is that you have access to some of that money when YOU are still alive. Bonus. Its also guaranteed never to run out as long as you pay the premium or have cash in it. Bonus. It can also be purchased for people at a very young age and be permanent for the ENTIRE LIFE with NO CHANGE in premium forever. Bonus. If your goal is to make money, then don't buy insurance. Invest it. Just realize that the goal of investing is to make money, not provide for beneficiaries. As to gracks point about Term to 100, those policies totally start out cheaper. I found the break even point for a standard policy is around ages 42-47. At that point it becomes cheaper to buy a whole policy (or even universal if you like) than it is to get a Term-to-100 policy. This is because terms tend to cycle either annually or every few years when they put you into a higher age bracket and reevaluate the premium appropriately. A lot of good policies will NOT look at your health status again, but some will. Even so, they will give you a slightly higher than average premium increase because they are taking a risk by not looking at your health. So if you're say, 45 and have a Term-to-100 policy it could cost you $50 a month, a whole life would cost $95 for the same amount for example. However when you hit 50 (or even annually!) they raise your premium according to the actuarial cost of insuring a standard 50 year old,plus the cost for variance. This will almost always be more expensive than if you bought that whole life policy at 45. Sure its guaranteed, but you end up paying more money. Universal life isn't a bad deal either, its totally an option. I would stay away from the variable products, and at younger ages Whole Life makes more sense because the cost difference is minimal until you hit the 30's or so. This is all according to my personal experience though, I'm not speaking for the industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
So, let's recap the conversation thus far; 1. You say investment guarantees are important and a reason why people should by Whole Life. 2. Then, when responding to my point that in Whole Life policies the insurance company generally keeps the investments, that the investments aren't actually that important. 3. Then, when responding to the idea of buying Universal or Term policies instead, you suddenly say that guaranteed investment returns are important again. 4. Finally, you say that if people want to invest money, they shouldn't be buying insurance, despite the fact that you spent like 10 posts on this page saying that people should "build equity" through Whole Life policies. Which one is it? Your answer seems to change from post to post, hell, even within a single post. I mean, hey, if you want to keep evading questions and changing the answers go nuts. It's your reputation, not mine. grack fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
grack, you've done nothing but change the context of each situation endlessly throughout your latest spat of posting. I said the guarantee on the death benefit is important as well as the guaranteed cash value of a Whole Life policy. I said if your goal is to make money, then life insurance isn't something you should be doing. It isn't designed to replace an investment in a mutual fund, which you keep trying to say it is. Its apples and oranges to compare insurance to investments. Building equity in an insurance policy is not the same thing as investing in the market. A Whole Life policy is backed by the faith in the solvency of the insurance company. Its essentially a contract that your insurance policy will mature and grow in cash value that can be used in many different ways from premium payment to liquidation to additional life insurance (which I should have mentioned earlier: if you die and have cash value many policies have a default position to add the cash value to the death benefit value). This is different than an actual investment that is not guaranteed and should be treated as such. This means that there is additional value in a Whole Life policy over and above a Term policy or even a Universal policy since there is the guarantee there. This is why I spent so much time in the beginning pages of this thread explaining the differences between all the policies. They all don't exist to screw you over, they all exist to fulfill a certain need for individual purchasers. Now if you want to continue to make an rear end of yourself about how you have all the answers to every situation by talking about how wrong Jastiger is, be my guest, but it only makes you look foolish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
You still haven't directly answered the vast majority of the questions that I've raised in this thread, and it seems you're not going to do so. Instead you just keep parroting GUARANTEE over and over again, and actively changing your answers. So... okay, you win. I mean, there's no reason to continue to try if you're going to constantly sidestep questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
I feel like I've totally answered your questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Don't care about whatever drama is brewing: let's talk car insurance! Let's say I have good health insurance through work already, and I'm opting in for collision and comprehensive auto coverage (in addition to liability for injury and property, but that's irrelevant to my question). Why would I ever want UI/UIM? My property damage should be covered by my collision coverage, and my healthcare claims should be covered by my work health plan, right? Along the same lines, why would I want Personal Injury Protection or Medical Payments coverage? That stuff should be covered by my health plan as well...
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Pissingintowind posted:Don't care about whatever drama is brewing: let's talk car insurance! Let's start with Personal Injury Protection (PIP). This is only available in some states, so if you're in a state that has this, PIP is different than simply medical because it also can cover things like lost wages in addition to medical expenses. The value there is that you get that extra coverage. In a lot of those states that offer it, its also often mandatory since it puts some of the risk of an unemployed insured onto an insurance company rather than the state for income during times you can't work. Medical is pretty straight forward, it covers medical costs. The reason this is helpful is because in the event of an accident, the medical coverage from your car insurance will cover you. Your health insurance plan through work will too, absolutely, but think of it as kind of a "line of defense". It'll go through your car insurance first more often than not and then it will go onto your health plan. Depending on the amount of coverage this can be pretty helpful if you're severely injured. It can keep your health insurance costs down by not having to make a claim if you're laid up for a few weeks and there isn't a deductible on auto health coverage. The other part of this is medical can be applied to other people in your vehicle as well while your health insurance can't necessarily. They both cover the same thing, though, you're right. Usually medical is cheap for the amount of coverage you get so its worthwhile to pick it up in a car insurance policy. The UI/UIM is useful if there is an accident and they do not have insurance or not enough insurance. If a car hits you and they have no insurance, and you don't have UI/UIM, then you're more or less screwed and will fork over whatever it is plus your deductible. Remember, the liability limits are to cover the other persons car, not your own, so if they have no liability limits, then you're out whatever it costs to fix your car. With UIM/UI there is no deductible and it covers everything, not just your vehicle. This one is optional of course, but it can be quite useful if you are ever in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Isn't that covered under collision or comprehensive? Getting hit by an uninsured motorist is no different than having your car burned by hooligans. In both cases there's no one held accountable Edit: why buy liability at all or why not only get the minimum policy if you're let off the hook after hitting someone? INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Isn't that covered under collision or comprehensive? Getting hit by an uninsured motorist is no different than having your car burned by hooligans. In both cases there's no one held accountable Not quite. If an uninsured guy hits your vehicle, you can still have it repaired under comp/collision, but you still pay your deductible under comp/collision. The biggest benefit, in my opinion, is if they have insurance and they don't have enough. It can cover the gap on top of their coverage and make sure you're taken care of that way. Also, you can still hold them accountable, its not like they get off scott free. The difference is that you're made "whole" again up front with the insurance policy rather than forcing them to pay later for hitting you with no insurance. Keep in mind, we're only talking in the realm of insurance policies covering you. Lets not forget that in the legal world you have a claim against them and the insurance company is merely stepping in to help cover the costs to you in terms of liability. If you have the minimum policy and hit someone for more damage than your policy you are STILL on the hook for it, even if their insurance company pays them for their loss. They can still legally come after you and recoup that money, and if the insurance company paid their client that money, you bet your rear end they are coming for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
And UM/UIM often covers things like lost wages in case you are injured and out of work for some time which your comp and collision coverages do not. In most states, UM/UIM only applies to injuries. You need UMPD insurance to have your vehicle covered under uninsured motorist coverage, and only some states offer this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 16:35
|
|