|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Sun Oct 29 2006 - 12:15:49 EST
Actually there is a real distinction. For self insurance you would
periodically set aside funds that would accumulate and build up to a
sizable portion of the estimated or depreciated value of the property.
Maybe a better way of looking at it is as a function of wealth. If you
can't afford the loss, you buy full insurance. If you can afford a part
of the loss, you get a High Deductible policy. If you can afford most
of the loss, OR if you feel you can actually control the likelihood of a
loss, you self insure and set up a funding mechanism. If you're not
particularly financially concerned about the loss, you self insure and
"expense" the loss. While you and I would not be likely to insure a
potted plant on the front porch, the Federal Government would be
unlikely to insure its automobile fleet.
So regardless of how the terms are sometimes commonly used, "self
insurance" and "no insurance" are definitely not synonymous.
Phil
OK then a very wealthy person doesn't put any money aside and doesn't buy
insurance by your definition he is not self insured but simply UN insured.
But if the same wealthy person puts money aside then he is not UN insured but
self insured?
Either way he pays his own loss either by money he has or money he's saved or
by the loss of his boat. Like I said kind of silly.
Brian Palmetto FL
_______________________________________________
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to
with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
|