Insurance premium hikes

[ellal]

I wasn't looking for a hidden meaning, but I note your failure to state whether or not you would falsify a claim.

I believe softus has given an answer to that in another thread..

Almost the whole population is corrupt in some way or other.

But not you?

Correct - not me. I know of only five people who aren't.

 

[Softus]

I wasn't looking for a hidden meaning, but I note your failure to state whether or not you would falsify a claim.

There is no such failure - I've made clear my view on this on several past topics, but, once again, I wouldn't, and I don't. I also give change back in shops when they've mistakenly handed me too much.

Is it possible that you're as naive as this implies?!

I also note the personal comments rather than deal with the subject.

Is describing a naive person as being naive a personal comment? Well I suppose it must be, but it was merely an expression of my amazement that you are. You could choose to take that as a compliment, or you could elucidate the remark that led me to think it. Or you could just get a bit grumpy about it.

Insurance companies exist to make money. How can they do that wihout looking for any reason not to pay out, and for any reason to increase premiums?

If any reduction in benefit, and increase in charges is acceptable, why then is this seen as unacceptable when indulged in by tradesmen?

I think it's acceptable, so the best people to ask that question of would be the ones who don't.

If you want me to guess then I'd say that they deploy the same short-sightedness and inadequate reasoning that leads others to use selfishness and resentment as the only criteria to judge the acceptability of price hikes.

 

[oilman]

There is no such failure - I've made clear my view on this on several past topics, but, once again, I wouldn't, and I don't. I also give change back in shops when they've mistakenly handed me too much.

There was a failure, you did not provide an answer, but now you have.

I would not falsify a claim either. I have had a claim paid previously, but then the police found the stolen property and returned it, so I rang the insurance company and paid the money back that I had already spent on replacements.

Is describing a naive person as being naive a personal comment?

Yes, and it was not relevant to the discussion.

Well I suppose it must be, but it was merely an expression of my amazement that you are. You could choose to take that as a compliment, or you could elucidate the remark that led me to think it. Or you could just get a bit grumpy about it.

How magnanimous.

 

[Softus]

There is no such failure - I've made clear my view on this on several past topics, but, once again, I wouldn't, and I don't.

There was a failure, you did not provide an answer, but now you have.

In order for me to fail to provide an answer, there would have to be a question. You didn't ask me whether or not I'm prepared to falsify a claim, but instead you asked whether my question meant that I am [prepared to].

All of this:

Is there anyone on here who isn't prepared to falsify an insurance claim?

Does that mean you are, and are looking for support?

It's a plain question. If you're looking for hidden meaning, there isn't any.

...means that my question meant neither that I am, or am not, prepared to [falsify a claim]. It also means neither that I was looking for support, nor that I wasn't.

In summary, you didn't ask the question that you accused me of failing to answer, being "Are you prepared to falsify a claim", you merely observed that I hadn't stated it. My answer to that observation was that I've made my views clear elsewhere, and hence they're no secret.

I would not falsify a claim either.

In that case you're the sixth person I've come across who's that honest.

Is describing a naive person as being naive a personal comment?

Yes, and it was not relevant to the discussion.

I accept that it wasn't directly relevant, but since we're discussing with only text to convey meaning, I considered, and still consider, that a non-verbal cue (of amazement) adds something to the debate rather than detracts from it.

Well I suppose it must be, but it was merely an expression of my amazement that you are. You could choose to take that as a compliment, or you could elucidate the remark that led me to think it. Or you could just get a bit grumpy about it.

How magnanimous.

None of what I wrote fits my understanding of the word magnanimous. Notwithstanding that, do you consider your comment to be both non-personal and relevant to the discussion?