Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Current Poll on main AB page
18 Answers
I was shocked when I discovered that the majority of people's responses to the poll question on the main AB page today was that those affected by the drastic flooding here in the UK at the moment should 'Have got life insurance for times like this'. Obviously this is coming from the mouths of people who have life insurance and apparently couldn't care less that our fellow countrymen are left homeless, penniless or worse?!?! Tell me what you think.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kinetic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Kinetic-agreed! I can't afford contents/life insurance, and to be honest as long as me, my partner and my dog are OK, they aren't a priority right now anyway.
How little compassion do people have? Out of the mouths of those who can afford the safety and protection of such insurance schemes, most likely, you are right!
x
How little compassion do people have? Out of the mouths of those who can afford the safety and protection of such insurance schemes, most likely, you are right!
x
"...those who can afford the safety and protection of such insurance schemes"
My house insurance is �15 a month.
There is no excuse for not having insurance, and the affordability argument just does not wash because I wonder how many of these people who couldn't be arsed to buy insurance have Plasma TVs etc (I saw one chav interviewed who was moaning that they weren't getting any help and that they didn't have any insurance and behind her hung on a wall was a 40 odd inch plasma TV worth thousands).
So no, where people have chosen not to buy insurance they should not get any government help.
Household insurance should be considered in the same way as gas and electricity and council tax etx... i.e, a normal and necessary household bill.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the people who have chosen not to insure.
My house insurance is �15 a month.
There is no excuse for not having insurance, and the affordability argument just does not wash because I wonder how many of these people who couldn't be arsed to buy insurance have Plasma TVs etc (I saw one chav interviewed who was moaning that they weren't getting any help and that they didn't have any insurance and behind her hung on a wall was a 40 odd inch plasma TV worth thousands).
So no, where people have chosen not to buy insurance they should not get any government help.
Household insurance should be considered in the same way as gas and electricity and council tax etx... i.e, a normal and necessary household bill.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the people who have chosen not to insure.
Haven't answered the poll... but.
His life insurance is 10 quid a month. Mine is nearly �40pm but that's a different life insurance policy, that makes me money. Mortgages and such don't require life insurance. We have it for peace of mind and to leave money.
Contents insurance? 15-20 quid a month. There is a very strong reason why you should be insured against loss.
Because if you lose everything in ie: a flood. How are you going to replace it?
The money that you think you cannot afford to insure your contents is a strange decision..... considering the what ifs....
Still.... hey ho......
His life insurance is 10 quid a month. Mine is nearly �40pm but that's a different life insurance policy, that makes me money. Mortgages and such don't require life insurance. We have it for peace of mind and to leave money.
Contents insurance? 15-20 quid a month. There is a very strong reason why you should be insured against loss.
Because if you lose everything in ie: a flood. How are you going to replace it?
The money that you think you cannot afford to insure your contents is a strange decision..... considering the what ifs....
Still.... hey ho......
i think you are going to be able to tell what most people think by the responses to the poll. I too can absolutely not understan why someone wouldn't buy at the very least contents insurance. As someone mentiond earlier, i think it should be trated as an ******* must have household expense. Youquestion says "life insurance" but im sure you mean household insurance, don't you. I would consider life insurance as a "luxury" insurance but certainly not household insurance
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
People moan about nanny states and governments sticking their noses in, but then expect the government to come running to bail them out when they're in trouble. Have we completely given up taking responsibility for ourselves? People love the rights that come with freedom from government interference, but don't want to face up to the responsibilities...sorry folks, they go together.
I do have sympathy for these people in terms of what they are going through, but I don't buy the "can't afford it" argument - flip_flop is spot on, home contents insurance should be considered a necessity. Pay for your necessities first - food, clothes, heating, insurance etc - and THEN start thinking about TVs, holidays and so on.
It's not about lack of compassion, it's not about party politics, it's about that dying art, common sense.
I do have sympathy for these people in terms of what they are going through, but I don't buy the "can't afford it" argument - flip_flop is spot on, home contents insurance should be considered a necessity. Pay for your necessities first - food, clothes, heating, insurance etc - and THEN start thinking about TVs, holidays and so on.
It's not about lack of compassion, it's not about party politics, it's about that dying art, common sense.
I agree that contents insurance is a necessity the Government are responsible for outside the house the streets paving lighting etc why should they pay for what is inside your house because you did not want to pay what is normally not more than �20 a month for contents insurance.
The Government not to blame for the weather either - though I do feel sorry for some of the people pensioners etc alot of them really annoyed me complaining when they had not protected themselves for any loss
The Government not to blame for the weather either - though I do feel sorry for some of the people pensioners etc alot of them really annoyed me complaining when they had not protected themselves for any loss
I can't afford contents/life insurance, and to be honest as long as me, my partner and my dog are OK, they aren't a priority right now anyway."
Can't afford life / contents insurance but can afford a dog?
People have different priorities in life - some people like fast cars, some people like designer clothing, some people like animals.
As has previously been stated - I personally see contents insurance (and life insurance as necessities). These have cost me around �500 combined in the last year. This means that if the worse did happen neither me nor my wife would end up penniless.
If the majority of people who 'could not afford' contents insurance didn't smoke, drink, go on holiday etc, then I would be very surprised.
Can't afford life / contents insurance but can afford a dog?
People have different priorities in life - some people like fast cars, some people like designer clothing, some people like animals.
As has previously been stated - I personally see contents insurance (and life insurance as necessities). These have cost me around �500 combined in the last year. This means that if the worse did happen neither me nor my wife would end up penniless.
If the majority of people who 'could not afford' contents insurance didn't smoke, drink, go on holiday etc, then I would be very surprised.
It's not that we don't care that they are homeless, penniless etc. Kinetic but it's not 'the Govt.' who would pay for their losses it would be the taxpayers. Insurance is an essential expense, I'm afraid.
Also Beryllium, life insurance on mortgages isn't essential if you don't have dependents but make sure you have critical illness cover at the very least. I had cancer at a young age and waited to be declared 'cured' before buying a property. The insurance co. said I'd have to wait until 10 years was up (it'd been 8). I took a gamble as the Drs assured me I'd be ok but we hadn't bargained for another cancer to wallop me in 18 months, six months before I could have taken out the critical illness policy!The Govt. wouldn't pay my mortgage as it 'would be increasing my investment' but would pay rent if I sold thereby increasing a landlord's investment; never mind that he/she might have had a list of properties as long as your arm.( Doesn't make sense to me.) Anyway after 9 months they will pay the interest only part of your mortgage. The flaw in this is that the mortgage companies won't wait for this and I came so close to losing my home it isn't funny! I existed for 2 years on �60 a week and yes, I did keep up my insurance payments. I sold some much loved belongings to keep up with the mortgage. Luckily I don't smoke or drink got and I like vegetables and water as that was all I could afford. It's taken me 7 years to get straight.
This is not for the sympathy vote but to point out that things happen in life which are not the Govt's responsibility.
Also Beryllium, life insurance on mortgages isn't essential if you don't have dependents but make sure you have critical illness cover at the very least. I had cancer at a young age and waited to be declared 'cured' before buying a property. The insurance co. said I'd have to wait until 10 years was up (it'd been 8). I took a gamble as the Drs assured me I'd be ok but we hadn't bargained for another cancer to wallop me in 18 months, six months before I could have taken out the critical illness policy!The Govt. wouldn't pay my mortgage as it 'would be increasing my investment' but would pay rent if I sold thereby increasing a landlord's investment; never mind that he/she might have had a list of properties as long as your arm.( Doesn't make sense to me.) Anyway after 9 months they will pay the interest only part of your mortgage. The flaw in this is that the mortgage companies won't wait for this and I came so close to losing my home it isn't funny! I existed for 2 years on �60 a week and yes, I did keep up my insurance payments. I sold some much loved belongings to keep up with the mortgage. Luckily I don't smoke or drink got and I like vegetables and water as that was all I could afford. It's taken me 7 years to get straight.
This is not for the sympathy vote but to point out that things happen in life which are not the Govt's responsibility.
Oneeyedvic, I don't smoke, or drink, or go on holiday...And yes, my dog is my priority. Our furniture is on the whole second hand, no expensive sound system or home cinema here. So nothing to insure against really. If anything happened, then we'd just replace gradually. SO, thanks for your opinions, but I will just stick with the way I do things.
leelapops. I agree, life insurance/home contents a choice made, sharing your life with a dog, not a choice but a necessity. I chose in the past to take the risk not to have home contents insurance, whilst sharing my house with my dog. (Didn't risk the dog not having insurance).
People make judgements all the time, take what they think are considered risks sometimes they get them right, sometimes badly wrong. But, if someone is in real need with no other resources then I think they need to be given support from tax payers for the basics.
People make judgements all the time, take what they think are considered risks sometimes they get them right, sometimes badly wrong. But, if someone is in real need with no other resources then I think they need to be given support from tax payers for the basics.
leelapops and ruby27. Ok, you say you have nothing much to insure and would replace things gradually - fair enough-but I think most of us are talking about those who prefer to spend their money on luxuries and then expect the taxpayers to bail them out. I'd prefer my taxes to go on education, health and pensioners not on replacing someone's tv or microwave.
But is anyone proposing that the relief given is anything but emergencies - not the luxuries of plasma TV.
For instance those people who seek and are granted DSS community grants get the money for basics like beds, cooker, and fridge. This enables them to but second hand furniture. The grant is tax funded.
For instance those people who seek and are granted DSS community grants get the money for basics like beds, cooker, and fridge. This enables them to but second hand furniture. The grant is tax funded.
Ok, but it's still tax money that could have been spent on something else if these people had taken out insurance. Perhaps the Govt. could make a one-off payment this time and tell people that in future insurance is mandatory. After all, they seem to tell us what to do in every other area of our lives!
The more worrying thing is the proposal that insurance companies have the right not to give insurance to people living on a known flood plain This was mooted this week . As developers knowingly, and with the collusion of local and central government have been building on these nice, flat sites for years this, if adopted, could store up a whole heap of trouble. Then the Govt. would be honour bound (as if!) to help.
The more worrying thing is the proposal that insurance companies have the right not to give insurance to people living on a known flood plain This was mooted this week . As developers knowingly, and with the collusion of local and central government have been building on these nice, flat sites for years this, if adopted, could store up a whole heap of trouble. Then the Govt. would be honour bound (as if!) to help.
1 to 18 of 18
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.