Is There Any Insurance that Covers Gambling Addictions?

User Login

Remember me
Calendar It is currently 04.06.2019

Gambling addiction

Is There Any Insurance that Covers Gambling Addictions?

Gift games misery online easier
149 posts В• Page 433 of 180

Gambling addiction equitable insurance company

Postby Mojind В» 04.06.2019

.

MR4D on Mar 20, Article gives a good background, but doesn't clearly answer it's own question. The simple answer although not followed as closely as it should be in regulation : Gambling involves the creation of risk where none previously existed, while insurance is solely about the transfer of risk from one party to another or more than one.

Driving a motorcycle also involves the creation of risk where none previously existed. But people seem to make a rational choice to get on their motorcycle. The risk of losing money gambling to me seems less relevant than the risk of getting addicted to gambling and making irrational decisions. There is, however, a real problem of gambling addicts, not too different from heroin addicts. That said, solving the problem with prohibition creates the normal prohibition problems rational adult gamblers lose their rights, black markets are setup, etc.

I tend to like the self banning programs that many states have set up. If you go back, you can be arrested for trespassing. And of course, the governments do-gooder motivations seem suspect when the government makes lotteries illegal, but then sets up their own lottery monopoly with absurdly low payout rates.

That's because there are concrete benefits from doing so going from one place to another. And even with that, there are all sorts of regulations for getting a license to drive a motorcycle, where and how to drive one, what to wear while riding one a helmet is mandatory in many countries , etc. And even so, if motorcycle related accidents where that many that it would matter, driving one would have been outlawed altogether probably.

With gambling you on average just get nothing. Gambling is entertainment, the same as going to see a movie or listening to music. You don't get anything in return other than what you experience going through it. I agree that comparing it to buying a physical product may not be the best metaphor, but I can understand where it's coming from. In the end, it becomes a problem when it's no longer entertaining just a game , but rather pathological. Bartweiss on Mar 20, The house edge on well-played blackjack is only a few percent, and the highest-payout slot machines are similar.

Which means that a low-limit player can keep their losses down to a few dollars pretty easily. So stingy gambling is actually pretty similar to music and movies in dollars-per-hour terms.

I've certainly seen movies bad enough that I would have happily spent my money playing dollar blackjack instead. When I interned in Las Vegas, I often joked that it was cheaper and just as entertaining to go play some flashy slot machines vs going to the arcade. Right, and a lot of people forget that when comps are thrown in the edge is whittled down even more, if it exists at all. If I went to a bar I'd be ordering drinks, maybe paying a cover charge, but instead I get "free" drinks while I gamble.

I didn't cite it because I couldn't remember the edge on good play, but it's a solidly social experience which can be had for a very reasonable price. Both are forms of entertainment and both cause you to lose money. In one of them you get a luxury item -- with both use value, status value, and resale value.

In the other you get nothing at all. Not even status. Gambling certainly gets you status - walk around Vegas and check out the businesspeople playing together. And on a smaller scale, it gets you enjoyment. I've had some fun times playing low-minimum blackjack, chatting to other players and the dealer.

It got me "nothing at all", but in the same sense that a concert or the markup on drinks at a bar gets you "nothing at all". It's the money they can spend that gives those businesspeople status.

Nobody looked at them and said "they are gamblers, hence they have status". Heroin too. But nothing lasting and nothing sociably valuable. Ok, but I'm not a gambling addict, and most people who gamble don't become addicts. I know people who are literally homeless because they'd rather spend their money following bands around. Some of those bands are too niche to be "socially valuable". Does that mean we need to equate music with heroin, too?

The existence of addicts, or the lack of a social movement or physical product, does not determine whether something is worthwhile. Applying your standard would cut out everything up to "going for a walk in the woods", unless by socially valuable you just mean "things I find aesthetic".

Some people enjoy playing games and think they are good enough to wager money for it. It's not unreasonable for people to go to Vegas or Atlantic City with a disposable cash budget of how much they can gamble away.

You just factor it into the cost of the vacation. It's entertainment, losing sucks but it's always fun to win even if you are still down from what you started with. For some people, luxury cars are a waste of money. Everyone has their own priorities on what is important to spend their money on.

Some people like expensive cars and spend their money on it. Some people just want something that won't break down and can get them to work so they can spend their money on whatever hobby they really like.

If you commit enough driving offences, you may need to pass so-called "medical-psychological examination" MPU - "Medizinisch-Psychologische Untersuchung" which is dubbed "idiocy test". This will cost you time, money and dignity. There are also campaigns agains short-distance driving etc.

So I think what you say is not true, quite many people believe that there is a real and present problem with car addicts that the goverment needs to solve. You are right, it is a different type of addiction. And urban centers have banned cars or cars that pollute above a certain amount entirely.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but it raises the specter of double sided moral hazard: what about people who buy houses near flood plains and either don't insure or under insure them because they expect emergency relief government funds to rebuild and thereby recoup their loss at public expense?

What about young people for whom health insurance premiums are uncomfortably high, so they instead show up at the emergency room and don't pay? What about parents who do not purchase life insurance and if one dies, the othe goes on public assistance?

I realize this may be a US centric issue. A motorcycle or car is a fungible asset , and it's the use of the asset that's enjoyable. Gambling is not. It's effectively a service. You can sell it, and claw back at least part of your mistake. You have no recourse. I know that your mention of "car addicts" was just a throw-away example, but that is actually a strikingly apt metaphor for America's unhealthy dependence on the automobile.

The fact that you can essentially volunteer yourself to be arrested seems absurd to me. Do you have any details on that kind of program? I'd say the fundamental difference is that gambling sometimes provides a huge payout after a small loss, whereas insurance provides a payout roughly equal to the loss.

Insurance isn't supposed to have big paydays, it's just supposed to make you whole. Your house insurance might pay out a million dollars, but only if that's what it actually costs to rebuild your house. It's telling that when insurance starts to get away from this model, like people insuring stuff for far more than it's worth, or taking out life insurance policies on strangers, both the law and morality start to frown it.

SilasX on Mar 20, I think I would refine that a bit as, insurance [1] involves payout on an event the insured doesn't want to happen [even given the payout], while a gamble is where the insured does want it to happen [because of the payout].

This matches the historical and in-practice role of the insurer: they try to keep you from overinsuring things, or insuring things you don't have an interest in preventing from happening "insurable interest". Both of these create a so-called "moral hazard", the same category that make gambling bad, and vastly increases the fraud they have to deal with.

That's easy to get around. You mean easy to get around if that's what the law actually said? Sure, the distinguisher I gave doesn't easily translate into cheaply applicable test that law enforcement can use; it's more for identifying categories of activities that look more like gambling vs insurance so that lawmakers can identify which are worth banning. It's hard to externally identify that on individual cases. With that said, given appropriate modifications, your example could legitimately be called insurance.

Here's an interesting and topical example: the "billion dollar bracket" challenges you're seeing right now with the NCAA Tournament are all insured. Those challenges are all free, though you could get really deep and argue that consumers are paying incremental value for providing email addresses and marketing leads to the customer. The fundamental difference is that gambling is an added risk generally, and the exceptions are often illegal even where gambling is legal otherwise [0] , where insurance is a hedge against an existing risk; both decrease your expected financial return, but gambling also increases risk while insurance decreases it.

Insurance can also make existing risks more acceptable and thus lead to more risky behaviour. So crafting insurance policies and rates takes a lot of care, but the profit motive is a strong driver here. Arguably, that's the entire point of insurance: mitigating the risk of the insured activity so that it is more acceptable as a choice because unmanaged risk can make an activity less acceptable than average expected net benefit would suggest.

Life insurance can have huge paydays. The size of the payout is tied only to the premiums paid, not to the size of the loss. But the premiums are tied to the size of the loss, which is what the payout is supposed to cover. The loss you're supposed to be covering is your lost income and other less tangible but quantifiable benefits to your family. Although I'm no expert, I'm guessing underwriting becomes more difficult for policies that are completely out-of-line with your income.

There has to be some justification for the payout to meet underwriting standards, which in essence is considering the size of the loss. If you're asking for a policy that is very unusual, it will be much more expensive, if you can get one at all.

CocaKoala on Mar 20,

Motivational Video To Help With Gambling Addiction, time: 6:50
Bajind
User
 
Posts: 509
Joined: 04.06.2019

Re: gambling addiction equitable insurance company

Postby Aradal В» 04.06.2019

By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. I'm thinking why it does have a moral component in either case. Well put. Which means that a low-limit player can keep addictiion losses down to a few dollars pretty easily. In contrast, in the coffee houses, gentlemen with little interest in mathematics took bets on when the king would die, and whether Admiral John Byng would be executed.

Tojakus
Moderator
 
Posts: 855
Joined: 04.06.2019

Re: gambling addiction equitable insurance company

Postby Kazragis В» 04.06.2019

Many of these long tail risks were not independent but related to each other, potentially triggered by the same sort of crises. GEICO was founded because they equitable they could provide needed insurance cheaper direct through the mail, gambling than through an expensive army of sales-people. I'm guessing you're opposed to the compulsion addiction than the actual gambling? Share with friends Facebook Twitter Linkedin Learn more here. But OMG you house just burned insurance the ground, you might have died, what company it happened at night, something way worst might have happened.

Kazikasa
User
 
Posts: 146
Joined: 04.06.2019

Re: gambling addiction equitable insurance company

Postby Kiganos В» 04.06.2019

I think millions of http://hotcash.site/gambling-addiction-hotline/gambling-addiction-hotline-reminisce-online.php constitute "many". Serious question: What is the alternative to an insurance? Yes, gambling for small wins can be negative, if you don't include the "excitement" or "entertainment" in the utility function. Hasz on Mar 20, Not trying to de-legitimize the claim, but I couldn't copany much about hospitals being unable to negotiate equipment prices.

Gozilkree
User
 
Posts: 310
Joined: 04.06.2019

Re: gambling addiction equitable insurance company

Postby Barr В» 04.06.2019

The Http://hotcash.site/games-play/games-to-play-sewage-pump-1.php market for sub-prime mortgages went into meltdown in It is impossible to beat these beyond the medium term without some form of luck. Ah, so we all give it to the insurance companies Many treatment programs offer their clients payment plans or other financial alternatives to make care affordable.

Tut
Guest
 
Posts: 687
Joined: 04.06.2019

Re: gambling addiction equitable insurance company

Postby Mikacage В» 04.06.2019

Here is not hypothetical. Not mentioned is that life insurance began as a form of gambling during the Civil War; but the original form was the reverse of the modern idea of insurance: soldiers formed a pool and the last man alive long after the war, presumably would inherit equitablw all. I suspect that my antipathy to American libertarian machismo is far from universal. The insuranve car insurance industry, for example, could easily function with a fraction of its current workforce.

Mabar
Moderator
 
Posts: 843
Joined: 04.06.2019

Re: gambling addiction equitable insurance company

Postby Yozshurn В» 04.06.2019

He professes to be dead, and that Christ is his life: why then talk of insuring his life? Insurance can also make existing risks more acceptable and thus lead to more risky behaviour. So adeiction didn't build there.

Mirg
Guest
 
Posts: 160
Joined: 04.06.2019

Re: gambling addiction equitable insurance company

Postby Moogutilar В» 04.06.2019

You strike me as awfully hypocritical. More like a trade. Both are forms of entertainment and both cause you to lose money. But those risks are far more complex than whether you will be able to afford vastly overpriced health care in the event of some health crisis.

Marisar
Moderator
 
Posts: 180
Joined: 04.06.2019


439 posts В• Page 382 of 164

Return to Gambling addiction



 
Powered by phpBB В© 2000-2020 phpBB Group