Hurricane Season 2004--please read

On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:41:47 GMT, (Kurt Ullman)
wrote:

--
"No"
Amy Carter when asked if she had a message for
the children of America.

I don't know where you got this quote, but it's a real hoot :-)

I don't remember for sure any more. I DO recall that the source
seemed credible at the time. It also seemed to be within character for Amy and
the rest of the family.

Why so?

In article pmPqc.78596$536.12962741@attbi_s03,
"Sam" wrote:

Once again I ask has anyone
ever heard of a MILD hurricane season approaching?

As a matter of fact, they DID predict lower activity for a few years of
the last decade -- and they were right. Their models are improving year
by year.

But I agree with part of what I snipped of yours: A direct hit is about
as traumatic in the islands as a major snow storm is to the USA
Northeast. Yeah, it's a PITA and destroys stuff, but it's a fact of life.

I'd say your best insurance is flexibility; being able to move to a
safer place, if appropriate, and possibly leaving a few days later.

Believe it or not, but Long Island gets hit by more storms than any
island group. (And if you include winter storms that can be worse.....)

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

In article ,
Rosalie B. writes:
...
The PRUDENT thing to do if you take a vacation during the hurricane
season is NOT to insure the vacation but to not spend any more than
you can afford to lose, and to have alternate plans. ...

You got it, Grandma! And it applies outside hurricane season too.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

In article et,
(Kurt Ullman) writes:
In article , "Jess Englewood"
...
My wife and figured out and if we have to cancel only 1 out of every 7
trips, we break even. ...

So, how many of you last seen planned trips have you canceled under
conditons that trip insurance would cover? According to your estimate
the average is less than one out of seven -- otherwise the price
of trip insurance would have to be higher.

The nice thing about insurance is if I have to cancel
out the Christmas trip, then I have the money to replace it at Spring Break.
If I don't, I don't.

If you put aside the money you would have spent on trip insurance, you
will, over time, have MORE than enough money to replace the canceled trip.
(Alternatively, you can borrow the money and replay it with what you save
by not buying trip insurance.)

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

In article . net,
(Kurt Ullman) writes:

But if go on the vacation you get the value for your money, at least in
theory (g). If you sustain the loss of the money you get neither the money or
the value (memories, good food, seeing new places, etc.) You lose twice.

If you buy trip insurance you lose twice too. It just that the second
loss is spread over a number of years -- 7 year, according to the estimate
in a prior posting.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

In article , Dillon Pyron writes:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:05:13 GMT, (Charlie
Hammond) wrote:

In article et,
(Kurt Ullman) writes:

Paying for the vacation and sustaining the LOSS of the vacation
are two entirely different things. ...

Perhaps, but in context they are the same -- either way you no longer
have the money.

But you have gained no value. ...

True but beside the point -- the point is that by NOT buying trip
insurance I have NOT lost the additional value represented by the
cost of that insurance.

... This is like taking a few hundred
dollar bills and burning them.

If you really believe that there is no difference, just send the money
to me ...

Not THAT would be like buring a few hundred dollar bills! smile

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
(Charlie Hammond) wrote:

The PRUDENT thing to do if you take a vacation during the hurricane
season is NOT to insure the vacation but to not spend any more than
you can afford to lose, and to have alternate plans.

One *could* say, since you are basing your statement on affordable loss,
that if a person can afford the insurance, regardless of whether or not it
is ultimately invoked, it is "PRUDENT" to protect your costs. What is
affordable to any single individual doesn't necessarily stop with the
vacation cost.

But in the end it is a personal decision. Whether or not anyone wants, or
does not want, to spend a few hundred bucks to possibly protect a few
thousand is not a matter of thriftiness or sensibility. But a matter of
personal comfort level with the expenditure.

In regard to other issues outside of hurricanes, it should be considered
where you are going and how you are getting to your ultimate destination.
Particularly these days, there is a big difference in terms of potential
problems between traveling to Grand Cayman on a one stop, 6 hour itinerary
than there is heading off to New Britain, PNG on a 5 stop, overnight, 36
hour itinerary.

Almost anywhere you go weather is a possible issue, so the question there is
what do you want to risk: the cost of the vacation or the cost of the
insurance. Neither decision is more "PRUDENT" than the other.

In article ,
(Reef Fish) writes:
...
I read through most of the posts in this thread, and the posts by
Charlie and Grandma Rosalie are the most sensible ones in terms
of "rational decision making", "risk assessment", and how an
INDIVIDUAL should view the insurance question.
...
If you can afford the loss, don't insure -- is about as good a
Rule of Thumb as any.
...

Thank you.

At the same time, it has to be recognized that some people -- many people --
enjoy gambling, even though they KNOW that the will ALMOST CERTAINLY lose.
is that irrationaly? Maybe, but not if the believe that the COSt of loosing
is a fair price for the enjoyment they recieve.

In terms or trip insurance, well, if the value you get from the incremental
security it provides enables you to enjoy your vacation, then it may be
worth the price.

Personally, I don't enjoy gambling, and I don't buy trip insurance.


--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

(Charlie Hammond) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Reef Fish) writes:
..
I read through most of the posts in this thread, and the posts by
Charlie and Grandma Rosalie are the most sensible ones in terms
of "rational decision making", "risk assessment", and how an
INDIVIDUAL should view the insurance question.
..
If you can afford the loss, don't insure -- is about as good a
Rule of Thumb as any.
..

Thank you.

At the same time, it has to be recognized that some people -- many people --
enjoy gambling, even though they KNOW that the will ALMOST CERTAINLY lose.
is that irrationaly?

It would not be irreationality if they KNOWINGLY participate in an
unfavorable gamble -- the same applies to choosing to insure -- it is
not necessarily an irrational decision, only irrational to those who
haven't given the problem its rational BASIS for a rational decision.

As an aside, many of those wishful thinkers in gambling (as in Las
Vegas style slot machines) consider the unfavorable gamble as a for
of ENTERTAINMENT -- such as paying $10 to watch a movie -- except
nobody ever walk out of a movie hitting a jackpot, or get any of the
"entertainment fee" returned. :-)


Insurance gambling is not exactly the same "entertainment for pleasure"
type. In that case, the insurance company BETS "you'll be fine", and
you BET "disaster will hit me"! :-) Or, the insurance company BETS
you'll live, and you said, for the premium I pay, I BET I'll DIE!!

Is that your kind of pleasure?


In terms or trip insurance, well, if the value you get from the incremental
security it provides enables you to enjoy your vacation, then it may be
worth the price.

That gets into the more technical aspects of "utility function", "risk
preference", "risk aversion", and the rest that goes with the territory
of "risk analysis". In this forum, let's first learn to WALK before
you talk about running or flying.


Personally, I don't enjoy gambling, and I don't buy trip insurance.

That's you choice. You don't have to give any reason for it. But if
tell others that's what THEY should do, then you'd better prepared to
argue your case, on a rational/technical basis whose theory would apply
to EVERYONE, not just you.

That's the bottom line of this htread and discussion.

-- Bob.

In article ,
"Jess Englewood" writes:

"Rosalie B." wrote
...
The PRUDENT thing to do if you take a vacation during the hurricane
season is NOT to insure the vacation but to not spend any more than
you can afford to lose, and to have alternate plans.

Grandma Rosalie said that -- not me (Charlie Hammond) as your posting
seemed to indicate. No big deal -- I agree with the statement.

...
But in the end it is a personal decision. Whether or not anyone wants, or
does not want, to spend a few hundred bucks to possibly protect a few
thousand is not a matter of thriftiness or sensibility. But a matter of
personal comfort level with the expenditure.

I agree that it is a personal decision, related to personal comfort level.
However, over several years you will be spending a few thousand dollars,
not just a few hundered. And your only protecting agains some limited
situations -- you vacation dollars are still at sustantial ris for
uncovered situations. And in my experience the amount your protecting --
the amount that wouldn't be refunded in any case -- is in the hundreds.
But this may be partly because I don't buy "all inclusive" vacations.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.