Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to bmk,
Polling companies to reduce costs often combine several polls on the one person which makes the process more economic.
Or they've already done the poll and can just sell you the answer. But sure, they have economies of scale, that's why people use them. And ringing people up is very dull work (for me at least). But it sometimes does help when people want answers to survey questions to remember that all they're really doing is phoning people up and asking them questions. It all depends how much money is worth to you, and for that matter, how much accuracy you really want. If it's "eight out of ten people surveyed said they thought gay marriage was already in law" then you might get a good enough answer to that out of calling up 30 people. If you want it down to 0.5% accurate, and to make whizzy charts out of it, and present it to a board of executives, then you'd spend the money, without question.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Sacha,
Initial polling showed qualified public support. Taking it to the next stage politically would have required parties working together.
Yes, although naturally the party that mattered would have been the National Party. But even if Labour and the Greens had managed to make a combined public show of considering the idea, it could have gained considerably more traction. And it's still not out of the question now.
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Heh. Or ring up a few hundred people randomly and just ask the question. Polling isn't rocket science.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Sacha,
It was asked very early by the Greens
Yes, I meant it was never asked of the people. Which is pretty fucked, really, since it's a big enough problem to easily justify such a question.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Sad thing (for me always) Ben is that it comes right back down to the mindset that has enveloped the world .
You are right, although I often find that seeing it in this context can be disempowering. We can't change the whole world. But we can fix Christchurch. It's still our country, our government, that we elect, which still has huge power to force insurers operating here to honor commitments they made. It's a hundred times more powerful than Tower, and should be acting like it.
-
I only just spotted this, and am not sure if it already came up, but Ross Meurant on decriminalization in Granny last week had an interesting take from the side of enforcers.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
It would do no good if they didn't - all our insurance companies would need to be bailed out by the government when something big happened and then it's not insurance, it's just the government paying for everything again. At least at the moment some is being covered by overseas.
Yes, but all of the premiums also went overseas.
I still don't buy that we can't afford to fix Christchurch. The question of a levy has never even been asked. It would definitely be something Labour could campaign on. Even if they don't get in, it would actually be the right thing to do, and could exert pressure on National to pull their heads out of this mindset that the country is broke and needs to be broken some more before it gets better. It's not broke, but it is broken, and it needs fixing, and begging the international financial market isn't going to work. We have to find the resources within NZ to do it. It's time for the financial markets to prove themselves to us, for a change.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Given the enormous success of ACC, in spite of it's many flaws and absurdities it has done a much better job of compensating people for accident and injury than any private system in the world.
Amen to that. If my son had suffered his accident anywhere else in the world, the doctors would have bent over backwards to deny it. But here, they not only admitted the possibility, but advised us to make a claim, supported by their testimony, and OMFG what a difference it has made to him.
Also, one of the big advantages that could come from insurance being in the hands of government would be that the existing protection of prejudice could be removed. Currently, actuaries are not actually obliged to explain why it is that they accept or refuse an application, and it could well be on the grounds of discrimination that is totally illegal in other arenas.
This might make insurance more costly. But it also might not - it has for a long time seemed to me that the main source of rising insurance costs is greedy shareholders demanding ever increasing returns. Insurance is not like other capitalist ventures, it doesn't make a damned thing, so a continual rise in profits should not be expected, the way it might be from a factory. Surely "good profits" is enough. It's a financial service, complementary to banking, and a big part of the current recession/depression is caused by confusing it with capitalist enterprise.
-
I shouldn't be so moved by hearing a politician saying that 1) evidence changed his mind, 2) he was just wrong and 3) would accept the consequences of doing the right thing.
Except that it so seldom happens, and even more seldom for something so important. What I liked was the genuine ring it had to it, that he was not waxing lyrical for gay rights, but rather more clearly in turmoil, choosing to back his own mind and research, and his fondest principles against an internal prejudice that had clearly been lifelong. That's really hard work, and admirable when you see it done, in some ways more admirable than people who never had to struggle for such an insight. It's extremely powerful, that kind of honesty.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Emma Hart,
ooooo, fine distinction between slutty and sleazy. Topic for another thread perhaps?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 578 579 580 581 582 … 1066 Older→ First