Posts by Lucy Stewart

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Danielle,

    It boggles the mind: David and his family not only have to take this, but are supposed to be *understanding* about the “pressure-filled” – and yet, somehow, hugely money-saving – situation in which the insurance companies find themselves?

    I've just spent fifteen minutes arguing with someone (IRL) who thinks that it's not really anyone's fault because corporations are beings with emergent properties and in any case their shareholders would sue them if they were nice, so you can't blame anyone specific for any of this, except the government for not legislating better. And, this is important, I have resisted the urge to throw things.

    By a very slight margin.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Yip Yip,

    I’m stating the facts behind insurance. Earthquakes and other natural disasters are explicitly covered under insurance (with top up cover and out of scope cover). Government destruction is explicitly not. That this situation comes under the clause surprised me too but insurance companies have almost definitely had legal advice to clarify.

    Sure, there's a technical argument that this is not explicitly covered and therefore the insurance companies are under no legal obligation to pay out. And there's probably plenty of lawyers willing to argue that.

    But this is clearly not what anyone, in good faith, would expect to come under "government destruction". People are being forced off their properties due to a government decision that entire suburbs are unrepairable after a natural disaster. That's not in anyone's expectation of "government destruction". If people with total replacement insurance aren't paying for it to cover this sort of situation, then what the fuck are they paying it for?

    You do understand why people are genuinely and reasonably angry, and why this is a massive betrayal of good faith? That just because something can be weaseled out under a technical loophole doesn't make it okay, or fair, or right?

    It would also be a slow process with insurance so you’d probably be better off paying for the repairs yourself and getting reimbursed by Tower otherwise I’d doubt it would be done in time.

    With all those huge piles of spare cash everyone in Christchurch has lying around right now, I suppose...

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to BenWilson,

    If I had 10,000 silent partners buying in via the stock exchange, this does not change, and to suggest it does indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalist enterprise. They aren’t buying a product from me, they’re buying ownership of a business that makes products.

    I completely agree, that's how it should work. It's the fairly large disconnect between the people making the decisions and the displeasure of the people buying the products that makes for how the system actually works.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    2 out 3 ain’t bad, right?

    From a certain point of view, as far as an insurance company’s board of directors are concerned, the shareholders are the customers. The, er, traditional customers only have to be placated just enough to not leave in droves. The shareholders are the people who can actually fire the board.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…,

    My experience with Tower was that they were so fucking incompetent they had to be asked three times to invoice me properly. I am sorry to hear that this doesn't stop them being cold-bloodedly evil to boot. One might have hoped.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Hard News: What the kids do,

    that the last, plodding half hour in which the sole survivor is brought to Jesus by the hot guy from Twilight is almost unwatchably dull.

    And "brought to Jesus" tells you all you need to know about the motivations of the people making it. "Reasoned judgement of risk" is not generally a part of that sort of agenda.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    And every time I hear that from people, my opinion is that until we figure out how to move New Zealand away from the circum-Pacific seismic belt a round of STFU-a-chinos might be in order.

    Hah. I was congratulating myself on having moved to somewhere immune from really dangerous natural disasters (blizzards being more annoying than anything else) and then, last week? Tornado! You want real safety from natural disaster, start investing in a space programme. (See also here.)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Also… the students? Are in the middle of exams. They’ll not be digging us out in a hurry this time round. And dear gods, how TIRED they must be.

    One quote suggested the James Hight library has suffered yet another mass de-shelving, after fully opening last week. For the second time. I can't even.

    I am, selfishly, desperate for people not to leave the city. I can deal with the place I left sinking slowly into the dust, in its physical form. If all the people leave as well - that's it, really, it's gone. Cities are people. The physical bits are just the framing. As long as the people stay, the city stays.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    I don’t see anything wrong in discussing matters of personal belief even with people I strongly disagree with, so long as the usual standards of common courtesy and basic respect are maintained.

    For myself, I find it very difficult to maintain basic respect and courtesy to someone who believes I am doomed to eternal torment unless I agree with them. And - in some cases - that I will deserve it for "rejecting" their god. At that point you're not even in the same mental universe.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Cecelia,

    He is attributing a faith in God to Destiny whereas most commentators see it as a Brian Tamaki cult rather than a genuinely spiritual movement.

    I always find it best to take people at their word about their faith and their beliefs. It's theirs, after all. I'm quite happy to accept people involved in the Destiny Church have real faith in their god. The mistake is to then accept that genuine faith somehow excuses bigotry. It doesn't.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 57 58 59 60 61 211 Older→ First