Dive Insurance or Not

[Brandon]

Yes, I've had DAN insurance since I started diving. I have (hopefully!) an awful lot of dives ahead of me in the future - I'm just not willing to gamble that nothing is ever going to go wrong.

I also really like Alert Diver =)

-B

 

[vladimir]

Ah!! Only an example then.

Yes, it was an example to demonstrate that when you calculate "risk/reward," as somebody suggested, you attach probabilities to each event. In this case, the certainty of spending $70 versus the miniscule chance of having to spend $100k, $200k, or $250k, for example.

I have the DAN Preferred plan, and I agree with RJP in that the $70 is well worth the "utility" of not having to worry about being covered if I need a chamber ride.

That is a good reason for buying it. I also have the DAN preferred plan, because some liveaboards require their customers to have insurance, because I wouldn't want my evacuation to be held up while somebody waited for VISA in Papua New Guinea, say, to approve the charge, etc.

Again .. how do you know that it's only going to 100K ????

how about over 250K with ICU and Rehab ?
and how about another 25K for permanent disability ?

I don't know, that was an example. My point was, DAN's actuaries have calculated the probability of a payout and multiplied it by the size of the likely payout, and it is a figure less than $70, and therefore one could reasonably posit that it is not "foolish" to skip buying it. Rather, it could be a more rational decision.

It's so cheap one is foolish NOT to have dive insurance.

I used to have Dive Assure ( backed by AIG ) but now have DAN. I'm quite sure I'll stick with DAN from now on.

Lottery tickets are cheap too. Is it foolish not to buy them, or is it a dollar mostly wasted because you are overestimating the likelihood of a very low probability event? That is my only point. Everybody here thinks it is "foolish" not to buy dive insurance because they are overestimating the likelihood of needing it. I don't know what the likelihood is, but I know that DAN turns a profit each year. So, yes, buy dive insurance--I have--but realize that it could be perfectly rational to not buy it.

 

[CraigCarter]

I'm new to diving, OW certified in 2005 and to date have logged 36 dives. My dives have been evently split between lake dives, southern Calif. and Hawaii. I will always be a recreational/tourist diver. It has been two years since my last dive in Maui that resulted in a near drowning surface incident, a trip to the ER and a pissed off wife. (The night dive was great! The surface swim back to shore SUCKED!) I appreciated the Medical help line offered by DAN and fortuately didn't require medical evac.

I have kept my DAN membership active and as I plan/practice for my next Calif.dive trip toward the end of the month I have purchased a 19 CUFt RAS; although statistically I know the odds of an accident are extremely remote I like the "utility" of both the secruity and confidence. As a motorcyclist I wear All Gear, All The Time -AGATT (full helmet, boots, gloves, protective jacket and pants). I consider DAN and backup SCUBA equipment as my underwater AGATT. I realize others may define their risk management differently.

 

[D_B]

While you can determine the odds of not winning the lottery, you can't determine the odds of "you" needing the insurance

 

[Riger]

What a load of CRAP!!

Of course it makes sense to have the insurance at $70 per year or even $140 for that matter. Perhaps if it were unaffordable at $200 per month one might want to consider the math.

Consider the cost of the insurance versus things like a dive computer, annual service charge for equipment or tank of air from a reputable supplier ...

This is not a math/finance class, this is a dive community, in communities people tell you when your actions (or omissions) are foolish.

I agree, it is foolish/stupid/unwise/uninformed/misguided not to have the most basic form of specialist insurance in the specialist sport/recreation of scuba.

If you think that you can save by not having the insurance, you could probably save even more by just not diving at all .... now how much would that save you?

Best Regards
Richard

 

[vladimir]

What a load of CRAP!!

Of course it makes sense to have the insurance at $70 per year or even $140 for that matter. Perhaps if it were unaffordable at $200 per month one might want to consider the math.

I apologize. This discussion was over your head, and, apparently, some others'. So, $200 per month is the threshold where you start considering the math? Is that the threshold for everybody, or is that yours, personally? How did you get that figure? Because I have to confess, this math is a little over my head.

 

[Riger]

In the context of the entire message, there was also a reference to the relative cost of recreational diving and if you missed it the first time, the word unaffordable.

Furthermore, doing the math does not mean deciding not to have insurance. I might do the math to compare the benefits of one policy versus another policy, considering the life insurance aspect as one example.

Just to add another aspect, It would be interesting to see if wealthier divers more often did or did not have dive insurance. Something tells me that they are wealthy (often) because they know when to gamble and when not.

Hey it's a forum, if you think you are doing a service by telling newbies that they need to do a cost/benefit analysis on their health/life in an environment like scuba, then go for it, just plan on a little push-back, that's all.

Best Regards

Richard

 

[vladimir]

While you can determine the odds of not winning the lottery, you can't determine the odds of "you" needing the insurance

Yes, that is why we buy insurance, because there is utility in removing uncertainty for emotional reasons, financial planning reasons, etc. Again, for those people who don't find utility in those benefits, perhaps because they are financially well-off and rational to a fault, it is not "foolish" to skip the insurance. It is a personal decision. For most people, the decision to buy insurance is a good one. I have only argued against characterizing the others as "foolish."

 

[Randy43068]

Yes, it was an example to demonstrate that when you calculate "risk/reward," as somebody suggested, you attach probabilities to each event. In this case, the certainty of spending $70 versus the miniscule chance of having to spend $100k, $200k, or $250k, for example.

That is a good reason for buying it. I also have the DAN preferred plan, because some liveaboards require their customers to have insurance, because I wouldn't want my evacuation to be held up while somebody waited for VISA in Papua New Guinea, say, to approve the charge, etc.

I don't know, that was an example. My point was, DAN's actuaries have calculated the probability of a payout and multiplied it by the size of the likely payout, and it is a figure less than $70, and therefore one could reasonably posit that it is not "foolish" to skip buying it. Rather, it could be a more rational decision.

Lottery tickets are cheap too. Is it foolish not to buy them, or is it a dollar mostly wasted because you are overestimating the likelihood of a very low probability event? That is my only point. Everybody here thinks it is "foolish" not to buy dive insurance because they are overestimating the likelihood of needing it. I don't know what the likelihood is, but I know that DAN turns a profit each year. So, yes, buy dive insurance--I have--but realize that it could be perfectly rational to not buy it.

Huh? That was convoluted at best... I hope anyone in business makes a profit, and a healthy one at that!

 

[rrweather]

Huh? That was convoluted at best... I hope anyone in business makes a profit, and a healthy one at that!

And now our government is going to ensure certain companies remain in business despite the lack of profit...

Sorry, this rant belongs in another forum.