I find myself oddly-appreciative of their explanation text:
> Insurance simply distributes losses. The Company collects from all, that it may relieve some. You are as apt to be the one to be relieved as another. If vou do not meet with an accident you are simply taxed to relieve the necessities of some one who does, and may well be thankful that your suffering is confined to the pocket. You are much the gainer if you get nothing back; but, if you should be unfortunate, the insurance would be fully appreciated.
I have no data for it, but my impression is that a distressingly large chunk of people still don't understand insurance, which would make this kind of primer is equally--if not more--important now than it was back around 130 (!) years ago.
The first card image is interesting to me because of how many animal-related injuries it features, hinting at the much more rural life that most people had at that time. Three horses, a cow and a dog - I think a modern equivalent would include at most the dog.
Horses caused many, many more pedestrian deaths in pre-automobile New York City than cars do today (or 30 years ago when pedestrian deaths were at their peak).
And that's just them going out of control and crushing someone, never mind the infectious disease spread by mountains of manure lining and rotting horse corpses (15,000 in 1880 alone!) littering the streets.
For a while I dated someone who came from a farm, and they had cattle. When we visited their fam, I'd help out during chore time[1]. One of the chores was feeding the beasts twice a day. We'd fill some 5 gallon buckets with corn and dump them in a big trough in the middle of the cattle yard - they'd see us filling the buckets and come in from the pasture. The first two buckets were easy enough - the animals weren't there yet. The second set of buckets was a bit trickier, the animals were already crowding the trough and you needed to get in there with the buckets and dump them. Cows are very big, and quite heavy, you don't want to end up between a couple of them (metaphorically) elbowing each other to get at the trough, you'll end up squished and injured or worse. If you trip and fall, they'll just step on you to get to the feed.
One time I was there when the vet was over to do stuff. Each animal needed to be checked out so they were rounded up in to a holding pen, and one by one brought through a "chute" (think narrow walkway made of very heavy fencing), to where the vet was waiting. Getting them to go in the chute, and getting them to stay relatively still for the vet was not easy - you could get hurt on accident (again a light brush from a heavy animal can send you flying), and if they go spooked or ornery and were fighting it things got worse. If they get really scared or nervous they may just kick at you - and if that lands you have problems, if it hits your head you have big problems.
That's for cattle living in ~200 acres of land, and who were relatively tame from interacting with humans multiple times a day. The ones that live on giant ranges and range much freer are likely a bit rougher, a bit easier to spook and much more ornery.
Cows (like all large animals) can be dangerous.
[1] I'm not sure how much I actually helped - there was a lot of time spent explaining what needed to be done and how to do it, and me being new at it, a lot of time fixing my mistakes - fortunately everyone involved understood what was really happening: a combination of bonding time, me trying to be a good guest and genuine curiousity.
This is something I don't understand about "go swimming with whales" sales pitches. Swimming with whales sounds incredibly dangerous. They are so much larger than you that simply being nearby while they move around can easily kill you.
Occasionally I have stepped on a snail. From a snail's point of view, I am actually benevolent - I specifically seek to avoid stepping on snails and will go to considerable extra effort to achieve that goal, because they're gross. But I'm not always checking every step I take for snails. If you're a snail, my benevolent attitude towards you is worth much less than a prudent amount of distance.
Cows are much worse, because it's not uncommon that they will intentionally try to kill you. Winning a fight with a cow is no more plausible than a snail defeating me in combat.
My dad told me a story of exploring up a streambed in his childhood. At some point he climbed up the bank and found that he was in a meadow with some free-range cows. He got very excited, because they were doing something unusual - most of them had gathered into a big group with a couple circling around the group.
His first thought was "Wow! This is just like on TV, when a herd defends itself from predators!"
And his second thought was "wait a minute, I eat cows..."
> Several weeks after the rainy season ended there were reports in the neighborhood of a cape buffalo that was harassing people and animals. Often older males lose rank and leave herd to wander by themselves, angry and uncomfortable. They are a threat to people and stock, especially horses.
> We were out of meat in our camp, and so with the confidence and foolishness of youth we decided to hunt down the buffalo.
> we decided to drive down to the local headman’s hamlet and borrow his dog, renowned for his hunting and tracking abilities. We also wanted to borrow another rifle from him, a Martini-Henry rolling block antique left over from the Boer war. When we arrived he came out and gave us a warm welcome and a windy speech congratulating us for doing something for the community, ridding it of the dangerous buffalo.
> Several months before I was sitting in camp reading a science fiction novel on a Sunday afternoon when a large group of armed men on horseback came storming into our camp in a scene straight out of a 1950’s western movie. They had one saddled horse with no rider which, it turned out, was to be mine. There was a lion or lions in the area that had been killing cattle, it was time to go out and hunt them down, and they were sure I would want to participate.
> These were Herero, the local Bantu-speaking tribe. They are pastoralists living off herds of cattle, sheep, and goats. Lions are a major threat to their herds, and these group hunts are in part simply farmers protecting their stock but they are also macho male rituals demonstrating bravery. I pointed out that I had never been on a horse in my life and that I was as scared of horses as I was of lions. Galloping around in a mass of heavily armed men waving a high powered rifle in one hand was not my idea of how to learn to ride a horse, I said. I also cheerfully admitted to my cowardice.
> I was hardly reassured when my Herero interpreter explained that it was great fun, not really very dangerous, and that it was the duty of all men. As he said this he gestured with a hand missing three fingers that had been bitten off by a lion in the course of one of the hunts years before. They were all polite and cheerful and did their best to hide their disgust with me.
> The headman made reference to this incident in his speech that morning. He said he was delighted to see that I was finally overcoming my unmanly cowardice. He would be happy for us to use his dog, his rifle, and he also sent one of his sons to help out.
----
Whenever the local community leader gives a big community presentation where he says how happy he is that you are finally overcoming your unmanly cowardice, you should think "have I just made a colossal mistake?"
Insurance is interesting and has an interesting history. It started as a form of speculating or gambling and it's still a form of "betting."
Like casinos, an insurance company needs to design their product such that "house wins" in the aggregate. They need to take in enough income to pay employees, keep the lights on, pat out claims and turn a profit.
So they need good info on how to price it such that it is sustainable.
One way they make it sustainable: they conservatively invest part of the money they take in to defray costs.
There's religions that get exemptions from "insurance required" laws because they view it as gambling. They often do a mutual assurance bonding thing instead.
Insurance companies use a whole different kind of statistics than many of the other sciences do; "actuarial science." "Statistics" is all about making your numbers appear to support your hypothesis, whereas actuarial is about finding the data hidden in those numbers.
I worked in insurance. I'm not crazy about insurance, actually.
If you can find another means to cover your needs, I recommend you go with that. If you can't, there are scenarios where insurance makes sense.
Example: If you want life insurance solely to cover your funeral, just do a prepaid funeral. If you have dependent minors, ideally you should have life insurance to help them should you die.
I tell my students that insurance is simply a backup pot of money — that I doubt very much that, say, Bill Gates carries any kind of insurance at all, because he has other assets that he can use for any conceivable human need.
It's like the Gashlycrumb Tinies as a marketing tool for insurance. Somehow both cynically capitalistic, and comforting to know insurance companies were a bit cheeky long before GEICO television ads.
“As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting.”
Public Citizen: “Legal Myths: The McDonald’s ‘Hot Coffee’ Case.”
I find myself going back and forth every time I read about this case. Those informed about the case aren't really questioning the harm, but rather the responsibility. In my experience many people want coffee and food to be as hot as possible, especially old people. Personally I have to wait for coffee to cool down before I drink it, but maybe I'll get there.
Now perhaps McDonald's should give customers a choice of temperatures, shouldn't be serving such hot coffee from the drive thru, should add the cream/sugars before giving it to customers, should have rigid coffee cups that won't collapse when the lid is removed, or something else to reduce/prevent/discourage that specific type of situation. But it seems the main component of liability here was simply the coffee's temperature, which is something many customers actually want.
As many other comments mention, that's not really a fair summary of the McDonald's case. If this were to happen today, you'd go to the hospital who would bill your health insurance. Your health insurance would then ask how you got burned, and would probably sue McDonald's for the medical costs.
Again, as the other comments mention, it's common to have insurance against accidents that prevent you from doing your job. I don't recall having this at startups, but I might not have been paying attention. At big companies, there are short term and long term disability insurance. Depending on what field you're in, you could probably do an office job with one arm. Chording one-hand keyboard, probably up to 85% pre-accident productivity. Things that should keep you up at night are things like "what if I hit my head on a doorway and my brain is damaged to the point that I can't do my office job anymore". While unlikely, having insurance for that is great.
Finally, people can have personal liability insurance (and probably do through their renters or homeowners policies) to cover inadvertently causing financial losses to other people. Say someone comes into your house and your bookshelf falls over on them. It's kind of your fault, so you have insurance for that.
Whoever owned the land didn’t tell you with an easily viewable sign that there are crocodiles nearby. You have a liable party now! Why do you think California puts a label on everything saying it could cause cancer?
> Why do you think California puts a label on everything saying it could cause cancer?
Not to reduce liability related to the exposure. But because the voters passed a proposition that demands it. If you are harmed from the exposure in a way you can conclusively show, the prop 65 label won't absolve liability.
> Insurance simply distributes losses. The Company collects from all, that it may relieve some. You are as apt to be the one to be relieved as another. If vou do not meet with an accident you are simply taxed to relieve the necessities of some one who does, and may well be thankful that your suffering is confined to the pocket. You are much the gainer if you get nothing back; but, if you should be unfortunate, the insurance would be fully appreciated.
I have no data for it, but my impression is that a distressingly large chunk of people still don't understand insurance, which would make this kind of primer is equally--if not more--important now than it was back around 130 (!) years ago.