The charade of insurance

I know that, to remain relevant, all languages need to change and keep pace with growing and inventive societies. However, I’m puzzled as to certain definitions. In particular, I wonder when the word “insurance” lost its meaning. (“State Loses Bid to Curb ‘Use It and Lose It,’ ” March 6.)

In the past, premiums were paid to a company to insure a house, property, ship or other possessions against the risk of fire, theft or other loss. Too many of these occurrences might be deemed careless or be considered suspicious and result in raised policy rates or insurance refusal.

Today, however, things are different. One may have paid various premiums for 10, 20 or many more years with never a claim until one day a pipe breaks, an electrical fire occurs, the whatever-can-happen finally does, and after the fight for redress is finally won, no more insurance can be had (or if it can, at an unaffordable price).

So it would seem that the word insurance and the business itself are now meaningless and perhaps both should be stricken from our lives. The companies that survive will surely continue to invest their money in real estate, stocks and all the things they presently do without needing to pretend an interest in safeguarding the hard-to-come-by possessions of a hoodwinked, greatly abused, angry and frustrated public, which in time might find an affordable way to self- or cooperatively insure.

Eleanor Jackson

Palm Springs