A friend recentlyshared this reason for not giving (fear of an expensive medical crisis). I think if a good resource existed with the base rates of events that can cause financial hardship and solutions for reducing their likelihood (e.g., long term care insurance), this might help some people feel more comfortable with giving.
I passed this along to someone at GWWC and they said this is on their list of ideas to write about.
I like the thought, but would flag that I’d probably recommend them doing some user interviews or such to really dig at what, if anything, might actually convince these people.
I’d expect that strong marketing people would be good here.
Typically the first few reasons people give for why they aren’t more charitable are all BS, and these sorts of people aren’t the type willing to read many counter-arguments. It can still be good to provide just a bit more evidence on the other side, but you have to go in with the right (low) expectations.
That said, I do think that solutions (like insurance) are a pretty good thing to consider, even to those not making these excuses.
The biggest risk is, I believe, disability resulting in long-term income loss. My US-centric understanding is that private disability insurance that is both portable (not bound to a specific employer) and broad (e.g., covers any condition that causes a significant loss in earnings capacity) can be difficult to find if you’re not in particularly excellent health.
Basefund was working on the broader issue of donors who subsequently experience financial hardship, although I haven’t heard much about them recently. My assumption was that limitations imposed by the project’s non-profit status would preclude the Basefund model from working for people considering larger donations but worried about needing them back down the road if a crisis happens.
Meeting those needs for those unable to access general-purpose private disability insurance would probably require some sort of model under which the donor paid an insurance premium and reduced their would-be donation accordingly. If there were enough interest, I could see one of the big disability insurance shops underwriting a product like that. Probably wouldn’t be cheap, though. Of course, if someone were willing to financially guarantee claims payment, thus removing any financial risk from the policy administrator, that would make the program more attractive for a would-be administrator.
Yeah this was what I found too when I looked into private US long-term disability insurance a while back. My recollection was:
there’s a surprising number of health exclusions, even for things that happened in your childhood or adolescence
it’s a lot more expensive in percentage terms if you’re at a lower income
many disability cases are ambiguous so the insurance company may have you jump through a lot of hoops and paperwork (a strange role-reversal in which the bureaucracy wants to affirm your agency)
I had the impression that it was a great product for some people, meaning those with high income, clean medical history, and a support network to wrestle with the insurance company. But at the time I looked into it, it didn’t seem like a great option for me even given my risk-adverse preferences.
Planning to look again soon so could change my mind.
A friend recently shared this reason for not giving (fear of an expensive medical crisis). I think if a good resource existed with the base rates of events that can cause financial hardship and solutions for reducing their likelihood (e.g., long term care insurance), this might help some people feel more comfortable with giving.
I passed this along to someone at GWWC and they said this is on their list of ideas to write about.
I like the thought, but would flag that I’d probably recommend them doing some user interviews or such to really dig at what, if anything, might actually convince these people.
I’d expect that strong marketing people would be good here.
Typically the first few reasons people give for why they aren’t more charitable are all BS, and these sorts of people aren’t the type willing to read many counter-arguments. It can still be good to provide just a bit more evidence on the other side, but you have to go in with the right (low) expectations.
That said, I do think that solutions (like insurance) are a pretty good thing to consider, even to those not making these excuses.
The biggest risk is, I believe, disability resulting in long-term income loss. My US-centric understanding is that private disability insurance that is both portable (not bound to a specific employer) and broad (e.g., covers any condition that causes a significant loss in earnings capacity) can be difficult to find if you’re not in particularly excellent health.
Basefund was working on the broader issue of donors who subsequently experience financial hardship, although I haven’t heard much about them recently. My assumption was that limitations imposed by the project’s non-profit status would preclude the Basefund model from working for people considering larger donations but worried about needing them back down the road if a crisis happens.
Meeting those needs for those unable to access general-purpose private disability insurance would probably require some sort of model under which the donor paid an insurance premium and reduced their would-be donation accordingly. If there were enough interest, I could see one of the big disability insurance shops underwriting a product like that. Probably wouldn’t be cheap, though. Of course, if someone were willing to financially guarantee claims payment, thus removing any financial risk from the policy administrator, that would make the program more attractive for a would-be administrator.
Yeah this was what I found too when I looked into private US long-term disability insurance a while back. My recollection was:
there’s a surprising number of health exclusions, even for things that happened in your childhood or adolescence
it’s a lot more expensive in percentage terms if you’re at a lower income
many disability cases are ambiguous so the insurance company may have you jump through a lot of hoops and paperwork (a strange role-reversal in which the bureaucracy wants to affirm your agency)
I had the impression that it was a great product for some people, meaning those with high income, clean medical history, and a support network to wrestle with the insurance company. But at the time I looked into it, it didn’t seem like a great option for me even given my risk-adverse preferences.
Planning to look again soon so could change my mind.