I am for insurance and hope people buy insurance if possible but I don't agree with some of the writer's points of view.
First, usually when something really bad happens, never try to use the chance to do business. If the writer can post this article couple months later, it should be a lot better than now. People need comfort not "I told you so".
Second, "我是在帮助社区建立安全保障体系和风险防范机制的，捐款是一种破坏建立这种机制的行为，让人们放弃自己去建造这样机制的努力，以为遇到困难都能够得到社会的同情和帮助，但实际并不是这样，同情和捐款远远达不到真正的需要" Donation never destroy 社区安全保障体系和风险防范机制. In fact, donation is part of it. Insurance is business to business. Donation is people to people. Donation show care, support and comfort which are totally different from insurance. Think about what kind of society you want to live.
Third, "保险的社会功能是不言而喻的。它是国家社会安全和谐的稳定器" Insurance is only part of it, not the only thing. I also think the writer used the wrong people to show how important insurance is. 美国总统约翰逊, 美国第32任总统富兰克林·D·罗斯福, and 英国前首相.丘吉尔 all worked for their governments. Of course they wanted everyone to buy insurance because the government would have less burden. The most important thing is every government needs insurance industry's financial support. No government (no matter what it says about insurance industry) can afford to do something bad to the insurance industry.
If 华人首富李嘉诚说“李家的每一个新成员诞生，我都会为其购买一份亿元级的保单，保证李家世世代代都是富人, then Mr. Lee totally misunderstands insurance. The reason to buy insurance is protection, not wealth. 马云说“银行存款与投资是肥在现在瘦在未来，而保险规划将赢得未来，让现在有钱的你变成将来值钱的你." I cannot understand 马云. If bank saving and investment are 肥在现在瘦在未来, why he still wants to get IPO for his company? Do you think his company is "thinner" than when he first started it? It is a misconcept that a person buys insurance than that person worth more. Insurance will not increase a person's worth (让现在有钱的你变成将来值钱的你.) The person does not have the money and cannot control the money. It is the person who gets the money from insurance company will increase his/ her worth.
Fourth."即使在现代的加拿大，家里的主要收入来源者不幸早逝，马上面临的是收入没有了，但按揭还要还，吃饭成问题，子女教育成问题，丧葬费成问题，父母赡养成问题等等等等，一件祸事会引起连锁反应，银行要拍卖房屋了，全家要住到避难所或政府房" I think the writer makes it too serious. I live in Canada for more than 30 years and hardly see this happen to my friends. The most important thing is the house and usually people buy insurance just in case the buyer dies before he/she finishes the mortage. In fact, unemployment is worse than death in this case.
从耿朝辉跳楼、彭小明白血病等等，一路捐款，即使自己欠着几万元的学生贷款。到蒋国斌自杀就开始厌烦捐款。如果自己有车有房，有劳动能力，为什么要接受捐款？如果没有钱下葬自己的亲人，可以抵押房子，用Line of credit, 再不行卖房子。如果每次有人自杀、该买的保险不买，总是让社会买单，以后同样的悲剧还会不断发生。捐款是善意，但好心并没有办好事。滋长众人的依赖心里。我个人认为，只要自己有能力工作，有存款、有财产就不应该接受捐款。
我是单亲，十多年来一个人带着孩子过。我买房子的第一年就买了人寿保险。这样万一自己有什么事，保险费可以付清房贷，留给孩子的不是债务而是一套房子。万一自己家里有不幸发生，只要我有房子，有存款，有工作能力，即使卖了房子也决不接受捐款。全世界有那么多吃不饱饭的儿童，和挣扎在贫困线上的人，他们才是我们要去关心的。自己有手有脚，有劳动能力，为什么要别人的捐款？
就是买了保险，现在一时半会也取不出来吧？人家现在等救急。本来如果来加十多年，还有稳定的工作，就是没保险，RRSP，TFSA，还有不用抵押房产的LINE OF CREDIT都可以马上取出来用。现在逝者太太没有这笔钱接老公回来，说明她已山穷水尽。大家能帮就帮吧，不要在人家难过的时候再刺激他们。
愿逝者安息，愿生者坚强！
捐款还是保险?此刻保险从业者必须说话