Even taking into account the steep rise in premiums over those years, I reckon I've almost broken even.
As far as we're concerned, Southern Cross is the best thing in insurance in this country, right up there in value for money with membership of the Automobile Association.
But it's not the money that's important so much as the security one has in knowing - after a few years' membership - that Southern Cross is there for you when you're sick and that you can be assured of prompt, efficient and sympathetic service when you need it.
And that is a culture of care that has been established by the board of the organisation, which consists of men and women who obviously retain the sort of old-fashioned business ethics and values that are all too rare these days.
Which is probably why the former chief executive, who was frequently described as "hard-nosed", eventually had to go.
His "strategic thinking" obviously came to be at odds with the philosophy of the board, and his mistakes in handling the computer changeover brought things to head.
To suggest that the governance of the board should come under audit is fatuous. There is an old adage, which is as pertinent today as when it was coined: "You don't have a dog and bark yourself." And from that it can be construed that if the dog doesn't perform up to your expectations, then you get rid of it and buy another one.
It is also ridiculous to allege that the computer problems led to "financial distress caused to many frustrated Southern Cross members, doctors and private hospitals ... "
The fact that some doctors and private hospitals have to wait for their money causes me no concern whatever. If anybody can afford it, they can. And I'll bet that many of them built their facilities and practices on the profits obtained from Southern Cross members' premiums.
A handful of individuals may have been put in an invidious position by the late payments, but most members would be like me - I had to wait six weeks instead of the usual two or three to be reimbursed a few hundred dollars. It wouldn't have mattered if it had taken six months.
If the proponents and defenders of laissez-faire capitalism want Southern Cross to become like some other major insurance companies, which are enthusiastic in taking your money then load you with excesses and treat you like a criminal if you have to make a claim, I say thank God for the customer focus implicit in the philosophy of Southern Cross as dictated by its board.
Long may it last.
For Richard Boock I have a great deal of sympathy, but I fear that his intense love of cricket - which I share - has rather obscured the realities of the modern-day game, and particularly the limited overs version.
Just as with golf, yachting, tennis, gridiron, soccer and, lately, rugby, cricket has become another multimillion-dollar, multinational business. There are winners and losers and no points for trying.
Stephen Fleming, who has shown a stunning new personal and tactical maturity this season, on Friday night did what he had to do rather than what he wanted to do and kept the tri-series alive for his team and his nation.
I admire him for his courage and I look askance at the criticism that flowed from his decision, particularly since it came in many cases from the same people who for years have put down Fleming for not being tough enough.
The irony, of course, is that South Africa did exactly the same thing on Sunday when, faced with a huge total. They concentrated on getting just enough runs to deprive Australia of a bonus point.
According to Boock, Fleming's tactical ploy "certainly wasn't cricket". Unfortunately, in 2002 it is.
*
garth_george@nzherald.co.nz
nzherald.co.nz/southerncross
Cricket
