Which is worse: loss of thumb or loss of speach?

I was looking over our life insurance policy yesterday and I came across some interesting percentages. It seems like someone calculated the statistical significance of an intense round of "Would You Rather."  You get a certain percentage of your life insurance if you loose certain parts of your body. That have figured out what they worse thing is to lose and assign it a monetary value. Here's what I found out by reading the small print:

• You know, of course, that with loss of life you get 100%.
• But you also get 100% if you lose two members (hand, foot, or eye), or if you become completely blind.
• If you lose one hand, one foot, or one eye, you get 50%.
• If you lose your hearing or speech, you get 50%.
• If you lose both your thumb and your index finger, you get 25%.
• If you lose only your thumb, you get 10% (except if you live in Maine or Vermont. I guess thumb-loss is a common enough occurrence in those states that they don't even consider it a problem.)
• If two limbs become paralyzed, you get 25%, but only if you live in Washington or New York.

 ...

So let me get this straight. If I lose a foot, I get 50% of my policy. But if I become paralyzed in both of my legs, I'll only get 25% ... if I live in Washington or New York.

And If I lose all my fingers except my thumb, I get nothing.

I also have a hard time thinking that loosing a foot and and eye is the same thing as dying. I mean, that person can still contribute a lot, right?

So to answer my original question, loss of speech is TWICE as bad as loosing your thumb.