I used to be with a mutual insurance, which was still actually a mutual insurance, meaning the customers were also the shareholders. I got a small dividend most years out of whatever surplus existed.
post
I have to wait to get hit???
I'm guessing she hasn't figured out the concept of insurance fraud...
How insurance should work: Disasters are unpredictable, are bound to happen and can be very expensive to resolve. So instead of each individual risking bankruptcy for participating in a system, everybody pools together money at a much lower individual cost. That money goes toward a statistical guarantee that the cost of any disaster will be covered.
How insurance actually works (under capitalism): For-profit companies use every tool at their disposal, regardless of ethics or legality, in order to take as much of your money as they can possibly get away with while simultaneously paying out as little as they can possibly get away with, and then pocket the difference.
Why people think first part is great for insurance, but when somebody wants to scale that up its suddenly horrible socialism.
"When you pay the government, you're paying for other people's care. The taxes will go up when more people use and abuse the system and probably won't even be used for healthcare, and will just be used for something equally unimportant to me like feeding someone elses children in a state I don't even live in. When I pay a private insurance company, I'm only paying for me. The rates only go up when the insurance company deems it necessary. The profits go to the people that really deserve it, you know? The hard working executives.
The province I'm in has socialized car insurance through a crown corporation. We all pay relatively the same rate, and there are discount tiers applied based on years of experience. If they have a good year of low payouts we get rebate cheques because its not a profit corp.
That's the way you do it, if it must be done at all. And despite my antipathy towards cars, it seems it must.
I would think it would disincentivize driving?
Drive less > less chance of accident > fewer payouts > bigger refund check > adjust forecast lower for next year > lower premiums > GOTO 1
Or maybe it's closer to zero sum. because some think that way while some asshole cough Alberta uses the money on extra tires and gasoline to drive even more.
Why would you pay for a car to not drive it but instead collect the refunds? It would be cheaper to not have a car. I think it would incentivize driving more as the premiums are low and when that causes premiums to rise higher it would disincentivize owning a car.
Not surprising that the refund check doesn't reduce driving in practise. If memory serves - you can't reward a behaviour into extinction, just like you can't punish a new behaviour into existence.
At least, that's if you credit what they teach in applied behaviour analysis courses. I don't get to use my degree much, except at times like this.
What happens if they pay out more than forecast?
Or not to build homes in a place called Tornado Alley, for example.
Iirc, margins for insurance are actually extremely thin. Consumers almost always go with the lowest cost option, and since insurance is mandatory, they don't differentiate much on anything except cost. Insurance companies don't actually make money on insurance premiums. They make money by investing the float.
Need a new paint job? Get in an accident. Check engine light? Get in an accident.
I am not a lawyer person whose advice should be listened to on anything, ever.
The idea is when everyone pays into insurance the collective fund is used to pay for the costs any individual wouldn’t.
Thankfully accidents or thefts don’t happen to everyone, but if they do you usually get more out than you put in (personal liability is usually millions of dollars, nobody puts that much in individually).
Where this goes wrong is when fraud happens or insurance companies are incentivized to manipulate rates to increase their profits.
Where this goes wrong is when fraud happens or insurance companies are incentivized to manipulate rates to increase their profits.
I'd say the problem is that insurance companies can take profits above operating expenses at all. These should all be strictly regulated (if not entirely state-run) and predicated on funds going to reimbursements for expenses + minimal admin overhead. If money is leaking out the window to shareholders via dividends and stock buybacks, its effectively being embezzled from policy holders.
There's an argument for maintaining a reserve (think about disaster prone areas for things like floods, hurricanes, etc...), but I agree that it would be better for insurance organizations to be prohibited from being publicly traded (private or public benefit corporation only)
There’s an argument for maintaining a reserve
In a federalized system where you print your own currency, there's really not. Insurance premiums become a deliberate dampener on economic growth that offsets the possibility of future spending (and subsequent inflationary risk) during a large disaster, and an incentive to mitigate risk in order to reduce expenses.
But there's no money in simply holding cash in reserve. That's why private insurance companies typically try to parlay their premiums into investment ROI. The real money in running an insurance company is what you can do with all the cheap cash you've collected while you're sitting on it, with the expectation that you won't need to pay it all out again any time soon.
A public system wouldn't need to hold cash in reserve that it can print/loan itself at ZIRP. And it wouldn't need to seek private ROI ahead of inflation or to pay off private investors in order to mitigate the risk of holding large volumes of cash for a long period of time. But - most importantly - a public insurance program attached to a large state/federal government has a financial incentive to mitigate risk on travel that it can combine with actual public policy to improve the economy overall.
Rather than just insuring a house or a car, state officials can implement public works that reduce the risks of flooding, provide emergency relief during natural disasters to mitigate loss of life, and reduce instances of highway accidents / fatalities. Instead of simply outsourcing and privatizing the risk management aspect to an independent contractor, they can attack the problems of social risk holistically, then set policy prices to reflect the risk-adjusted negative externalities of cleaning up a mess created by risky individual behaviors.
Rather than just insuring a house or a car, state officials can implement public works that reduce the risks of flooding, provide emergency relief during natural disasters to mitigate loss of life, and reduce instances of highway accidents / fatalities. Instead of simply outsourcing and privatizing the risk management aspect to an independent contractor, they can attack the problems of social risk holistically, then set policy prices to reflect the risk-adjusted negative externalities of cleaning up a mess created by risky individual behaviors.
Uhhh, that sounds like socialism
In my Canadian province car insurance is government run and if you’re a good driver your premiums and license fees are reduced
Must be nice
It is. I'm in one of those provinces. We get rebate cheques if they take in more cash than outgoing.
We also had an accident where somebody turned into us, but no witness. The insurer of both parties is identical because its the same for everyone, so they did a 50-50 fault and we both get our car fixed with no premium changes
We also had an accident where somebody turned into us, but no witness.
I mean, in my experience that's the point where you put in a call to the local PD and get it reported, so the accident doesn't go on your record. If their car is t-boning your car, its a pretty clear-cut case of them being at-fault.
But if it was minor and folks were in a hurry and nobody cared, I definitely get it. Nice to live in a country that friendly and chill.
Police don't come for accident here, unless it is really major or injury. There's no suing each other or an opposing insurance, so a police report becomes irrelevant.
I though a side dent would show other person at fault, but the insurance company said an alternate way is person is already turning and instead of yielding to traffic in a turn you speed ahead. I felt like arguing it, but since it doesn't matter we just let it be.
I don't understand why we don't have nonprofit insurance. It would be cool if someone started one that focused on serving poor people.
Where's the disincentivization for manipulation?
Not all markets are the US.
Ideally you have an independent regulator who makes sure there’s competition, and if the industry can’t keep up it gets cleaned up into a well regulated government entity.
Even the US has things like Medicare/Medicade. That is, government run services that are supposed to just be a service, not a profit-making activity. Funnily enough, they don't have the same issues.
They made issues, unfortunately. Medicare Advantage (latest iteration) has private contractors handling your care which the government reimburses, and Medicaid varies from state to state, with some covering more and others far less (and some having similar arrangements with private contractors).
In theory: Public backlash leading to competition taking market share, and regulatory penalties.
But what about the shareholders? Gotta pay out them sweet sweet dividends.
Liability insurance: legally required.
Also liability insurance: costs hundreds and the price gets jacked up every few months because fuck you.
Imagine somebody without liability insurance hits you with their car, breaking your spine. And they don't happen to have any spare money. You'd have to remodel your home for accessibility on your own dime.
Why does that person not have insurance? Statistically, because they can’t afford it. Your example is a failure of society and how for-profit insurance is structured, not because an individual chooses not to be insured.
Yeah, it sorta is. Also, if you can't afford insurance, you can't afford a car.
Too bad a car is required for the vast majority of working folks just to get to their job that would pay for said insurance along with everything else they need in life. Guess they can't afford to live either. Seems like a great system.
Except your city isn't walkable and poor transit.... So you can't afford not to drive.
Not what I was saying, and goddamned if I'm not too tired to argue.
If it were a socialist systemic thing, and we rephrased it to, we all contribute a little each year and it goes into a pot for anyone who needs their car fixed, who contributes? (but then you gotta erase the evil corporation that rakes in billions and pays ceos unimaginable money)
This already exists, and they are called unit linked insurance plans. Basically the insurance company provides you some units in an investment/trust fund, in addition to the policy benefit, for your premiums (obviously higher to compensate).
They are actually much scammier, because the insurance company administers the unit fund as well, and the fees are often much higher than if you just buy the policy and an exchange traded trust/fund separately. They were formulated by insurance companies basically for the sole purpose of bamboozling people who echo this meme. Back in the day, door to door insurance salespeople would say "even if you never claim, you still get a payout!".
Unit-linked insurance plan - Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit-linked_insurance_plan
They know it's BS but they're not concerned with providing anything of value. It's all about making a profit at any cost. If it's legal they'll do it, screw ethics. Hell, if it's illegal but the punishment is a fine, that's just the cost of doing business. Fuck MBAs and suits.
Funny enough, if somebody offers you insurance that builds cash value, even though the sound of it does make sense you should probably run.
I've never heard of this. Why should I run?
The price of insurance only covers the statistically predicted amount of payoffs to all people insured plus a profit. If you're building a cash value, then that's priced in, with more profit priced in for them on the equity youve built. You're better off pocketing the difference.
its a MLM, just like health insurance. theres no guaranteed they will cover your cost in damages some of the time.
Insurance is valid, profit from insurance is where it gets problematic cause the whole point of insurance is to have a similar average outcome, just less extremes in the worse case scenario.
Homeowner's insurance is worse, almost as bad as health insurance. Try getting them to pay out, and if they do, watch your rates go up, or your policy get cancelled. If you have a mortgage, you must have homeowner's insurance. State Farm cancelled me out of the blue after 25 years without a single claim.
I suspect they all conspire to cancel policies, knowing that we need to go somewhere, so State Farm cancels a customer, and they go to Allstate at a much higher rate, and Allstate cancels a different customer, and they go to State Farm at a much higher rate. This forces the customer to go through a new approval process, and sign a new contract that is probably worse for them than they had before, in addition to being a higher rate.
Oh my God, you probably don't want to get me started on that. Here it is literally (in the original meaning of the word) a scam. Companies incorporate, take in premiums, pay themselves big bonuses, then say they are not financially flush enough to cover claims, go bankrupt and THE SAME PEOPLE come back and do it again. It is a racket designed to extract money, they don't even reliably pay claims, thankfully I don't have personal experience with having to use them, but have read enough industry news.
I have paid enough in home insurance to buy a house. We pay for the last 40 years a rate that would imply each house in Florida is completely wiped out every 40 years but my old house is 100 this year, our current house is 85. What the state charges probably is close to the actual risk, and if we just put EVERYONE onto that plan and ran it as a nonprofit it would work better.
It really does need to be investigated. I believe they use LexisNexis to share data.
You say "try getting them to pay out" and follow up saying you never filed a claim? I've gotten my home insurance to pay out twice, once for a beer that fried a laptop (my fault, but I had coverage for it) and again when a lightning strike took out part of my solar array and some indoor electronics. They've also promptly paid in situations where I wasn't a customer but the beneficiary of a claim and bent over backwards to make sure I was taken care of.
Maybe the problem is using an insurance company that farts out millions of dollars a quarter marketing Gecko, Jan, Jake, Mayhem, or Emu instead of investing that in claims. Though, I'll give a shout-out to my homegirl Jan back when I was in a different situation and a snowplow took a chunk out of my car. Progressive took care of me then while the city took their sweet time making good on the claim against them.
That's basically what whole life insurance is, and it's a complete scam IMO because premiums are high (to allow for investment) and the investment is too conservative. You're much better off buying term life insurance and investing the difference.
You can partly do this DIY with self insurance. Basically, you put a certain amount of capital into a bank account or something and hand that over to the state treasurer in a trust, and it needs to be about $200-400k in my area (range is because the law isn't clear to me). If you can stand to part with that much, you probably prefer to have the insurance take that risk for you so you can retain control over that money and not worry about lawsuits.
Protection racket.
Insurance has its place. How much it costs, how much they fight to help you when it comes time, those are the problems.
The fact that for-investor-profit insurance companies exist are the problems.
The fact it's run for profit AND is a mandatory requirement to having a car.
If it wasn't required the cost for those who pay in to cover uninsured accidents would be much higher. But I do agree that like many other things, if we nationalized the cost and eliminated profit we could drop the individual price. It would also help to use federal influence to provide other means than individual cars for transportation, less cars resulting in less risk on the road.
The second part is a good thing. It's how people get paid when someone damages their property (or causes physical harm)
Everybody's like: I'm a good driver I don't need insurance.
But they always forget that half the drivers on the road are below average, and your insurance covers you in the event of a hit and run.
What op is describing is called "self insured"
Also called "illegal" in most places.
And the flying is, it was much cheaper when it wasn't mandatory. Liability insurance used to be super cheap because people didn't want to pay for insurance that didn't cover their own car. But when states started mandating liability insurance the price skyrocketed.
What grinds my gears though is being required to have liability insurance for every car even though the car itself isn't covered. I'd love to daily drive a super-efficient electric car, but I teach scuba on the side and once or twice a week end up having to haul a bunch of dive gear in my cargo van. But with the cost of liability insurance, I can't afford to keep my van as a beater weekend driver when the time comes to get a new daily driver, so I'll have to buy another fuel-guzzling murder machine that I mostly drive to an office job downtown.
Have you considered a hatchback plus a small trailer?
As someone with the hatchback and small trailer, the extra space + maintenance requirements mean that this is an option only for some people.
I rent, so I'm not showed to store a trailer, so I'd have to pay for trailer storage.
I actually own a little trailer, but I have to keep it at my parents house, which is about 200 miles away.
Any guesses as to how much money would be in the pool if every person in your country paid into a single pool for automotive insurance? I bet that if such a pool existed, then there would be a lot of motivation to use that money to reduce the risk of paying out. Which makes me wonder if public transit is better in countries with national health insurance as a result of the national health insurance.
In BC, Canada, auto insurance is managed by the government. We have low insurance rates to begin with, and then we get a cheque in the mail at the end of the year if they collect more premiums than they pay out. (It's not a straight annual thing, of course. I don't know the details, but over the longer term it's how it works.)
It's kinda weird not having any sales pressure, too. They aren't at all light about upselling extra features. I only just found out that for ~$30/yr, I can add replacement car coverage to my plan. Over a lifetime, that's like $2K to never need to worry about a collision leaving you unable to drive for more than like a day to get a rental.
Didn't always have cheap insurance. The government before this one looted that extra auto insurance pool money to put into the general coffers so that they could claim the budget was in the black instead of the red, rather than send it back to people, and they charged like 50-100% more for insurance to begin with.
German here, the answer is no. Our public transit is crumbling left and right. Our health insurance too though. Serves us right for voting conservatives into power again and again for the last 30 years.
I have to imagine the tail wags the dog both ways in that scenario. Better public transport feeds into better public health outcomes, and nationalised healthcare (should) have a vested interest in reducing auto reliance for myriad reasons.
Its like gambling, I bet 100 bucks something will happen to my car this month. Damn nothing happened, lost again.
Except you know legally required.
It's not gambling, it's risk aversion. They are not the same. It's assuring you're protected from harm by distributing out the costs in case of harm, that any individual couldn't handle.
Gambling the goal is to get money. Insurance the goal is distributed liability so that possible danger will not bankrupt you. You still often can not come out ahead with an insurance payout, but hopefully won't come out bankrupt.
That's part of why medical insurance is so bad these days is because it doesn't even prevent that. But it's still an insurance, and not one that you want paying out.
Hell, not all insurance is even monetary --conceptually, saving grain silos for drought and famine is still insurance.
And the best part is it's mandatory!
Well, only the liability part and that sorta makes sense
So the person who hit you and totaled your car can hire a lawyer and sue the shit out of you, which your insurance will settle out of court for an undisclosed sum, and they get to walk away with the money, you get Jack shit, and to top it all off, you don't even have a fucking car anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of insurance when it comes to 1000+ lbs death machines that go barreling down the road at speeds faster than the fastest land animals as part of normal usage, while packing more kinetic energy than a high caliber bullet.
.... It's just... Those laws aren't there for you, they're there to protect the rich. After all, you might hit their Porsche with your Honda, and they don't want to pay for that.
If mandatory liability insurance existed for the sake of Porsches, the madatory maximum would be enough to cover a Porche. Then they wouldnt have to go to the trouble of suing you.
I mean if they hit you, then their insurance pays. Maybe it's different on your continent though.
If someone with money hits you, your vehicle, or even your life, has a value that is predetermined by the insurance companies by whatever policy you get.
The middle and upper class can afford comprehensive insurance so if they are found at fault for hitting you then they still get a payout.
If you hit them, they get a payout.
If you're poor and can only afford liability insurance, your best hope is that someone is found to be at fault for hitting you, and you get a payout. If you hit someone else, you get jack shit, and they get a payout.
The fact is, they are unlikely to be found at fault, since the rich and powerful have long since paid off the cops who write the incident reports. So if they're at fault, then the record says nobody is at fault. But if they can spin it so that you're at fault, then you're at fault.
Honestly, it's the main reason I own a two channel dashcam. I don't want to get fucked by some rich asshole, who lied to the police to make a collision seem like I'm at fault. If I'm genuinely at fault, then fuck me I guess. I can accept that I fucked up.
I try to look at this shit from all angles, and all I ever see is that the ones that always win, is the insurance companies. 10 out of 10 times, and the rich bastards with the best insurance policies come in second place. The rest of us are a distant third, we stand to lose the most and gain the least, even if things are in our favor.
The dash cam is a great idea always.
Anyway, my original point was that nobody is forcing you to insure yourself, only the danger you can pose to other people on the road. Because people seemed salty that insurance is mandatory. And at least where I come from, liability insurance is very cheap compared to full coverage.
top 94 comments