899
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BigBenis@lemmy.world 125 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago

Why people think first part is great for insurance, but when somebody wants to scale that up its suddenly horrible socialism.

[-] aeternum 12 points 1 month ago

America basically has socialised healthcare already. It's just funneled through a 3rd party first, who jack up prices. Where do they think those premiums are going?

[-] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

"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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hupf@feddit.org 22 points 1 month ago

everybody pools together money at a much lower individual cost

Another example of this is would be public transport.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jqubed@lemmy.world 123 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] shplane@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

Wish we could have that for fire insurance in California but the company would go belly up by the end of the month.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 78 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] Truscape 16 points 1 month ago

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)

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Where's the disincentivization for manipulation?

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 70 points 1 month ago

I have to wait to get hit???

I'm guessing she hasn't figured out the concept of insurance fraud...

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago

What op is describing is called "self insured"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] winkledinkle@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Liability insurance: legally required.

Also liability insurance: costs hundreds and the price gets jacked up every few months because fuck you.

[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jared@mander.xyz 31 points 1 month ago
[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 20 points 1 month ago

Insurance has its place. How much it costs, how much they fight to help you when it comes time, those are the problems.

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 month ago

The fact that for-investor-profit insurance companies exist are the problems.

[-] Darkard@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

The fact it's run for profit AND is a mandatory requirement to having a car.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 13 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 month ago

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)

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

And the best part is it's mandatory!

[-] RabiesD@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 month ago

Gotta pay the capitalism toll.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Meron35@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

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

[-] peetabix@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 month ago

Its like gambling, I bet 100 bucks something will happen to my car this month. Damn nothing happened, lost again.

[-] Rooster326@programming.dev 11 points 1 month ago

Except you know legally required.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 20 points 1 month ago

its a MLM, just like health insurance. theres no guaranteed they will cover your cost in damages some of the time.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago
  • Léon: Tony... All the money I make, that you keep for me...
  • Tony: You need some money?
  • Léon: No, just curious... Because, I've been working a long time... And I havent done anything with my... I thought maybe someday I could
  • [uncomfortable]
  • Léon: use it.
  • Tony: [Figuring him out] You met a woman.
[-] Zink@programming.dev 18 points 1 month ago

Funny enough, if somebody offers you insurance that builds cash value, even though the sound of it does make sense you should probably run.

[-] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

I've never heard of this. Why should I run?

[-] andyquest@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] elbiter@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 12 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Ging@anarchist.nexus 11 points 1 month ago

How do the 'ppl who actually know' defend this obvious scammy aspect of the whole thing? Genuinely curious

[-] jacksilver@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago

Insurance is a pooled risk fund. Basically x% of people are going to get into accidents and therefore you'll need z dollars to cover the the group of insurees.

The downside is this means that if you're not getting in accidents, your money is paying for someone else's accident. The upside is (theoretically) if you get in an accident your covered.

While insurance companies can be scummy, the concept of insurance is basically a support network you pay into.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The problem is not insurance, its for profit insurance who exist only to make money.

[-] Ging@anarchist.nexus 20 points 1 month ago

The whole profit incentive seems to do a lot more harm than good, no?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
899 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

8595 readers
501 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS