re: Shocker: study suggests insurance companies are breaking it off in our butts

No shite insurance companies are charging too much, I have a buddy who works for BCBS and he’s in suites at basically every Saints game, and many Pelicans games throughout the season.

quote:

---

Personally, I think there should be a formula for everything you’re insuring and if the insurance isn’t used in a certain amount of time, you get refunded a portion of what you put in.

---

That's how workers' comp insurance does work. We can give various discounts and what not, but we are regulated by a body called NCCI that actually creates the rates that we are allowed to charge.

quote:

---

"The fact that the loss ratios are so low means that the insurance industry is charging too much,"

---

Well, they have to cover the losses for the endless amount of frivolous lawsuits. You'd be shocked at the amount of repeat offenders suing because they got in a wreck and "got injured".

Oh, you are suing for x amount because you know insurance companies would rather settle than go to court? And you've also been in 8 car wrecks in the last 2 years? What a coincidence.

That is what YOU, the insured, pay for.

Also, you'd be shocked at the amount of people who have no idea what their coverage on their home is. Oh you are bitching because your shop was destroyed and you only have coverage on your house? Let's call the media! You waived flood insurance despite living in a flood zone? And....most times insurance will pay it anyway, to avoid the bad press.

Then you have issues where companies leave areas and states, because the risk is too high. Insurance companies leave California because they are doing nothing to mitigate fire risk. A year later, wildfires breakout due to gross city mismanagement, and the home owners, who previously had insurance and was dropped, and never bothered going with another group, or went with the state option, finds out that they aren't getting recouped. Then comes the bitching and media. And STILL some of those insurance companies paid these homeowners despite being dropped from coverage.

Now Health insurance, personally i haven't had issues, but my wife has. She's had to fight every single year to get insurance to pay for a medicine her own doctor said she needed. Insurance won't pay for it because "just try something cheaper". She's tried something cheaper and it didn't work. Doctor has written notes saying she needs this exact medicine and still they deny her. Apparently, a health insurance worker knows more about what she needs than her doctor and pharmacy. It usually takes her 2-3 weeks every year over the same medicine to get approved. And now they try to pawn her off on their AI telehelp system. It's garbage.

quote:

---

have some personal insight into the commercial insurance space.

There is a ton of fat and markup that gets passed down the the policyholder.

---

Materially and statistically incorrect.

quote:

---

The analysis further argues that insurers are using the premiums "to pay for corporate perks, corporate jets, stock buy-backs, excessive executive compensation, excessive dividends, excessive advertising, and excessive agent commissions."

---

quote:

---

Put them all in prison forever.

---

Why?

If this was government run, then i'd be with you. But what does "private business uses it's money the way they want" that aggravates you?

First, i always find the motives behind these articles as dubious. It doesn't come across as unbiased which means their catchy statements should be questioned.

Second, yes, i'm sure if you are paying a company money, getting denied for a claim, whether legitimate or otherwise, and you find out that these companies are, God forbid, making a profit, then yes you'd get angry. However, it is a private company.

I think the bitching should be done at government for requiring insurance. You want to bitch, aim it at fedgov. I think if a government is requiring a private service for it's citizens, then that service is now subject to government controls. Demand that insurance profits be used strictly for insurance, and not overhead costs like what you mentioned. Or demand, that insurance no longer be required by law. If you go the latter, then you have no right to recompense if you suffer a loss for not having insurance.

And i'm sure i'll get killed for this post, but the rational point exists. Insurance companies are private companies. Despite how bad it looks, they can really do what they want with their money.

I'm open to be convinced otherwise with a compelling argument, rather than a vitriolic post. I understand the ire against IC's. I also am a free market capitalist. I also understand that government getting involved should mean that that company is now under the governments regulations (whether good or bad). I'm open to counterpoints. I'm also open to being factually wrong. I'm not in the insurance industry.

This is all complete Marxist bullshite. There is little difference between insurance and plumbing. They are both sectors filled with companies providing a service for a price. They have to compete with other companies on service and price. This competition is what skinnies the profit to a fair and equitable amount.

If there is excessive profit, it is because there is inadequate competition. That might be the case. But the solution is not more government regulations and “guardrails”; it is more competition. And probably the lack of competition is caused by too much government interference.

Again, insurance is just a business like any other. The government’s job is to make sure there is not a monopoly that would prevent competitive pricing. Please quit suggesting failed Marxist “solutions” like “guardrails”.

quote:

---

Never forget our government agreed we should all have access and be forced to have health insurance, not healthcare.

---

I remember when I was promised that the discussions would be held on cspan.

quote:

---

Personally, I think there should be a formula for everything you’re insuring and if the insurance isn’t used in a certain amount of time, you get refunded a portion of what you put in.

---

That's already baked in via lower premiums for different segments of their insured (e.g. those who have never had an accident or gotten a ticket paying much lower automotive insurance).

I am against monopolies, obviously, but government price setting or their general involvement in an industry is never a good thing and always leads to unintended consequences and a worse situation for the consumer (or just a boatload more spending and waste.)

quote:

---

Well, the article only mentions loss ratio data from 2024. The last 2-3 years have been pretty good for property insurers thanks to below average hurricane seasons. The study cherry picks a year that was good and conveniently leaves out the 5-7 year window prior when insurance companies had their asses handed to them by unusually bad hurricane seasons.

ETA: I can't speak for other states, but in Louisiana in the wake of 2020 and 2021 hurricane seasons, most property insurers had 300-400% loss ratios that year. For those unaware, a 300% loss ratio means that they paid out 3 times as much in claims as total premium they took in for the year. And that 300% is purely claim payouts. Does not include the company's operating expenses like labor costs, commissions, marketing, cost for office space, etc. An insurance company that has 80% loss ratio is operating on thin margins once they include all their operating expenses. They can probably still turn a profit at an 80% loss ratio, but it'll be below a 5% profit margin.

---

Take your logic and context elsewhere, this is a thread where people bitch about "big business".

quote:

---

The Sherman-Ferguson act quite literally made insurance the only industry free of antitrust regulations

---

Insurance and Major League Baseball.