- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shocker: study suggests insurance companies are breaking it off in our butts
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:11 am to Chucktown_Badger
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:11 am to Chucktown_Badger
Just an FYI, this is who wrote the article.
Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator
And this is one of their leading papers headlined on their website:
Regulating Insurance as a Public Utility
I'm sure there is no bias....
Intro to that paper:
Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator
And this is one of their leading papers headlined on their website:
Regulating Insurance as a Public Utility
I'm sure there is no bias....
Intro to that paper:
quote:
Climate change is increasing claims costs. Insurers excessively deny claims. They discriminate in their underwriting.
This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 9:14 am
1
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:11 am to The Third Leg
It’s a racket and getting worse, but people seem to care more about anecdotal trigger issues than their wallets.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:11 am to BugAC
quote:
you find out that these companies are, God forbid, making a profit,
Profiteering is the word.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:12 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
I have some personal insight into the commercial insurance space. There is a ton of fat and markup that gets passed down the the policyholder
Go into specifics
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:13 am to wadewilson
quote:
Profiteering is the word.
What's wrong with making a profit?
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:25 am to GeauxldMember
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."
Shocker
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:27 am to Dixie2023
quote:
We know. We don’t need an analysis to tell us. Insurance is mostly legal thievery.
Until your house burns down; then, not so much.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:28 am to GeauxldMember
nothing like a nationalized study across the board of insurance data. which companies have the excessive agent commissions, would love to sign up for that company.
also, do car manufacturers make excessive monies? dealerships? dealerships and their service departments charging a 6hr labor charge when it takes them 1.5 hours? do contractors not make 30% profit on the cost to build your house? does kellog not make money off their box of cereal sold? what about attornies that charge $300-$1000 an hour to answer a phone call or type a quick email? At what point in the private sector is profitability not acceptable to the risk at hand?
which companies have the excessive agent commissions, would love to sign up for that company. also, do car manufacturers make excessive monies? dealerships? dealerships and their service departments charging a 6hr labor charge when it takes them 1.5 hours? do contractors not make 30% profit on the cost to build your house? does kellog not make money off their box of cereal sold? what about attornies that charge $300-$1000 an hour to answer a phone call or type a quick email? At what point in the private sector is profitability not acceptable to the risk at hand?
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:29 am to GeauxldMember
This is why PI lawyers have jobs. Not because they're greedy, but because there's a need to seek justice and put that money back where it was unnecessarily grifted from for profit. Look at any UM/UIM claim where insurance refuses to even pay medical bills after 20yrs of no claims and paying premiums.
Hate all you want, but I can't tell you how many clients have told me "I'm not the type to sue." Yeah, no shite. Nobody wants to until they get screwed.
Hate all you want, but I can't tell you how many clients have told me "I'm not the type to sue." Yeah, no shite. Nobody wants to until they get screwed.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:30 am to BugAC
quote:
I'm sure there is no bias....
Here's another one of theirs that makes the case for government ownership of the means of production
quote:
This paper proposes creating public factories to expand production of these critical
energy components. Public factories that develop and mass produce next-generation
energy storage technologies such as solid-state batteries could help the United States
protect its energy security while outcompeting China for control of a cutting-edge
strategic technology. Meanwhile, public factories for critical energy components could
help update and expand the grid by alleviating the bottleneck for electrical
transformers caused by monopolization and producer reluctance to expand capacity.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:32 am to TigerReich
quote:
Hate all you want, but I can't tell you how many clients have told me "I'm not the type to sue." Yeah, no shite. Nobody wants to until they get screwed.
And there are conversely more of the types that are suing the insurance company, yet again, after their 6th wreck in a 2 year span, all of which had claims of "medical" expenses, yet it was wreck #7 is why your back hurts, not 1-6. Oh, and you never got that medical procedure done when you were initially paid out, and just pocketed the cash. But i'm sure you are telling the truth THIS TIME.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:37 am to SidetrackSilvera
quote:
I remember when I was promised that the discussions would be held on cspan
And when we would defund and repeal it!!
This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 9:44 am
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:39 am to GeauxldMember
Pretty sure USAA us sticking it to me, which is why I'm shopping around now.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:42 am to GeauxldMember
A non profit insurance cooperative like some electric utility companies do would be an interesting thing to try imo.
Would be difficult to do for individual policies but I think would be great for commercial. Businesses would be members and elect a board of directors that would pay to have a risk and cost analysis done each year on all members and board decides the rates. If there was a low number of claims and there was profit, refunds would be issued to members. If claims were high rates would go up next year to cover it. Members could also vote out a member who routinely conducts bad business through high numbers of claims due to negligence or safety issues. It would encourage good, safe business practices and allow local industry to pool resources and have good local attorneys on retainer to fight fraudulent/BS lawsuits filed by ambulance chasers rather than what the big insurance companies do and just settle a claim so as not to spend money on court costs.
Would be difficult to do for individual policies but I think would be great for commercial. Businesses would be members and elect a board of directors that would pay to have a risk and cost analysis done each year on all members and board decides the rates. If there was a low number of claims and there was profit, refunds would be issued to members. If claims were high rates would go up next year to cover it. Members could also vote out a member who routinely conducts bad business through high numbers of claims due to negligence or safety issues. It would encourage good, safe business practices and allow local industry to pool resources and have good local attorneys on retainer to fight fraudulent/BS lawsuits filed by ambulance chasers rather than what the big insurance companies do and just settle a claim so as not to spend money on court costs.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:46 am to Prominentwon
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 sounds good in theory, but not really how risk pools work. The entire risk pool payout would have to be lower than expected for your plan to be viable. I would support it under those circumstances.
You don't buy insurance to use. You buy insurance in case you have to use it. Not defending the insurance companies, but they're not your partner. They're selling slices of pooled risk.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 9:51 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
They're selling slices of pooled risk.
And you get your "money back" by moving into a lower risk pool and paying less in premiums.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:19 am to Chad504boy
quote:
which companies have the excessive agent commissions
Point me in that direction as well
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:19 am to Ace Midnight
The concept of risk transfer escapes the majority of this board. Their entire understanding of P&C insurance is to be legal to drive
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:22 am to GeauxldMember
Of course they gouge people’s eyes out.
They have captive consumers.
Mortgage? Required to have it.
Auto? Required to have it if owe on it. Criminal if you own your car outright and don’t have it.
Businesses? Required by law if you have employees
They have captive consumers.
Mortgage? Required to have it.
Auto? Required to have it if owe on it. Criminal if you own your car outright and don’t have it.
Businesses? Required by law if you have employees
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:28 am to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
Mortgage? Required to have it.
You want to be able to borrow money to purchase a house? You want 30 years to pay it back? Well then you need insurance. Don't see the issue
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News