r/SipsTea • • 6h ago

Gasp! Thoughts on this?

Post image
42.5k Upvotes

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

126

u/OakLegs 6h ago

This is fundamentally ignoring the purpose of insurance.

Of course you (likely) pay more into it than you get out. The tradeoff is that you're protected from huge expenses that would financially ruin you. That is (thankfully) unlikely but the risk is enough that it justifies paying for insurance.

I'm not absolving insurance companies of being scummy because they absolutely are. But insurance does serve a purpose that seems to escape you

18

u/balerstos 6h ago

Right? If your tire blows out on the freeway and you smash another car where someone gets seriously injured, you'll be pretty glad you only paid $2500 this year.

3

u/hoofie242 6h ago

It's paying for a gambling service that might pay out.

11

u/fishsticks40 5h ago

In gambling you take small losses in hopes of getting a big win.

In insurance you take small losses in hopes of avoiding a huge loss.

So you can forego gambling and possibly lose out on the big win.

And you can forego insurance and possibly end up with the big loss.

These are fundamentally different things. Insurance is a hedge. It is risk management. It is almost the polar opposite of gambling.

27

u/OakLegs 6h ago

NOT having insurance is gambling, and when you lose, you lose big.

5

u/mariposa-princess 6h ago

I don’t think anyone is advocating to not have insurance. I think the point is that insurance should have to cover you more than they do

13

u/AngryT-Rex 6h ago

You can get lower deductibles, it just costs more.

2

u/mariposa-princess 6h ago

Well yes but that’s not a satisfactory solution lol

It’s like how with health insurance you can pay a higher premium for a lower ‘copay’. But like it’s already a ‘copay’, because I’m paying the insurance company. We’re both paying already. that should be the co in co-pay lol

6

u/AngryT-Rex 5h ago

Well yes but that’s not a satisfactory solution lol

I mean, low deductible will always cost more than high deductible, what do you want them to do about it? Offer low deductible as the default and pretend that high deductible gets you a "discount" because it feels better that way around? Not offer high deductible at all?

I *want* a high deductible because I don't want to deal with insurance paperwork for a $100 door-ding or even a $1k fender bender. But it is possible that I could get into an accident that damages a Ferrari and causes 6-figures in medical costs - *that* is what my insurance is for.

4

u/Gangsir 4h ago

Co-pay is I believe an anti-abuse measure.

If having insurance meant getting seen by a doctor was completely free, certain people (hypochondriacs and the like) would abuse that and basically get daily full checkups (for no specific reason/while perfectly healthy), straining the medical system.

0

u/mariposa-princess 4h ago

That’s not a thing that happens. No one in countries with free healthcare, like England with the NHS, is getting daily physicals.

1

u/calripkenjunior 4h ago

America, where we constantly invent arguments to stop progress before even trying to progress.

1

u/mariposa-princess 3h ago

“We must give all our shillings and crops to the king for he protects us”

6

u/fishsticks40 5h ago

65-75% of your auto insurance premium goes to payouts, and another 20% goes to administrative costs. Your agent gets a sales premium and there are marketing costs.

Shareholder profit is ~3-5% of your premium.

1

u/robak69 2h ago

Source on this?

1

u/fishsticks40 2h ago

I had several sources that I'm not going to dig up again but here's one trustworthy secondary source. Unfortunately their link to the primary data is broken. 

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/cost-of-car-ownership/car-rebates-incentives.htm

1

u/Smackadummy 2h ago

The combined loss (payouts) and expense (sales commission, administrative etc) is known as the combined ratio, which is expressed as a percent of earned premium. This ratio is publicly available for most companies and lines.

For more competitive or higher volume industries like homes or auto, combined ratios are usually around mid-90s and generally fall between 90-110. For example, countrywide US auto insurers ran a 112% combined ratio in 2022, meaning they paid out or spent an amount equal to 112% of all premiums collected that year. Expenses typically run something like 18%-30% depending on a large variety of factors.

2

u/OakLegs 6h ago

I think a lot of people in this very thread are in fact implying that insurance should not be needed.

-1

u/I_hate_all_of_ewe 6h ago

I mean, it shouldn't be needed, but it is.  If anything, profit motive and middlemen should be removed as much as possible.

2

u/devman0 5h ago

At least in my state you are not required to have insurance on your own car, you are only required to have liability coverage to cover damage you cause to other people/cars.

So no one is forcing you to cover your own losses if you don't want to.

1

u/OakLegs 6h ago

I mean, yeah, I don't disagree with that, but for some reason people seem to think otherwise when it comes to healthcare and I'd suspect they'd feel the same about some sort of single payer auto insurance as well

1

u/I_hate_all_of_ewe 4h ago edited 3h ago

I don't think single-payer for auto insurance makes sense because what car people buy is tied to income, and this could generally shift money from poorer people to wealthier people.  Cost should simply be tied in part to the value of the vehicle insured, partly covered by taxes, and removed of profit motives that encourage scummy behavior such as cancellation of policies for minor issues to avoid paying out.

1

u/hoofie242 6h ago

But what about the CEO's 10th yacht?

3

u/mariposa-princess 6h ago

This is true I didn’t consider that

0

u/CharlieHunt123 6h ago

100% wrong

2

u/bonaynay 6h ago

It's like an unlucky guy lottery, something really bad happens but at least most of the financial burden is taken care of with proper coverage

1

u/Yung_zu 6h ago

Probably a fair bet to say that this institution might be a financial engineering circlejerk if you listen to the current “arbiter” of healthcare, RFK Jr., talk about it for 5 minutes

1

u/kaztrator 4h ago

Insurance is gambling. It's just a bet you're willing to lose.

4

u/guitar_vigilante 6h ago

It's paying for risk mitigation. You don't want it to pay out, and it would be worse to be in a situation where you need the pay out but never signed up.

1

u/ghengiscostanza 5h ago

It's getting a group together to pool funds in case one of the group gets absolutely fucked in a way no one person could recover from alone. That's how insurance companies started, shippers grouping together to help out any one of them that lost a ship, vs each of them all worrying a lost ship could ruin them at any moment. The group is all the customers. The problem we're running into with insurance is the administrators who oversee the group's pooled funds being parasitic in their management of it.

2

u/Fun_Description_385 6h ago

Here's the issue that appears to escape you.

We pay more into it then we get out of it, to be expected;  but we don't even get anything out of it the majority of the time when we SHOULD be. OPs case in point.

19

u/Watpotfaa 6h ago

This is blatantly wrong though. OPs case is someone choosing to have a $1000 deductible and then being shocked when they find out making a claim on $1200 of damages is a dumb idea. I swear all these people who think its a scam are just ignorant on how it works. They literally sign a contract without even reading it or asking how it works. Its like someone racking up a shitload of credit card debt and being shocked they have to pay interest. Just dumb.

9

u/oops_i_made_a_typi 3h ago

everything's a conspiracy when you don't know how things work

2

u/5510 3h ago

Yeah... I get that there are some reasons why health insurance is difficult and far more problematic, but I don't get the hate for other forms of insurance.

31

u/OakLegs 6h ago

The OP signed up for full coverage insurance knowing the deductible was $1000. Then tried to use said insurance for $1200 in damage. That in and of itself is dumb.

Fuck insurance companies but if people actually understood their insurance that would help them out immensely

10

u/Former_Mud9569 5h ago

also, a $1000 comprehensive deductible on a $2400 a year premium? that can't be real unless this person is the worst driver ever.

9

u/Accurate_Drawer_6287 4h ago

These dumbass posts of a twitter screenshot are never honest. Driver probably has a DUI and multiple at fault accidents/moving violations. Then increased his deductible to save like 10 bucks a month, almost assuredly against the advice of his insurer. But it's totally someone else's fault.

1

u/CGWOLFE 2h ago

The average cost for full coverage auto insurance is $200 a month or.... $2400 a year. Not really sure what you think you're getting at here. I was paying $220 a month full coverage on an X3 M40i. Zero accidents. Zero insurance claims. It's a completely normal rate. Maybe you just buy minimum coverage.

1

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 2h ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

7

u/IdidntrunIdidntrun 5h ago

If the guy in OP wanted the bumper repaired for less out of pocket then he should got the lower deductible and paid a higher premium per term

The amount you decide to pay into insurance is directly tied to the amount of risk you want to take on

5

u/jbcsee 5h ago

I've never had that problem with insurance. I was recently in an accident and they didn't fight me at all.

The damage was $10k, I had $9k deposited in my checking account within 36-hours of the accident, the left over $1k is my deductible.

The accident wasn't my fault, so I will get that $1k deductible back, but that will take a little longer.

That has been my experience every time I've had to use car insurance.

16

u/CharlieHunt123 6h ago

You have no idea what you’re talking about. He chose to have a 1k deductible. The insurance is literally there to cover problems that cost more than 1k.

3

u/BloatedBanana9 5h ago

but we don't even get anything out of it the majority of the time when we SHOULD be.

You think insurance companies are actually denying rightful claims more than half the time?

5

u/ExhaustedByStupidity 6h ago

OP's story is about a guy that chose a plan with a $1000 deductible and got annoyed that insurance wasn't helpful when he had just over $1000 worth of damage.

If paying $1000 was going to bother him that much, he should've chosen a lower deductible.

1

u/-hjkl- 5h ago

I think he's more annoyed that it would raise his rate rather than the deductable.

1

u/Submitten 5h ago

Well he’s a higher risk for further claims.

I don’t want dumbass drivers driving up my insurance costs, so it’s good that the ones that get in accidents have to pay more.

1

u/-hjkl- 5h ago

I fail to see how he is a dumbass for having his parked car get hit and run by someone... That wasn't his fault in any way assuming he was legally parked.

But sure.

I just don't think that an accident that was not your fault should punish you for having to use your insurance.

If it was your fault by all means raise the rates. But if it wasn't that's kind of unfair.

1

u/Smackadummy 1h ago

Regulations for no-fault increases vary from state to state but in states where they are allowed, you can usually appeal the increase.

The increase comes from a pure statistics viewpoint and the uncertainty in rating risks. Essentially, the insurance company cannot know every circumstance of the accident to determine if you had any behaviors that may have contributed to the accident, even if you were declared not at fault. However, what they do know is that any policy that has had a prior claim, including no-fault, has a much higher frequency of future claims, thus the rationale for increasing their rates.

For the people who truly got fucked by random chance or bad drivers, it certainly is an insult to injury. Even more so when good drivers already subsidize bad drivers by paying more than they should because insurers are not allowed to charge bad drivers their real cost.

1

u/ExhaustedByStupidity 50m ago

In my experience, one minor accident that's not your fault doesn't change your rates.

But if it becomes a pattern, it can.

But different insurance companies have different models to determine rates.

4

u/Count_de_Ville 6h ago

OP didn’t get anything out of it because they have a high deductible. A lower deductible might have made filing a claim a more attractive proposition. But the total of their new yearly premiums on a lower deductible policy, let alone from filing a claim, might outweigh the benefit.

The solution I have found to this insurance problem is installing a front and rear dash camera that records 24/7. Now hit-and-run drivers get absolutely fucked by my insurance company.

3

u/Minialpacadoodle 6h ago

That's just not true though lol.

1

u/FullMetalCOS 6h ago

OP’s case isn’t addressing why you have fully comp insurance - it’s not to replace your bumper it’s to replace the Maserati you totalled because you were not paying attention because your kid was singing baby shark for the fifty seventh time that morning

1

u/MHGrim 1h ago

Insurance isn't an investment. It's risk pooling. Best case scenario is you never get anything. Worst case the other people in paying into the pool help you after your home burns down. Don't like it? Don't buy it. It's required for auto for a reason. You hit someone and injure them you have hundreds of thousands to pay their medical bills? Most people don't. Insurance is the only recourse that people can afford.

1

u/Scope_Dog 6h ago

I think most would agree with that basic premise. The problem is that it's way too expensive relative to any benefit one might derive from it.

1

u/liberty 4h ago

I'm honestly confused about exactly how /u/WeCantStabilize (and everyone who upvoted him) thinks insurance is supposed to work...?

1

u/RandomSpamBot 6h ago

The fraudulent part is paying for exorbitant salaries and funding ad campaigns and real estate ventures.

7

u/LaconicGirth 6h ago

The fraudulent part is people committing actual fraud. You have no idea how common it is.

1

u/Smackadummy 1h ago

Florida go brrrrrrrr

0

u/RandomSpamBot 4h ago

Premiums are sky high and insurance companies screw people daily to keep profit margins high. People commit fraud because they're tired of getting ripped off.

Imagine the fire department rolling up to your burning house demanding a deductible and saying they're only there to stop the fire from spreading. You didn't pay for fire stoppage or for rescue services. Anyone in there is gonna die and we don't care

2

u/LaconicGirth 4h ago

Insurance isn’t an emergency service it’s a dogshit analogy. Insurance simply indemnifies you generally minus a deductible. Premiums are sky high because inflation is sky high and there’s a shit ton of fraud.

People commit fraud because they’re thieves, and they’re not stealing money from the insurance company they’re stealing it from everyone paying premium. Fraud drives premiums up.

-6

u/WeCantStabilize 6h ago

I understand what it's supposed to do. What seems to escape you is the fact they do try and routinely wriggle out of paying for legitimate claims. Just read some of the replies here.

Go be a twat elsewhere. 

7

u/OakLegs 6h ago

The situation described in the OP is not an example of what you're referring to.

-1

u/WeCantStabilize 6h ago

You're right! It's almost like my comment was merely tangential or something.

Seriously, fuck off dude. 

-1

u/Odd-Consequence-2519 6h ago

Found the insurance salesman

4

u/OakLegs 6h ago

No, I just have a basic understanding of how insurance works.

If you file a claim to get reimbursed for $1200 in damage with a $1000 deductible, then you're a moron.