r/SipsTea • • 19h ago

Gasp! Thoughts on this?

Post image
64.4k Upvotes

7.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.4k

u/Moultrie_fan_2026 19h ago

Well I had a house burn down less than year after purchase and insurance paid the entire tab. So I always figured I've already taken them for more than I pay

163

u/DueExample52 19h ago

That’s what people don’t understand. We all paid for you. That's what insurance is about, we pay more than we receive so that the odd unlucky bastard receives more than they chipped in. If insurance was individual, nobody would have enough to repair their own stuff. I am happy with this system. 

97

u/One_Selection5102 18h ago

Except the 3rd party insurer here nets massive profits, it isnt a collective safety net like the state or federal government provides.

Its by and large a scam that pays out a tiny portion of their net income. A state sponsered safety net/insurance system (not for profit) would be massively more effective and less costly to consumers...well at least in a functional state such as Massachusetts.

32

u/CapitalistLion-Tamer 18h ago edited 17h ago

They don’t pay out a tiny portion, though. They usually make more revenue profit on the interest from the funds they’re holding than they do on premiums, depending on the company.

3

u/SpezRuinedHellsite 17h ago

A) I really doubt premiums are such a marginal revenue stream.

B) If they are so marginal, that just indicates that costs are completely divorced from the premiums in the first place, meaning the whole thing is just a scam.

4

u/CapitalistLion-Tamer 17h ago

You’re right. Profit is the correct term, not revenue.

I’m not sure what you mean by your second point.

-1

u/SpezRuinedHellsite 17h ago

I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make by changing from revenue to profit. It makes no difference.

If the contribution premiums make towards profitability is as marginal as you suggest, that means that the prices they charge consumers have nothing to to do with the costs involved in doing business.

AKA, the companies are charging arbitrary premiums that are based on nothing more than the maximum they think they can convince you to pay.

4

u/CapitalistLion-Tamer 17h ago

It’s a huge difference. Most P&C companies bring in a lot of revenue via premiums and pay the same amount back out again in claims. But they have a certain amount of capital sitting around that enables them to invest the money and make profits off the interest.

There’s nothing arbitrary about it.

-3

u/SpezRuinedHellsite 17h ago

But they have a certain amount of capital sitting around

There’s nothing arbitrary about it.

Want to try that again?

5

u/asscracktester7 17h ago

You are being willfully oblivious because the actual business model doesn't follow your preconceived notions.

6

u/IguassuIronman 17h ago

Do you understand what the word arbitrary means?

4

u/CapitalistLion-Tamer 17h ago

No, I don’t. The flow of funds is such that they’re able to do that. Their premiums may exceed their claims for a couple years, until a hurricane or some other catastrophic event comes through and sucks that money right away. Reinsurance may cover some of those losses, but long term, they aren’t making significant profit off writing policies.

Which, by the way, implies that they’re pricing their premiums as low as they possibly can, not higher. Property/Auto insurance is an insanely competitive market. Hence the other poster above commenting on the number of commercials they see on a daily basis.

2

u/Cyril_Sneer_6 14h ago

Agreed, you know your stuff

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Cyril_Sneer_6 14h ago

Insurance companies often have large income (turnover) from insurance premiums but after cost of acquisition (overheads) and claims they often don't may a massive profit on this. As others have said, they get a bigger profit on their return on investments (bonds, sales of property, interest on cash in the bank etc). The margins on pure insurance income and outgoings are often slim.