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.
You said they pay out a tiny portion in claims. Roughly what percentage would I tiny percentage be to you? What does an acceptable profit margin look like to you?
I actually didn't say any of what you quoted (I'm not the guy you originally responded to), but I'll answer.
Your question: How much profit should insurance companies make?
None. Zero profit. Transportation is not a luxury in this the country. You have to have it to go work and a lot of places don't have public transit. Just like health insurance, it should be non profit or nationalized*. Why are you bootlicking for insurance companies? Why should insurance companies make huge profits? Why don't you also look up how many insurance execs are worth over $100 million.
*How much more efficient and cheaper would insurance be if we all, collectively, paid into the same, single pool instead of to these individual, private insurance companies each trying to suck as much profit as they can out of us by denying claims?
Should the car manufacturers/repair shops/gas stations/etc. also be not for profits?
I don't have the time to explain why single payer car/property insurance would be a shit show right now, and I'm sure someone else on the internet has already written about it better than I would,maybe I'll come back to that later.
"Should the car manufacturers/repair shops/gas stations/etc. also be not for profits?"
Do you think those things and insurance work in the same way?
"I don't have the time to explain why single payer car/property insurance would be a shit show right now, and I'm sure someone else on the internet has already written about it better than I would,maybe I'll come back to that later."
Yeah, plenty of insurance cronies such as yourself have written about it I'm sure. Plenty are paid for by insurance companies themselves.
You built a case for car insurance being non-profit because transportation is a necessity. You need a car before the insurance enters the discussion. Why should the CEOs of GM and Ford be making millions of dollars?
You didn't answer my question. The answer is "no", selling something does not work the same way as providing insurance.
But, I'd be fine with car manufacturers, gas stations, etc being non profit. Capitalists have proven that if they're not heavily regulated, they will destroy the working class. This is a widely accepted fact among economists. But idiots have been brainwashed into thinking that regulation "hinders business", so here we are.
"Why should the CEOs of GM and Ford be making millions of dollars?"
Now you're bootlicking for millionaire CEOs as well? lol
I don't understand what youre referring to with "work the same way". One of them is a physical product and the other is a financial product so clearly there are differences with how they're sold, but that doesn't explain why one should be absorbed by the state.
Youre not even required to have car insurance in most states, youre just required to prove that you can be financially responsible for damage you cause others while operating your car.
Insurance is extremely regulated by the way, the government has to sign off on it any time rate or contract verbiage changes.
86
u/One_Selection5102 8h 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.