It’s not a scam, it’s just how companies work. By definition, every insurance will pay out less than they collected in payments. They have to pay their employees, their offices, taxes an yes, also their shareholders. That’s why, on average, insuring something is always a loosing bet.
You should only insure yourself against things that are potentially threatening your or your family’s existence: Liability, health, home, occupational disability, survivor benefits. For everything else it’s almost always better to just put the money into an account to have it at hand in case.
Insurance should always be public. If you feel the need to say things like “companies need to pay their shareholders,” you are only one braincell away from saying “gotta keep the lights on”.
Why should a travel cancellation insurance or a mobile phone insurance be public? You can take out an insurance for almost everything, from wedding insurances for when your spouse gets cold feed to alien abduction insurances. I don’t see why the state should be involved in that.
And of cause companies need to pay their shareholders. That’s how our economy works. Even if an insurance is state funded, it needs seed money, and that money costs interest. Either the state (i.e. you) pays the interest, or the insuree (i.e. you) pays the interest, but it has to be paid for either way.
I am. You know that topics can change or broaden during a conversation? I was explicitly talking about existential and non-existential insurances, and buttnugget responded with
Insurance should always be public.
which then would also include non-existentials. Also, car insurance in its broader sense is neither existential, nor is it legally required. What is required, is liability insurance for your car, because not having it and causing an accident could destroy the existences of you and your victim, by putting you into bankruptcy and your victim unable to realise their claims against a bankrupt person.
You can also insure your own car against all kinds of damages, from theft to engine failure, from collision to hailstorms. But that is not legally required, and usually it’s also not existential, unless your existence was threatened by loosing your car. Even the OP talks about non-existential car insurance, as they want their insurance to pay for their check engine light.
You know that topics can change or broaden during a conversation?
You don’t have to talk down to me or insult anyone else. I’m well aware of how basic conversations work, and the other person is trying to share their ideas.
What I mean is that you’re pigeonholing the conversation. You’re talking about perpetuating the system, as if insurance somehow needs to stay the way it is as a huge capitalist scam rather than reimagining it, especially when government systems are involved. And even then, I don’t see why insurance can’t be reformed or socialized for any of these purposes with the right framework. You’re coming at this by saying this is how it is and therefore this is how it should be.
But my bad, I forgot that in the US, even the wrong sneeze can send you into bankruptcy. It’s like Americans cling to this broken system to avoid being crushed by the weight of their own economy by pushing the problem somewhere else and turning it into monthly payments.
You can change the system all the way you want. But even a co-operative insurance in a communist society will have to spend money on other things beyond damage claims. Thus even they will take more money from the insuree, than they pay out.
Even if your insurance is only a pot where everyone throws their money in, and takes it back out when they need to, someone still had to buy the pot.
It doesn’t matter how you organise it, paying insurance premiums will – on average – always be a loss. That’s neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it’s just a fact. The important part of insurances is the “on average”: The vast majority of people will never cause a million dollar damage, so they can pay a tiny share of the damages caused by the one unlucky person who does.
Instead of being mad that you paid for the car insurance and never needed it, you should be happy that you didn’t end up in a car crash, destroying someones life. Instead of being sad that you paid for your health insurance for 90 years without ever needing it, you should be happy that you aren’t the one who had to spend years in hospitals fighting cancer. And instead of paying an insurance premium for your phone, you should put that money in a piggy bank and take it out if your phone ever gets stolen.
will have to spend money on other things beyond damage claims
Isn’t that what the government does with everything else? I don’t understand why this is a special case. They already take in a whole lot more taxes than they give out in services, and that’s fine. It’s understood that there’s an operational cost. But insurance, as it stands, is arguably little more than a mandatory cost for the great majority of people.
Instead of being mad that you paid
I’m not mad that I pay for services. I’m upset that people being denied claims, that not even a fraction of the money paid in for decades is available for other kinds of emergencies or basic needs because it’s a money sink where it all disappears under the nebulous excuse that you may need it some day under some specific circumstances, that it’s mandatory to buy into this system, that it’s being touted as a necessity without giving a chance to alternative systems, and that the execs do everything in their power like raising premiums over BS solely for profit at the expense of people’s well-being. There’s really no need to excuse this system.
You should only insure yourself against things that are potentially threatening your or your family’s existence: Liability, health, home, occupational disability, survivor benefits.
That, and anything that’s legally required (such as auto insurance if you want to legally drive a vehicle)
It’s not a scam, it’s just how companies work. By definition, every insurance will pay out less than they collected in payments. They have to pay their employees, their offices, taxes an yes, also their shareholders. That’s why, on average, insuring something is always a loosing bet.
You should only insure yourself against things that are potentially threatening your or your family’s existence: Liability, health, home, occupational disability, survivor benefits. For everything else it’s almost always better to just put the money into an account to have it at hand in case.
Insurance should always be public. If you feel the need to say things like “companies need to pay their shareholders,” you are only one braincell away from saying “gotta keep the lights on”.
Why should a travel cancellation insurance or a mobile phone insurance be public? You can take out an insurance for almost everything, from wedding insurances for when your spouse gets cold feed to alien abduction insurances. I don’t see why the state should be involved in that.
And of cause companies need to pay their shareholders. That’s how our economy works. Even if an insurance is state funded, it needs seed money, and that money costs interest. Either the state (i.e. you) pays the interest, or the insuree (i.e. you) pays the interest, but it has to be paid for either way.
Nobody’s talking about wedding insurance. The OP specified car insurance that you are legally required to have in many places in the US.
I am. You know that topics can change or broaden during a conversation? I was explicitly talking about existential and non-existential insurances, and buttnugget responded with
which then would also include non-existentials. Also, car insurance in its broader sense is neither existential, nor is it legally required. What is required, is liability insurance for your car, because not having it and causing an accident could destroy the existences of you and your victim, by putting you into bankruptcy and your victim unable to realise their claims against a bankrupt person.
You can also insure your own car against all kinds of damages, from theft to engine failure, from collision to hailstorms. But that is not legally required, and usually it’s also not existential, unless your existence was threatened by loosing your car. Even the OP talks about non-existential car insurance, as they want their insurance to pay for their check engine light.
You don’t have to talk down to me or insult anyone else. I’m well aware of how basic conversations work, and the other person is trying to share their ideas.
What I mean is that you’re pigeonholing the conversation. You’re talking about perpetuating the system, as if insurance somehow needs to stay the way it is as a huge capitalist scam rather than reimagining it, especially when government systems are involved. And even then, I don’t see why insurance can’t be reformed or socialized for any of these purposes with the right framework. You’re coming at this by saying this is how it is and therefore this is how it should be.
But my bad, I forgot that in the US, even the wrong sneeze can send you into bankruptcy. It’s like Americans cling to this broken system to avoid being crushed by the weight of their own economy by pushing the problem somewhere else and turning it into monthly payments.
You can change the system all the way you want. But even a co-operative insurance in a communist society will have to spend money on other things beyond damage claims. Thus even they will take more money from the insuree, than they pay out.
Even if your insurance is only a pot where everyone throws their money in, and takes it back out when they need to, someone still had to buy the pot.
It doesn’t matter how you organise it, paying insurance premiums will – on average – always be a loss. That’s neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it’s just a fact. The important part of insurances is the “on average”: The vast majority of people will never cause a million dollar damage, so they can pay a tiny share of the damages caused by the one unlucky person who does.
Instead of being mad that you paid for the car insurance and never needed it, you should be happy that you didn’t end up in a car crash, destroying someones life. Instead of being sad that you paid for your health insurance for 90 years without ever needing it, you should be happy that you aren’t the one who had to spend years in hospitals fighting cancer. And instead of paying an insurance premium for your phone, you should put that money in a piggy bank and take it out if your phone ever gets stolen.
Isn’t that what the government does with everything else? I don’t understand why this is a special case. They already take in a whole lot more taxes than they give out in services, and that’s fine. It’s understood that there’s an operational cost. But insurance, as it stands, is arguably little more than a mandatory cost for the great majority of people.
I’m not mad that I pay for services. I’m upset that people being denied claims, that not even a fraction of the money paid in for decades is available for other kinds of emergencies or basic needs because it’s a money sink where it all disappears under the nebulous excuse that you may need it some day under some specific circumstances, that it’s mandatory to buy into this system, that it’s being touted as a necessity without giving a chance to alternative systems, and that the execs do everything in their power like raising premiums over BS solely for profit at the expense of people’s well-being. There’s really no need to excuse this system.
That, and anything that’s legally required (such as auto insurance if you want to legally drive a vehicle)