4 ms·

I think your example is overly simplistic, but I understand what you're saying... To stay at that level, I would say that while there's nothing inherently bad

by sbarre 9y ago

I think your example is overly simplistic, but I understand what you're saying... To stay at that level, I would say that while there's nothing inherently bad about #2 it would be better if 75% remained to pay claims, and then they would not only offer lower premiums but better coverage. And as someone else said, this isn't about morals, it's about priorities.. An insurance company should exist primarily to protect it's customers. That said, if investors were contractually bound to accept only a fixed return over a period of time (almost like a bond or a GIC or something?) and had no voting power or influence in the direction of the company, that could work? My issue is less about "investors" and more about focus and priorities I suppose..

bradleyjg 9y ago
I once read an interesting story about the host* business. Apparently the dominant player is a for-profit business. The competition is convents around the country that have traditionally supplied them to parish churches. Here you have organizations that are as non-profit as they come -- convents aren't like many hospitals where the CEO and other high level employees are raking off a huge salaries as quasi-profit. And the motives and priorities couldn't be any purer, their work is essentially in the service of what they consider the glorification of God. Yet they are being out-competed by a for-profit company that explicitly tries to make on every sale in order to compensate the owners. How do you explain this if you view profit as deadweight loss that can only be at the expense of customers? Edit: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvaeyb/the-surprisingly-cutthroat-business-of-communion-crackers https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvaeyb/the-surprisingly-c... *The bread that is used during Catholic masses.
- sbarre 9y ago
  So first off, you're adding additional meaning to my statements by saying things like "you view profit as deadweight loss", which is not what I said at all (or if that's what you understood, then my apologies). Secondly, I don't really think I need to disprove your anecdotal scenarios (which aren't really apples to apples anyways) in order to stand behind my statements.. I will say this: I did originally say that executives and employees should be well-compensated and that the company, while not profit-driven, should still be making enough money to attract top talent and be competitive in the market. My idea was never about running an insurance company like a charity or a tiny unsophisticated business (as in your host example), it was just about not prioritizing shareholder profits over the core business service provided to the customer (i.e. providing coverage and paying claims), which is what many publicly-traded insurance companies do today.

by sbarre 9y ago

bradleyjg 9y ago

I once read an interesting story about the host* business. Apparently the dominant player is a for-profit business. The competition is convents around the country that have traditionally supplied them to parish churches. Here you have organizations that are as non-profit as they come -- convents aren't like many hospitals where the CEO and other high level employees are raking off a huge salaries as quasi-profit. And the motives and priorities couldn't be any purer, their work is essentially in the service of what they consider the glorification of God. Yet they are being out-competed by a for-profit company that explicitly tries to make on every sale in order to compensate the owners. How do you explain this if you view profit as deadweight loss that can only be at the expense of customers? Edit: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvaeyb/the-surprisingly-cutthroat-business-of-communion-crackers https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvaeyb/the-surprisingly-c... *The bread that is used during Catholic masses.

sbarre 9y ago
So first off, you're adding additional meaning to my statements by saying things like "you view profit as deadweight loss", which is not what I said at all (or if that's what you understood, then my apologies). Secondly, I don't really think I need to disprove your anecdotal scenarios (which aren't really apples to apples anyways) in order to stand behind my statements.. I will say this: I did originally say that executives and employees should be well-compensated and that the company, while not profit-driven, should still be making enough money to attract top talent and be competitive in the market. My idea was never about running an insurance company like a charity or a tiny unsophisticated business (as in your host example), it was just about not prioritizing shareholder profits over the core business service provided to the customer (i.e. providing coverage and paying claims), which is what many publicly-traded insurance companies do today.