6 ms·

Your insurance company would prefer to cover people who notice the reckless driver then pull over to get out of their path. You did not do that, so they raise

Your insurance company would prefer to cover people who notice the reckless driver then pull over to get out of their path. You did not do that, so they raise your rates. Edit: not that you were at fault or did anything wrong. My point is that the insurance companies strongest incentive is to pay out as little as possible. This includes payments made where their client was not at fault. If it were up to them, everyone would pay all their premiums on time and never drive.

annoyingnoob 6y ago
They recovered their costs. I already pay for the service. Tracking is just another excuse to raise rates, which as you note is the goal (bring money in, don't let it out). When rates have nothing to do with liability is it really insurance? To quote wikipedia: If the likelihood of an insured event is so high, or the cost of the event so large, that the resulting premium is large relative to the amount of protection offered, then it is not likely that the insurance will be purchased, even if on offer. Furthermore, as the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer. If there is no such chance of loss, then the transaction may have the form of insurance, but not the substance (see the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board pronouncement number 113: "Accounting and Reporting for Reinsurance of Short-Duration and Long-Duration Contracts"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance
- shuntress 6y ago
  You pay either way. It's not about covering costs to provide a needed service. That would be a public service This is a private company looking for profit. They want to raise your rates.
  - annoyingnoob 6y ago
    What you are talking about would no longer be considered insurance. > the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer The vast majority of automobiles do not hold their value, they depreciate over time. If I've had my car for say 5 years and I've paid the premiums for 5 years, I may have already paid the full value of my car as it is today due to depreciation. I probably pay for one minor incident per year in premiums. Unless I total my within the first 5 years I'm not really getting insurance what I'm really getting is a payment plan for a payout I most likely will never get.
    - shuntress 6y ago
      I believe most insurance also covers the damage done by your vehicle to other property. So the upper limit on the total collected through premiums is somewhere between 0 and the cost of an expensive house.
      - sidewndr46 6y ago
        It's actually more along the lines of whatever a person's life is worth. Also where I live the ~3 cars around me in traffic could each cost more than a nearby home. You can pretty easily destroy $400,000 of property here in an otherwise uneventful accident.
        annoyingnoob 6y ago
        Automobile deaths has been declining for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... Cars are safer than ever. https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/timeline/index.html https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/timeline/index.html The folks with those fancy cars are paying into the system too, insurance is about pooling after all. It seems you have a point about bodily injury claims. https://www.insurance-research.org/sites/default/files/downloads/IRC_ClosedClaimReleaseFINAL.pdf https://www.insurance-research.org/sites/default/files/downl... However, it looks like that is mostly due to more lawyers being involved in bodily injury claims. More lawyers involved points to a failure with insurance company's ability to properly adjudicate claims. When insurance is only about profits and finding tools to further squeeze your existing clients no one benefits. Insurance companies do not need more ways to rate me, they just need to do the job they get paid to do.
        sidewndr46 6y ago
        I don't really understand the point your are trying to make? You state that "insurance is about pooling" then correctly observe the dollar amount they charge you is just some sort of risk rating assigned to the individual. Also if you ever have a large claim paid, you'll quickly discover it isn't about pooling at all. Every insurer will simple decline to quote you or simply quote you some insane price. Even without accidents I once got a quote that was obviously a response of "please do not purchase this policy" when I tried to get basic liability insurance.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    > This is a private company looking for profit. They want to raise your rates. And this is the problem with insurance being mandatory. Their business model is to force everyone to buy an expensive subscription, and then increase costs every time everyone actually uses their service in order to recoup costs. Yes, I am oversimplifying, but holy fuck do I hate insurance companies since I have never gotten one to pay out a claim without suing first.

annoyingnoob 6y ago

They recovered their costs. I already pay for the service. Tracking is just another excuse to raise rates, which as you note is the goal (bring money in, don't let it out). When rates have nothing to do with liability is it really insurance? To quote wikipedia: If the likelihood of an insured event is so high, or the cost of the event so large, that the resulting premium is large relative to the amount of protection offered, then it is not likely that the insurance will be purchased, even if on offer. Furthermore, as the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer. If there is no such chance of loss, then the transaction may have the form of insurance, but not the substance (see the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board pronouncement number 113: "Accounting and Reporting for Reinsurance of Short-Duration and Long-Duration Contracts"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance

shuntress 6y ago
You pay either way. It's not about covering costs to provide a needed service. That would be a public service This is a private company looking for profit. They want to raise your rates.
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  What you are talking about would no longer be considered insurance. > the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer The vast majority of automobiles do not hold their value, they depreciate over time. If I've had my car for say 5 years and I've paid the premiums for 5 years, I may have already paid the full value of my car as it is today due to depreciation. I probably pay for one minor incident per year in premiums. Unless I total my within the first 5 years I'm not really getting insurance what I'm really getting is a payment plan for a payout I most likely will never get.
  - shuntress 6y ago
    I believe most insurance also covers the damage done by your vehicle to other property. So the upper limit on the total collected through premiums is somewhere between 0 and the cost of an expensive house.
    - sidewndr46 6y ago
      It's actually more along the lines of whatever a person's life is worth. Also where I live the ~3 cars around me in traffic could each cost more than a nearby home. You can pretty easily destroy $400,000 of property here in an otherwise uneventful accident.
      - annoyingnoob 6y ago
        Automobile deaths has been declining for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... Cars are safer than ever. https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/timeline/index.html https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/timeline/index.html The folks with those fancy cars are paying into the system too, insurance is about pooling after all. It seems you have a point about bodily injury claims. https://www.insurance-research.org/sites/default/files/downloads/IRC_ClosedClaimReleaseFINAL.pdf https://www.insurance-research.org/sites/default/files/downl... However, it looks like that is mostly due to more lawyers being involved in bodily injury claims. More lawyers involved points to a failure with insurance company's ability to properly adjudicate claims. When insurance is only about profits and finding tools to further squeeze your existing clients no one benefits. Insurance companies do not need more ways to rate me, they just need to do the job they get paid to do.
        sidewndr46 6y ago
        I don't really understand the point your are trying to make? You state that "insurance is about pooling" then correctly observe the dollar amount they charge you is just some sort of risk rating assigned to the individual. Also if you ever have a large claim paid, you'll quickly discover it isn't about pooling at all. Every insurer will simple decline to quote you or simply quote you some insane price. Even without accidents I once got a quote that was obviously a response of "please do not purchase this policy" when I tried to get basic liability insurance.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  > This is a private company looking for profit. They want to raise your rates. And this is the problem with insurance being mandatory. Their business model is to force everyone to buy an expensive subscription, and then increase costs every time everyone actually uses their service in order to recoup costs. Yes, I am oversimplifying, but holy fuck do I hate insurance companies since I have never gotten one to pay out a claim without suing first.