3 ms·
> As a consumer, I only want insurance if I think they've assessed the value to be lower than what I'd pay out of pocket to 'self insure.' I don’t think that’s
by setr 5y ago
> As a consumer, I only want insurance if I think they've assessed the value to be lower than what I'd pay out of pocket to 'self insure.'
I don’t think that’s entirely right — the main value add of insurance is to the rare, mind numbingly expensive events — ER visits, crashing into a RR, house burning down, etc. You’re paying to minimize tail risk, including risk you couldn’t possibly self-insure against in reasonable time (my payments to insurance is not going to reach the value of my home — the bet is whether my home will ever burn down).
Regardless, it’s still a conflict of interest in this case
- Frost1x 5y agoI agree completely, but there are two common/popular perspectives to insurance value add. One views it as a risk pool for catastrophic events like you describe. Another views it as a service that prices risk for you to help you pay it in installments. OP seemed to be gunning for the second perspective of what insurance does based on language. However you want to interpret insurance, there's clearly a conflict of interest that the business based entirely around assessing and managing risk publishes information that risk is higher than people thought and they are therefor more relevant as a business than people thought.