3 ms·

Why bother tracking down thieves when you can just keep jacking up premiums? It's not like customers have a choice.

• dan-robertson 1y ago
  They can choose to not pay for theft coverage. Different insurers compete but obviously trying to improve theft prevention would have to be a collaboration as it wouldn’t be able to lower only one insurer’s premiums.
  • potato3732842 1y ago
    >They can choose to not pay for theft coverage. A mere six or seven figures spend on lobbying and/or wining and dining the legislature will plug that loophole. The legislature will spew some grandiose bullshit about how in an effort to reduce the cost theft coverage is now one of the mandatory parts and half of the population will eat it up. >would have to be a collaboration as it wouldn’t be able to lower only one Which will never happen because reducing costs across the board is bad for insurers. Even if their margins are thin a thin margin on a big number gets you more money. They don't care how high costs go as long as they're uniformly distributed and/or predictable.
• savanaly 1y ago
  > Why bother tracking down thieves when you can just keep jacking up premiums? It's not like customers have a choice. Insurance companies compete viciously with each other on price. Have you not seen their ads? If one could offer significantly cheaper insurance through some mechanism like that they definitely would.