Skip Navigation

No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world

_number8_ @lemmy.world

1y ago

Why is it apparently cool and fine for insurance companies to spend countless billions, trillions of our money constantly buying ad time?

On every single professional sports game I’ve ever seen, every single show, every single channel. Isn’t this our fucking money you’re meant to give out should, god forbid, something happen?

Why is it even legal to do this? Blowing this money on CONSTANT, DUMB fucking little fucking cutesy fucking skits, not even trying to fucking pitch anything anymore, just burning money on TV and laughing at us while the fucking lemur does epic bants. it makes me so fucking sick, these people should be chained in the dungeons for the rest of their lives.

It’s illegal to not have car insurance so why the fuck do they think we need to see this constant fucking microwaved vomit fucking garbage every fucking second every fucking show every fucking channel??

thank you

134 comments

- If my doctor told me that my situation now is up to god, I'd change doctor immediately and report them to the national doctors association in my country.
  Hope you and your wife make the best of it nonetheless. So extreme listening to people who can't demand or have the right to be treated for their issues!

Because they make more money that way.
In order to stop them, you'd need a large percentage of customers go out of their way to purchase policies from companies with the lowest advertising budgets.
- In order to stop them, you’d need a large percentage of customers go out of their way to purchase policies from companies with the lowest advertising budgets.
  Or we'd need to recognize incorporation as the social contract that it was supposed to be, and start demanding public benefits in exchange for the companies being granted those privileges.
  Merely restricting advertising is thinking extremely small compared to what they owe us, but hey, might as well throw it on the list anyway.
  
  Fascinating read. what would be the economical impact if this was to return as charters with limited power and duration?
- to purchase policies from companies with the lowest advertising budgets.
  This was basically my grandfather's modus operandi. He wouldn't buy anything he saw in an ad. Dude was a nuclear physicist, so maybe he was on to something.
  And while it'd be pretty hard to do that today, I always try and keep it in mind when I buy stuff. I ask myself if I feel like I'm being pressured to buy something, and to try to always be willing to walk away without buying. You can always decide later, and buy it then.
  
  Bought a bottle of scotch once that said "The greatest advertisement is a quality product." I would have to agree.
  
  Dude was a nuclear physicist, so maybe he was on to something.
  Let's not go attributing success in one area as relevant to being smart in another, unrelated area, even when they're right. I prefer the other guy who worked in the industry agreeing rather than a nuclear physicist. Unless nuclear physicists typically get their degree by researching the insurance industry and their quality in relationship to advertisement budgets.
  
  I am not a nuclear physicist but have also been practicing that concept. Show me an ad that I don't want to see? I Boycott.

This is one of a thousand reasons why the entire insurance industry should be burnt to the ground
- Surely they would be insured for that though?
  
  They'd just find a way to make us pay for it.
- Unrelated, but I saw an ad for a cremation company on the TV the other day. They said they had a 4.5 rating on trustpilot, and I spent too long wondering who left those reviews…
- It should just be public. One big insurance company that covers everyone under one set of rules, with zero ad budget and total transparency to voters. Not a private company that can deny coverage and run off with profits. Not an elective product that only high risk people will get. Not a hassle that you have to sign up for and pay bills on. Just built into our taxes and public institutions. Period.

Car insurance ads are bad, but health insurance ads are worse. Every time I see one I wonder whose treatment got denied to pay for it.
- It's worse than that even. Most of those ads are for "Medicare Advantage," a criminal scam that Congressional members of a particular political persuasion cooked up to allow corporations to be a middleman between you and your Medicare benefits. When clueless people call and sign up because they think they're going to get free money, they end up getting fucked out of as much of their benefits as the company can extract, up to 20% according to the rules, but who pays attention to if they play by the rules? You probably guessed it. Oh and just as a cherry on top, once you sign up, you can't change your mind and go back, you're off Medicare for good.
- Car insurance ads are vastly better for people, for the economy, and even for road safety than health insurance companies are for people.
  Health insurance, as a market, is an externality.
- Thanks to Obamacare, insurance companies are required to spend a high percentage of their revenue on delivering actual care. There is a limit to what they can spend on everything else. Thanks Obama!
  
  They could still help more people if they weren't buying billboards advertising something people are required by law to have.

What, are you just gonna not have insurance? Something could go wrong! You don’t wanna go bankrupt because of a health problem, do you? Also, we can’t guarantee you won’t still go bankrupt with our insurance, but you won’t have to pay for basic drugs! Maybe…

It's not, that's wby it only occur in USA
- Lol #MAGA

a petition to ban marketing, advertising, and sale of personal information in general would be a good way to have a chance at shattering big tech and commercial crap all at once, but it'll never happen 🙁
- It's funny how private companies can subsidise free services but somehow "society" would not be able to do it...

i hop between geico, progressive, and allstate. after the 6month bait deal ends i just call and move over to the next competitors 6 month sweet deal.
It's easy to maintain, just 3 tabs on my browser and now you don't even have to talk to a person.
i learned after graduating in 2006 and walking face first into 2008s bullshit. if they want to hot potato lumps of debt, ill just hot potato competing services.

I live in Canada and used to work as an adjuster and dated an American broker. There are many good insurers in the US, none of them advertise. Go to an honest broker and they'll tell you about those boring good ones.
The differences in our systems were astonishing. Those advertised insurers let you go around with basically no coverage. I can't believe your minimum third party liability amounts, especially considering the crazy medical costs in your country. It's just over a tenth of the minimum we allow in my province, and we have socialized health care and more robust social safety nets. A serious accident will ruin you for life if you take that cockney lizard's policy. He's a scam artist from the mean streets of London.
- My wife worked for an insurance company for most of a decade as the complaint liaison with the states regulating body on insurance.
  Insurance companies in the U.S. come in two types.
  Type A: Rely on repeat business and word of mouth to slowly grow their business. They pay out reasonable and fair amounts based upon the loss. They follow all applicable laws/regulations and operate in good faith. These companies are quick to reject people who have bad histories.
  Type B: Rely on recruiting new customers constantly by excessive advertising or purchasing other smaller companies. Pay out well below the market on anything they can and flat out refuse claims until lawsuits start. These companies routinely break state and federal laws because the fines are less than the profits. These companies prey on the lower income, elderly, and poorly informed. The larger companies have hundreds of brands to give the illusion of choice to the consumer.
  Any amounts of excessive marketing by and insurance company indicates that they are shit. Also research into who owns any the brand they are are marketing. If you recognize the parent company as advertising, they are shit.
  
  That seems to line up with my reading of those heavily advertised, cheap policies. You pay for nothing then get left in the lurch, owing potentially millions. It should be illegal, it's totally predatory.
- I'm nowhere close to the insurance industry but I had sort of noticed from various stories.
  The idea I had of what insurance is supposed to do seems to be based on how it works in Canada. If you want to take a big risk on losing your car, home, license or whatever then paying insurance even a high amount make sense.
  Comparitively in the US, particularly in healthcare you seem screwed whether you get insurance or not. Americans get the freedom to pay hundreds of dollars a month, just to have to pay a minimum of more thousands if something does happen. In Canada, we don't have universal dental yet and a full checkup, xray, cleaning and fluoride without insurance is about 600 CAD or ~440USD. I don't know how much dental costs down South...
  
  Yeah, insurance is a fundamental, necessary piece of civilization and has existed since before Hammurabi. But it has also been abused by profiteers since then too, and it's not always easy to tell the difference. In a cut-throat, free market, capitalist driven economy, the incentive is to cover nothing for high premiums. A scam, essentially. Add a law where corporations are people and unlimited political donations is free speech and you'll have enourmous pressure put on politicians to keep the insurance industry unregulated (except making buying it mandatory). Thus Geiko is allowed to exist. Lower premiums, but you are essentially uninsured for anything more than a minor fender bender. Paying premiums for nothing. This is bad for everyone involved in an accident except the insurance companies.
- I don't know anything, and to avoid complications, what kinds of legal minimums does Canada require?
  
  Here in BC we have a minimum of $200,000 liability insurance. We don't separate based on property or injury, 200k covers all. But only low income drivers stop at 200K, $3Million is the most common liability amount. If you end up accidentally crippling a kid, you will require every penny that 3million. We don't advertise our insurance at all. Insurers must have a reserve on hand to cover every single outstanding claim plus 10 million, I'm not sure what those numbers are in the US, it wouldn't surprise me if they were much more lax. The Insurance Act of BC is a beautiful piece of legislation with the insured's best interest in mind, not the insurer's shareholders.

Not sure what the issue is here, but this may be a US-centric problem..?
Here in Australia, insurance companies are required to demonstrate sufficient means to cover the risk they carry on their books. We have a government body (APRA) that regulates and routinely audits this (along with other requirements).
What the company spends on coffee, furniture or marketing has no bearing on this - those are expenses for them to manage after they satisfy the above requirements.
- It's not about being able to cover their liabilities, but charging ridiculous rates partially due to the fact that they also need to pay multimillion dollar advertising budgets. Or worse, bring the price down by giving shockingly low coverage that is somehow still legal.
  Worse still, our healthcare system relies nearly solely on private health insurance.... and yes they do it too. See: MetLife Stadium
  
  It’s not about being able to cover their liabilities
  I'm referring to OP's assertion that "Isn’t this our fucking money you’re meant to give out should, god forbid, something happen?".
  I don't disagree that the insurance industry is a cottage industry, largely built on/supported by FUD, but that wasn't the point of my reply.

That's why I purchase a plan from a company that doesn't advertise.

Let's put aside the many, many problems of insurance companies in reality and talk in terms of two parties acting in good faith for ease of demonstration.
Let's take random person Alice who has insured her wrench set at Insurance Company X. Her wrench set is very important to her job and she only believes in high quality tools, so it is quite expensive. So expensive, that if something were to happen to it, she might not be able to replace it right away. Instead, she pays Company X for an insurance policy. Alice can afford to pay a little bit every month and so this is a good set up.
Uh oh, an impromptu stomp band raided Alice's store and appropriated her wrenches as drumsticks. They're ruined! Luckily, Alice is insured and Insurance Company X pays her for replacement wrenches.
Unfortunately for Company X, Alice needed new wrenches before her monthly payments would exceeded the price of the wrenches. So how did they have the money? Well, they have more customers than just Alice. They use some of the money that they get from others to help buy the wrench set in the same way some of Alice's money is used with other problems as a way to socialize the losses.
As you might guess, this requires more people. More people contributing at once means a bigger pool of money that can cover bigger individual losses when the time comes. As such, Insurance Company X uses a portion of the money they get to recruit more users and thereby make their system work better.
But also greed. Lots and lots of greed.
- Don't forget the part where Insurance Company X calculates the maximum amount of damages they could be liable for from marauding flash mobs for a given affected area then raises the rates on all of their customers in an even bigger area to compensate so they can never lose money on Alice's wrenches.
  Source: I'm a mathematician who spent a summer working in the office of a roofing company and I literally watched homeowners insurance companies do it.
  
  Also the billions they make in profit is not going to compensate anyone. And the billions they invest on share markets and lobbying to make the society more like they want is definitely not to the benefit of the society either.
  
  Not trying to speak up for any insurance company and will never say that the example is a good reflection of reality. Just showing a rough outline in how advertising and recruiting customers -could- be beneficial to the policy holder. It is as much a reflection of reality as a stick man is an anatomic model for study.
- Although what you write is correct, you somehow made it sound like a Ponzi scheme 😅
  
  I thought we were being invited to a commune.

At one point around the enaction of Obama-care there was a dude with a combover that came around to our office to tell us that "yes, healthcare costs are high in America, but I'm here to tell you that insurance companies are not the problem."
So here he is: a guy lying to himself about his hair loss with a full-time job going around to different companies saying how insurance companies are not the problem...surely he couldn't be lying, a waste, or a lying waste.
- I wonder if there's a correlation between wigs and weasel jobs like salesmen or estate agents.
  If you can lie to yourself you can lie to anyone.
- One of these at a time, that's how it all works.

There are two reasons
The market is saturated. Everybody pretty much already has insurance and they only shop for it when they have a reason to. So you want them to have your company's name on their mind when the time comes. The biggest source of new customers are people who switch from someone else.
GEICO was having name recognition problems when it transitioned from covering government employees exclusively.(Government Employees Insurance Company) This is where the lizard mascot came from. It was a huge success and other insurance companies followed suit. What we have now is a sort of arms race where all the major companies spend ridiculous amounts on advertising, but nobody wants to scale back for fear of being buried by their competitors ads.

I'm assuming you're in the US.
Do non profit or cooperative insurance companies exist? They would seem like a less evil option if available.
- In Germany there is VVAG, "Versicherungsverein auf Gegenseitigkeit" (insurance association based on mutuality), which is the legal form for cooperative insurance as regular cooperatives (Genossenschaften) cannot insure legally.
- They do.
- There are, but a lot of them usually require something to qualify for their coverage and aren't as large as national companies. The smaller companies usually don't have as large an appetite for risk, and will therefore only provide discounts to less risky drivers.
  
  Can you share some names of them? To help me get started researching them

On every single professional sports game I’ve ever seen, every single show, every single channel. Isn’t this our fucking money you’re meant to give out should, god forbid, something happen?
While there's certainly no redeeming feature to be found in the advertising industry, I feel like you might be missing the point of insurance. An insurance does not safe-keep "your" money. You pay insurance for a service, you then receive the service and your money is gone, spent, as if you had bought groceries. The service you receive is what is called "coverage" but what is more easily thought of as "immunity against bankruptcy due to X", X being the insurance case. That's what you buy.
Figuring out how to best allocate the money is up to the insurance - it's their money, after all.
- Yes, but spending the money creates more of an incentive and more pressure to figure out how to skimp on payouts
- The only issue with that is their prices go up if their costs go up. Kind of like how grocery stores claim that theft causes prices to go up. It is their money, though it does feel bad paying them.
- i absolutely disagree. the way insurance works is you all pay into it and they use that money for claims. it's literally our money.
  
  i absolutely disagree. the way insurance works is you all pay into it and they use that money for claims. it’s literally our money.
  Again, you do not "pay into" anything. There's no pool or fund or growing personal account. You buy a service. There is an exchange of goods and services here. As you receive the service, the money ceases to be yours.
  Whether or not other people file claims with the insurance doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter whether or not the baker buys new furniture after selling bread to you. They're not paying the furniture store with your money, they're paying the furniture store with their own money that became theirs as soon as you relinquished it to them in exchange for the bread.

Before choosing your insurance provider, google the company and "combined ratio". Anything over 100 and they are paying out more than they are making. Investors want to see a combined ratio in the mid 90s, so if you are not an investor maybe you want the ones with high CR? Or they might be wasting it I guess, but either way less savvy I suppose.

Well, it's not your money. You're gambling with them, your bet is that you'll get sick or have an accident within X period of time, they're gambling that you won't. At the same time, to uphold your gamble, you have to do everything any sane person would do to avoid illness or accidents.
You pay the ante up-front, just like on gambling tables, that's no longer your money. You're down that money.
But, if your gamble gets an out, you get payed big time. Hopefully in the form of them covering a portion or a totality of your healthcare expenses. It's a big dangerous casino, and as usual, the house always has the edge.
- Except some people don’t get paid big time. A lot of people actually. Because they like to waste all the ante’d money on stuff like these stupid ads.
- Except the casino can refuse to pay out for any reason at all
- Naming it gambling and then having it required by the government to operate a vehicle seems like a bad analogy.
  
  I know, but that's what literally it is. It's even the historical origin of insurance as a concept. If you win, they have to pay your liabilities, if insurance wins, that means there hasn't been any major accident or harm done. Either way, for the government, it's a win-win. Either all it's fine, or someone is ready to pay up the costs. The problem is, of course, scummy insurers who refuse to pony up their end of the bargain because they blew the money on ads, cocaine and hookers.
- Insurance company are subject to regulations. They are lots of different regulations for different types of insurance and different states. The goals are to ensure that they are able to pay out when things go wrong, and to ensure a fair consumer practice. Generally all of the premiums they collect are supposed to be payed out and a large percent of the money is supposed to be held in reserve. They are supposed to be making money on investing the premiums.
  It's not about them winning the bet that they won't have to pay. If they won that bet too much, it would be reflected in too high premiums, and competitors would just under cut them.
  
  Ahhh, the Free Market™ in action. When human suffering is the only economically viable option.
  /s

One reason insurance ads are so stupid is that they are tightly regulated as to what they can actually say. They’re not allowed to make big promises. So you get lizards talking to car tires or whatever the fuck.
- 15 minutes could save you 15% or more. Or it could save you less. Probably less or none at all. The point is that it could save you 15%

Advertising. They make it seem like the best thing since sliced bread so if someone is considering changing providers, that company comes to mind. The more they repeat it the more likely people are to think of it when considering options. It doesn't work on everyone, but this tactic has enough supporting data for them to keep dumping money into it.
To answer your question about why they are allowed to do it, I would imagine there are little to no regulations on how much is spent on advertising campaigns. It all depends on what a business can afford to spend. Since insurance companies are all about denying coverage, I'd imagine they have quite a bit to dump into advertising. I haven't looked into it that much, but it looks like they can also claim these as business expenses and get tax write-offs. It wouldn't be surprising if they tacked on other expenses to the advertising budget and claimed those as write-offs as well.
- another one of those write-off business expenses is the tremendous amount of money spent lobbying to keep regulations regarding advertising (and other unseemly business practices) at bay.

Their primary goal is to make profit for investors. They kind of also sometimes help people.
- They kind of also pay out on the services you pay them for, it's not helping, it's just an obligation they haven't managed to dodge.
  It's almost like there should be a not for profit option, perhaps if there were some large group of people who worked for everyone, and we're controlled by some sort of elected governing body.
  
  I have had this fantasy. All health insurers be required to be 501(c)29. The non-profit definition for health insurers under the ACA.
  
  A lot of insurance companies—arguably most of the ones used—are not for profit: American Family, COUNTRY, generally Blue Cross Blue Shield, Liberty Mutual, Northwestern Mutual, any other company with "mutual" in the name, USAA, Farmers, State Farm, Progressive, etc.

Why do you think getting insurance to actually pay out is so difficult?

It shouldn't be, but enough people are either ignorant that it's a racket or they profit somehow by it that nobody says anything, or they'll call you a damned commie if you openly question powerful people like that

If you're in the USA I would suggest using Amica for your insurance. They are great, and I've never seen an advertisement for them!
- I've never seen an advertisement for them!
  I may have seen one just now.
- I've seen a ton

Billions? Trillions? Ummmm, anyway...
The reason is because they aren't idiots, it works or they wouldn't do it. The issue with car insurance (and I assume this is what you are talking about since they bombard me also) is that it is a commodity. Let's face it, they are all the same and heavily regulated by states. The only way they can grab customers is by the "plant our name in your head" method and that requires yelling at you constantly.
That said I HATE those ads. Geico has now been replace by Liberty Mutual as the most annoying company.
- The question wasn't why do they try, the question was why does society let them do it
  
  Because acknowledging that we don't need insurance advertised to us would require also acknowledging insurance shouldn't be commodified to begin with.
  
  Because society in general does business with companies they've already heard of.
  
  Free speech. They used to ban drug ads and that got dropped.
  Personally I'd rather see ads for lawyers banned.

I was wondering the same thing this weekend after watching an absurd number of insurance commercials on each football game.
Can someone list few reputable insurance companies other than the Gecko, Emu and Flo?
- Mahomes and maauto

not enough people vote for progressive candidates who are willing to try to take them on

Because you don't make the rules and they do.

Corporation must grow, must consume. In capitalism, if you’re not growing you’re dying.
- Business is binary. You're a 1 or a 0. Alive, or dead.

Why is it apparently cool and fine for insurance companies to spend countless billions, trillions of our money constantly buying ad time?
It's not your money, it's their money.
- Where do they get the money from?
  
  From you. It was your money but then after you give it to them, it's their money.
  
  Your boss
  Edit: people downvoting seem to be missing the point. You get your money from your boss but nobody would consider it your boss' money. That's ridiculous. So why would anyone consider money paid to an insurance company to still be their money because it came from them?
- Exactly, as soon as the money goes from your bank account to theirs, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. Not saying that's a good thing, but that's how the system is currently designed.

- Honestly I think the downvotes are not because people missed your joke.. but it was incensing to read that and realize the execs of those companies probably think like that unironically.
- Had me in the first half

It stopped being your money when you gave it to them. It became their money, and they get to spend it how they want, with some caveats.

For an insurance company to exist it has to spend less covering claims than it collects in payments.
Otherwise they end up bankrupt.
Even if you got back every dollar you spent on insurance, there would be nothing left over to spend on staff or any other part of their business.
This means anyone with insurance is better off taking their payments and saving it for when they need something covered.
Insurance is a scam.
- Yes, but car, home (or renters), and health insurance are required for the average person because all of those have a reasonable chance of absolutely bankrupting a regular person for life at any moment.
  The alternative is to pay more taxes and have the government provide the insurance, which may or may not be better. There are pros and cons to both.
  Either way though, you need the safety net that insurance provides.
  
  Yeah, the "insurance is a scam, just pocket the money, bro" folks really don't understand just how royally fucked someone would be if their house burned down. Sure it's a long shot, but me saving the $1k or so I spend each year on homeowners insurance is not going to cover me when there's $300k in structural damage I have to deal with.
  
  I’m aware some insurance is required by law.
  Considering publicly traded insurance companies need to make larger profit margins than their previous year. Every year. And the government doesn’t. It’s safe to say the insurance company will deny more claims and you will get less and less than what you pay into it over time.
  Either way everyone is better off saving that money so they can actually use it if they need it.
- You're generally correct. Insurances are a bad investment from a purely financial standpoint. Never get an insurance to save money or to avoid cost. Don't get insurance for things that you can easily pay for from your savings or for things you can do without. For example, don't get insurance for your flagship smartphone. Even if you can't afford the same model again if it breaks, you can always get an entry-level or used phone for a fraction of the price which will do fine for daily tasks until you have saved up enough money.
  But there are cases where losing money is just part of the problem. For example, health insurance can literally save your life by paying for a treatment you otherwise couldn't afford. Or personal liability insurance - if you cause more damage than you can afford to pay for, you can lose your house and pretty much the kind of life you may have lived up to that point. On the other hand, if you're already broke, living in a shitty apartment and hardly own anything of value, then there's no point getting that insurance.
  
  I realize that there are situations where insurance can be beneficial.
  I’m just sharing what I’ve learned from working as a claims adjuster. The company I worked for created incentives for denying claims. Customers were often lied to about what is covered by the person selling the insurance. We often shared technicalities that were found in the contract that allowed us to deny more claims.
  This did not only happen at the company I worked for. It is common practice in the insurance industry.
- Insurance companies, specially life, usually have claim ratios (claims/premiums) of over 100% without problems, because they earn more money on investing the premiums over time that on the premiums itself.
  
  I’ve worked as a claims adjuster. It was my job to find ways to deny claims so that my employer could make more profit. My employer was very clear about that.
  Even if the insurance company is profitable, they will always want more.
  Publicly traded insurance companies have an obligation to their shareholders to make larger profits year over year. The shareholders never say “we’ve made enough profit on investing, we dont need more profit”.
- If you consider only the mean, then of course you're going to be better off without insurance on average. But most of us don't care about the mean. We care about the variance. And when you buy insurance, you're reducing the variance in your life in exchange for a lower mean. The problem with insurance isn't insurance itself, but that often you pay and get nothing in return.
- Well, it really depends on the risk of what you’re doing. Some things could really quickly get you into millions of $$$ in legal fees and other expenses for a tiny slip up, and it would be really stupid not to have some sort of backup plan to cover yourself.
- I'll just go cancel my universal health care now.
  
  Why?

134 comments