this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
637 points (95.7% liked)

People Twitter

8709 readers
245 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 137 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Things like insurance, home and auto need to government run and not for profit

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 86 points 2 days ago (2 children)

insurance, home and auto

And the biggest one: health

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 47 points 2 days ago (2 children)

True, sorry, I'm fortunate enough to live in a single payer Healthcare country. Although it desperately needs reform, vision and dental aren't really covered

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

can't look at bad teeth if you don't have any eyes!

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Annnnnd if you can't eat, you'll die so you don't need to see anything anyway!

[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought were were against US health policy?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 45 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Single payer insurance of any type pulls from a far larger pool than any company could have, lowering the individual cost and allowing a bigger risk coverage. But... what about all those insurance companies (of all types), as well as other industries that rely on the increased costs? How will they survive? /s

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ahhh I'm sorry! I forgot about the poor shareholders! Forgive me!

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m beginning to think you don’t love the GDP, citizen

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

GDP me harder daddy

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

I work in auto insurance and 100% agree. Shocks my coworkers when don't think auto insurance shouldn't be all about profit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 94 points 2 days ago (7 children)

The biggest thing with auto insurance isn't covering your car, it's covering the cost of whatever you hit sueing you.

Your car may only be worth $3,000, but if you hit a pedestrian and they require a dozen surgeries and are wheelchair bound for life, you bet you're ass you're getting sued for a few million in medical costs.

In a reasonable country, those medical costs would be free, but since they're not you need some sort of protection against once accident bankrupting you in civil suits.

[–] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Why is car insurance so expensive in all the other countries then?

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago

In addition to what everyone else said, property damage is a big part of it as well.

Let's say you run into a building and knock out a load bearing wall. Or plough through a business or government office. It's not impossible to rack up a couple million in damages if you crash bad enough.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Real answer: in most other countries you can be punitively sued, ex: if a person wants to recoup the emotional damages from being crippled. You can also, depending on the country, be made to cover the cost of services provided by the medical system if you were found to be at fault (I don't know how often that happens for an individual vs. a large company, but that's how the rates were explained to me by a UK colleague)

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago

Plus there are things not covered by healthcare, and loss of income etc

[–] yobasari@feddit.org 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Even in countries with universal health care surgeries aren't typically free. They are just paid by a public health insurance. That health insurance will pay at first but it will try to get it's money back from you if you injured somebody.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 7 points 2 days ago

Repair costs for two vehicles outside the US is probably just as expensive as a doctor's visit for a single person inside the US.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I never really thought about that before. That's probably why america hasn't had healthcare for all, the insurance companies are lobbying (bribing) the shit out of the republicans.

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Health insurance companies are lobbying the shit out of both parties. Car insurance companies would love universal healthcare. It would drop their outlays which would increase their profits.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 59 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Then if you are in an accident or something happens to your car, they'll try not to pay out and even if they do, they'll make you pay even more every month, regardless of whether the accident was your fault or not. Oh and you have to have it where I live or you're breaking the law.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Where I live, you can choose to not have it as long as you take $50,000 and put it into a bank account and secure it and not touch that $50,000 as long as you are driving without insurance.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago (4 children)

One car insurance company where I live operates kinda like this. USAA.

Every subscriber is a member. Every year, after they pay operating costs, they take the money left over from premiums and put it into accounts distributed across all the members. When you reach a certain age you can withdraw the money accumulated in your account.

[–] Seaguy05@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I haven't heard of this. What's this benefit called?

Edit: I should take one minute before asking questions.

Member-Owned Structure: Unlike a publicly traded company that pays dividends to stockholders, USAA is a reciprocal interinsurance exchange, meaning its members are also its owners. Profits, after expenses and reserve requirements are met, are returned to members.

Subscriber Savings Account (SSA): A small percentage of the property and casualty insurance premiums paid by an eligible member is retained by USAA and allocated to an SSA in their name.

Annual Distributions: The USAA Board of Directors decides each year how much capital is needed for reserves. Any excess is distributed back to members from their SSA. This distribution amount can vary annually based on factors like the company's financial performance and the member's longevity and account balance.

Payout Options: Members typically have the option to: Apply the distribution to their insurance premiums. Receive the funds via direct deposit or check

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Yeah I didn't know most of that. I'm not a veteran so I can't be a. Member even though I bank with them. Or couldn't last I checked. I probably can now because my MiL is a vet.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The idea is that what you pay goes to a fund that is used when the insurer has to pay a client, therefore socialising the costs of fixing whatever the clients insured.

If every client could get their money back, the company would likely have less money available for the payouts (and would risk everyone taking their money out once a big payout is due), and might go bankrupt if too many payouts come up at once.

So instead the idea is that ideally you end up paying less than you'd get if you needed to fix whatever you're insured for... but it's like a bet: you bet that shit'll happen before you've paid more, the insurer bets that it won't.

Of course, though, like in all businesses based on gambling the house always wins.

Even if they weren't scamming you, they've got actuarial tables telling them how much you have to pay to make sure they'll have a certain amount of profit... but of course they are scamming you, and they'll do everything possible to avoid paying you even in the unlikely event that you fall on the wrong side of the actuarial table.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Devial@discuss.online 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (18 children)

The difference is that (in theory at least), insurance will pay your full costs, regardless of how much you've already paid in. You can sign an auto insurance on one day, pay in 100$, then get into a 20k$ crash the next, and get the entire costs covered.

A retirement savings fund is capped by how much money you've put in it. You can never take out more money than you've put in (+interest/portfolio growth).

That's kinda the whole point of insurance. If you want an insurance model like described in the post, well nothing is stopping you from opening an ETF or other savings fund, and dedicating it to auto payments. It's not like you need a dedicated industry/service for that.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Exactly. Insurance is best thought of as similar to gambling, but functionally the opposite. It's "I'm giving you $x per month knowing that I'm probably going to lose money on this exchange, but in return if I'm hit with y disaster that it would be very difficult to financially recover from then you pay for it".

I get that some people are frustrated by it during financial squeezes, and with liability insurance it can be annoying as it's mandatory. But as someone who's gotten a renter's insurance payout, the relief of "thank fuck I'm not out thousands of dollars while having to deal with this disaster" is immense

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

How about the fact that home insurance doesn't cover preventative care. We had a branch fall on our roof and the insurance had to pay out to get that part of the roof fixed. I pointed out that there's another dead branch up there that I'm a little concerned about hitting the roof, and maybe they would prefer to pay a few hundred to get a guy up there to remove the branch than a few thousand to get the roof repaired the next time, and the insurance company said absolutely not.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Insurance is about compensation for loss, and that's it. It's not their job to keep your house safe, that's still on you. It's their job to give you money if something happens beyond your control. Now that you mentioned that other branch, you should probably take care of it, if it falls they could deny your claim since you were negligent in preventing a known risk.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Insurance is about compensation for loss, and that’s it.

That's certainly not true of medical insurance. Preventative care is part of the whole package. In fact, certain preventative care is encouraged. Health insurance companies are more than happy to pay for UTIs, for instance, because they're so much cheaper than pregnancies.

[–] rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Did you mean IUDs? Can't get preggo from a UTI...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 19 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Insurance is a brilliant, beautiful idea. People come together to pool resources so that in the rare event that a catastrophe befalls someone, that unlucky person does not lose everything.

The idea of insurance went wrong when for-profit companies were allowed to get involved. Public insurance is cheaper and better. I'm not sure if it is still the case today, but until a few years ago public insurance in Saskatchewan cost a couple hundred bucks a year while people in other provinces were paying $1500 for the same coverage.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 17 points 14 hours ago

Here is an exhaustive list of things that were improved when it was made for-profit:

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wait to get hit?

I don't think you're doing it right.

Step 1 make sure you have gap insurance.

Step 2 never make more than the minimum car payment.

Step 3 when your ready for a new car, side swipe a car on the left and drive into a brick wall on the right. Make sure there are no cameras.

Step 4 enjoy your new car.

Step 5 commit identity fraud so you can keep a low insurance premium!

Step 6 do none of this because it's all crimes. I really hope you read the instructions to the end before starting.

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hi, I followed your comment while reading it. I'm stuck after step 3, the police are asking lots of questions. Pls help.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

New number

Who dis?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 day ago

There is plenty to criticise about insurance companies, how did they stumble upon the one thing that is fine?

[–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

It's not a scam, it's just how companies work. By definition, every insurance will pay out less than they collected in payments. They have to pay their employees, their offices, taxes an yes, also their shareholders. That's why, on average, insuring something is always a loosing bet.

You should only insure yourself against things that are potentially threatening your or your family's existence: Liability, health, home, occupational disability, survivor benefits. For everything else it's almost always better to just put the money into an account to have it at hand in case.

[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Insurance should always be public. If you feel the need to say things like “companies need to pay their shareholders,” you are only one braincell away from saying “gotta keep the lights on”.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago

All insurance companies and lotteries take in huge amounts of cash and pay relatively little back. The whole economy is a scam if everyone needs "insurance".

[–] nexguy@lemmy.world 10 points 20 hours ago (13 children)

The point of insurance is to protect your standard of living. If you can absorb the loss of something then you don't need insurance for it(game controller for example). Most people can not absorb the sudden loss of a car(or house). So a company takes on the risk for you for a fee. That's the general idea anyway.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I self insure. I keep my state minimum and pay what I would pay in collision to myself in an interest bearing acct until I reach the replacement cost of the vehicle. Took a while the first time but after those first few years it has been worth it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] myotheraccount@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My bicycle theft insurance also pays for regular checks, and routine repairs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›