An Inconvenient Truth

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Personally I don't see it that way. I've been in the insurance industry for 5+ years now and as I see things, insurance companies pay when they are obligated to do so and a claim is deemed compensable. Yes they are careful and diligent when examining and adjusting claims to ensure they are paying what is due within the policy terms and limits, but that's just good business and it's not some sort of exclusive practice limited to insurance companies.

I actually agree that at the claims level, on an individual basis, yes this is pretty much true. Providing prompt service is part of being a profitable business.

With that said, however, insurance companies pay huge amounts to lobbyists who target laws beneficial to consumers that may end up costing the companies more. Likewise, when there is an ambiguity in the law, count on the company not to do what's "right" but what is cost effect from a policy (not insurance policy but policy as general practice) standpoint. The concern being that consumers do not necessarily have the economic clout to challenge the underlying legislative/policy issues and may not even have the basic knowledge that alternative applications/issues exist.

Don't get me wrong. I am not slamming companies (though there are some that truly deserved to be slammed - just like there are some consumers who game the system). Instead, I am simply pointing out that consumers and insurance companies have opposite profit motives (consumers want more for less and companies want to provide less for more) and that insurers are better equipped to marshall their considerable resources in order to protect and promote their profit motive.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I actually agree that at the claims level, on an individual basis, yes this is pretty much true. Providing prompt service is part of being a profitable business.

With that said, however, insurance companies pay huge amounts to lobbyists who target laws beneficial to consumers that may end up costing the companies more. Likewise, when there is an ambiguity in the law, count on the company not to do what's "right" but what is cost effect from a policy (not insurance policy but policy as general practice) standpoint. The concern being that consumers do not necessarily have the economic clout to challenge the underlying legislative/policy issues and may not even have the basic knowledge that alternative applications/issues exist.

Don't get me wrong. I am not slamming companies (though there are some that truly deserved to be slammed - just like there are some consumers who game the system). Instead, I am simply pointing out that consumers and insurance companies have opposite profit motives (consumers want more for less and companies want to provide less for more) and that insurers are better equipped to marshall their considerable resources in order to protect and promote their profit motive.

I agree, thanks for the clarification. I was just too focused on your comment about them taking advantage of the system, but what you're saying here I agree with.