undefined | Better HN

0 pointsKalium1y ago0 comments

At the risk of being callous, the goal of home insurance is to assess and manage risk. Choosing ignorance in the interests of giving some people a subsidy on the assumption that they may be poorer does not further these goals in any way I can see.

If the goal is redistribution, then using accurate risk data as a starting point seems preferable.

0 comments

AdieuToLogic1y ago

> At the risk of being callous, the goal of home insurance is to assess and manage risk.

No, risk assessment and/or management is an internal operational concern.

The goal of insurance providers, home or otherwise, is to charge fees such that the insurer collects as much revenue as possible while simultaneously expending as little as possible to remedy claims.

Any justification legally available to an insurer supporting denying or reducing a claim will be employed.

Too1y ago

If your insurers goal is revenue i suggest you go look for a new mutual insurance.

(no, this is not some hippie collective thing, in many countries this is the norm, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance)

PurestGuava1y ago

An insurance mutual's goal is still revenue. Your own link spells it out - it still tries to make a profit, it's just that whatever profit arises gets redistributed to policy holders or others. It still has to respond to commercial pressures and the need to run a sustainable business in the same way as any firm.

It's a common misconception that co-operatives/mutuals somehow don't need to make money or will actively try to not make money, but in reality if they don't they tend to die fairly quickly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse