Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
or should they be allowed to make as much as possible?
Here is the problem with this type of thinking. Do you really want an insurer who has limits on their profit? Do you know how that can affect their ability to pay if they have higher claim payouts than what they take in on premiums?
Imagine if an insurer takes in $100,000 in premiums and only has to pay out, after overhead costs and claims, $85,000. That gives the insurer a stronger rating and a safer bet to be with. Imagine that same insurer has a higher claim payout for one year that is $120,000. They are now $20,000 in the hole. Would you feel safer with an insurer who doesn’t have the funds to cover higher expenses than the premiums they take in because there was limits on their profit. Most insurers have reserves and reinsurance, but you don’t want to limit what they make in profit because that can affect their ability to pay.
Do you want to create rules that now affects an insurers ability to pay claims because you limited how much they can take in as profit and possibly use for future payments?
If a company can experience no limits on its profits, then banks can charge whatever interest they want, right? People can scalp every ticket to a concert, charge $20 for a bottle of water after a disaster, gas stations can charge $100 for a gallon of gas to the thousands of people fleeing a hurricane, and pharmacies can charge $400 a pill to people lucky enough to walk away from the nuclear blast zone. As long as a business can trap you or grab you by your ***, it can do whatever it wants, right?
One can't support such rabid capitalism on the one hand and then complain about a dog eat dog world. Better to study cause and effect. However, failure to work together has only one consequence: an uncomfortable end for all those concerned.
Where a product or service actually has value, then profits should not be limited. I see nothing wrong with selling a million biodegradable widgets that bring joy to the world. But I do take offense to the exploitation inherent in products and services that prey on the weakness of individuals in times of distress. Deriving profits from life or death situations is immoral. Of course, I don't expect humanity to learn this lesson until it has noticeably thinned itself out.
Insurance is a well organized casino. Sometimes they win, sometimes they loose, very rarely they get busted by huge losses. Most insurance companies do not make the profit on the premiums but by investing the surplus. Some companies actually have real assets behind them. Most do not. With so many companies playing insurance actually approximates a free market.
If a company can experience no limits on its profits, then banks can charge whatever interest they want, right? People can scalp every ticket to a concert, charge $20 for a bottle of water after a disaster, gas stations can charge $100 for a gallon of gas to the thousands of people fleeing a hurricane, and pharmacies can charge $400 a pill to people lucky enough to walk away from the nuclear blast zone. As long as a business can trap you or grab you by your ***, it can do whatever it wants, right?
Right! exactly. They can choose to do all of those things. They also must deal with the consequences, whether it is bad PR, loss of customers, etc.
Quote:
One can't support such rabid capitalism on the one hand and then complain about a dog eat dog world.
I don't complain about a dog eat dog world. I embrace it.
Quote:
Where a product or service actually has value, then profits should not be limited.
I agree! Are you arguing that health insurance has no value? Then why would people pay for it?
I mean, I know that MY health insurance has value. I don't know about yours.
Quote:
I see nothing wrong with selling a million biodegradable widgets that bring joy to the world. But I do take offense to the exploitation inherent in products and services that prey on the weakness of individuals in times of distress.
What if a person were addicted to biodegradable widgets? Wouldn't the same company then be preying on the weakness of individuals in times of distress?
Quote:
Deriving profits from life or death situations is immoral.
Without profit, what would be the incentive for private organizations to facilitate the life of or prevent the death of people?
Note; not individuals.. I'm asking about organizations.
If a company can experience no limits on its profits, then banks can charge whatever interest they want, right? People can scalp every ticket to a concert, charge $20 for a bottle of water after a disaster, gas stations can charge $100 for a gallon of gas to the thousands of people fleeing a hurricane, and pharmacies can charge $400 a pill to people lucky enough to walk away from the nuclear blast zone. As long as a business can trap you or grab you by your ***, it can do whatever it wants, right?
.
From my own perspective I feel “just because you have it for sell doesn’t mean I have to buy it”. I’m a consumer, I want the best value for my money and I won’t “help” any business profit if I don’t feel like I’ve gotten a deal. Now that’s not taking the “price gouging” into consideration due to a catastrophe, I support those types of laws against profiting.
Right! exactly. They can choose to do all of those things. They also must deal with the consequences, whether it is bad PR, loss of customers, etc.
I don't complain about a dog eat dog world. I embrace it.
I agree! Are you arguing that health insurance has no value? Then why would people pay for it?
I mean, I know that MY health insurance has value. I don't know about yours.
What if a person were addicted to biodegradable widgets? Wouldn't the same company then be preying on the weakness of individuals in times of distress?
Without profit, what would be the incentive for private organizations to facilitate the life of or prevent the death of people?
Note; not individuals.. I'm asking about organizations.
Perhaps its the sinus medication I'm on, but you must live on a planet populated by businesses, not people.
About 10 years ago, I read a book written by a woman who was kidnapped by Aborigines in Australia. She lived with them for more than a year and came to understand that it was for a purpose. She had made a pledge to the group in a former life that she would promote the Aboriginal value system. In her book, a woman named Ooota--a woman who had never visited a city, driven a car, or had any experience with the modern world--made this astute observation: business seems to exist solely to be in business. In other words, from my now semi-Aboriginal viewpoint, business is man-made, a system by which we exploit resources and each other. It is not necessary for survival. To fashion it into an elaborate all-encompassing structure like you seem to be doing in your defense of it is rather disconcerting to me. Business, as we currently see it, will not exist in 5 years. It's time is done. An alternative needs to be developed if we plan on existing here on this planet. There IS life outside capitalism, outside dog-eat-dog competition. It is how life was intended to be, not this sorry creation that engulfs us.
Sorry to digress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.