Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

107

I never quite understood this. Why were they doing that? It was like a placation payment, protection money paid to the public to shut up.

What were they afraid of? That someone was going to take a closer look at their finances and see how badly everyone is getting screwed? It's not like they don't have people scrutinizing them at every turn, and we all know what a scam insurance is.

I'm missing part of the picture. What is it?

I never quite understood this. Why were they doing that? It was like a placation payment, protection money paid to the public to shut up. What were they afraid of? That someone was going to take a closer look at their finances and see how badly everyone is getting screwed? It's not like they don't have people scrutinizing them at every turn, and we all know what a scam insurance is. I'm missing part of the picture. What is it?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I wouldn't think the ObamaCare had clauses like that for auto insurance, but who knows the way they write legislation.

[–] • 1 pt

I don't think it did. I just find it odd that an insurer would refund because of lower than expected claims. That would normally just be profit.

A diversionary tactic perhaps.

[–] • 1 pt

They probably saw it as a PR move. Basically they wrote it off as advertising. Once one company did it, others didn't want to look bad.

[–] • 1 pt

That's the most logical explanation, and probably the correct one.