I think this company will flop really quickly. I’d put the over/under at 2 1/2 years from the sale of the first policy to when doors are closed. Thoughts?
You know what they say…..give ’em enough rope. In the battle twixt corrupt, fallible human nature and Lemonade, I’ll have to bet
on human nature. Sorry………….
‘The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.’ – Damon Runyon —
Notice nobody that deals with the retail public was engaged. In a business that deals with the legal, regulatory and uneducated masses, good luck on the delightful experience thing.
Only an intelligent person realizes that insurance is a good investment, even if you don’t have a claim. The rest abhor paying money for no tangible return.
They will last exactly as long as the burn rate on the invested capital, and then the reinsurers will be left with the proverbial bag. Good luck changing humans. I think what they’re missing is that insurance claims disrupt lives, and people don’t like having their lives disrupted. And if they seriously believe they are going to change the behaviors of claimants and their attorneys, well, I know of this bridge for which I can quickly produce a quit claim deed if they’re willing to send me part of the VCs’ money…
$13 million would go a long way in helping Michigan get lead free water or feeding hungry people or helping Bernie Sanders get nominated. Instead, it will line the pockets of people with a dumb idea.
One of my friends sent me an online political quiz and depending on how you answered, it would tell you which candidate you agreed with and the percent of agreement. After completing it and answering it with my Conservative opinion, I got a good idea. Then, I reversed it and answered like the typical far left Progressive Democrat. It ended up Bernie at 96% and Hillary at 93%. They are polar opposites of Conservative Republicans and followers of them are Bi-Polar.
And you are incapable of answering how the typical conservative would think, and therefore cannot comment regarding agent or conservatives.
Move along UW.
February 29, 2016 at 2:16 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38
4
No Bob, actually I’m not incompetent when it comes to conservatives. I am from a very conservative place, studied them extensively in college, and have read almost every conservative philosophy book. As an example, I also correctly predicted Trump would have staying power in the primary, because I understand conservatives in the US. On the other hand Agent predicted these guys would fall off presumably resulting in a win for Bush. Not 3 months ago mind you, but less than one month ago.
Even if that were not true I could still comment accurately about Agent’s skills of analysis, because based on his comments here I know for a fact he is an outright dolt. You should check yourself since you seem to share most of his idiotic views. If you can’t read 5 of his comments and recognize him as an outright moron, sorry, but you’re just not educated, nor are you intelligent.
You on the other hand repeat every bullshit right-wing talking point, and even went so far as dismissing Dixiecrats having moved to the Republican Party, something not really debated anywhere even halfway serious. You are more literate, but just as misinformed as Agent. I will acknowledge that an error in spelling is not relevant, unless it is something other than a typo or autocorrect, and done in the context of assuming a person’s intelligence. I see in other stories you have foregone the false civility you cling to so hard, which is a step in the right direction.
A: I made the argument that republicans voted for the civil rights bill more than democrats as a percentage, and were notoriously anti segregation. I said that the south did not flip republican due to racism. Your studies are familiar to me because I’m in a liberal state. I have seen your arguments.
B: I do not go in tandem with the right. Ergo my public option commentary, my agreeing with expanded retirement encouragement from Obama, and my condemning of the HPV vaccine being limited in Texas due to republican leanings.
C: I am more “Literate”? Excuse me? First, this is extreme bigotry and partisan behavior. Conservatives are not illiterate. Second, this shows how poorly you are educated on demographics and conservatives. While less republicans are college graduates it is not by much, and on the other end a substantially larger amount of uneducated high school drop outs or people who have low information in voting are democrats. Here is another statistic: Republicans break away from their party more often than democrats. I believe I recall it being somewhere around 65% of republicans always vote republican, and somewhere around 80% of democrats always vote democrat. I know demographics well.
D: Your college education does not give you an edge in general knowledge. What did you major in? Is it related to what you debate agent regarding? I doubt it. So you can’t use that. This is known as as homniem behavior. It is the first sign of an idiot or a zealot. In your case, I go with Zealot.
E: And quite possibly the most important: Agent said he filled out the answers for a program the absolute opposite. So, you’re saying he’s not qualified to say that Hillary and Bernie are the absolute opposite, but he’s not saying that his qualification state that. He’s saying that the system he plugged the numbers into stated that. At this point your question should be, what were your answers.
But instead you said: You aren’t qualified to weigh this.
You UW know nothing about politics. We have debated a lot, and what I say is not typical to the republican party, it is atypical in many cases. I don’t say the same things as agent. This is a fact.
However, I do often point out how you are wrong on typical republican talking points. This is not the same as sharing the talking points, as I often show how your data is wrong, as opposed to repeat a talking point.
I don’t expect you to understand that, you’re too indoctrinated. I have searched for people who say what I say.
No one. NO ONE. Does. Not Fox News, not Agent.
I broke apart the WHO study. NO ONE else did this.
I broke apart the discrimination law in WA state and said why it was a problem, quoting the law.
NO ONE else did this.
I took sections of laws and put the problems here.
If you want to call me slightly more literate, you’re a damn polarized fool.
It is called disagreeing UW, something you label people for and attack for, and call people illiterate for.
Agent is a just fine person in politics, no better or worse than you.
I consider him behind in many areas. I consider him ahead in others.
I consider you have elements of truth. I consider Bernie does as well. This is why I recently told a friend that if a republican put forth Bernie’s single payer option, in a slightly different way, fixed the tax code, and kept private health insurance I would vote for him. Or alternatively, I would vote for Bernie.
You are so indoctrinated, you call the best moderates (me) polarized illiterate conservatives.
You don’t have a clue why Trump is winning.
It is not vitriol, though Trump is fighting that way. The last few republicans debated properly, (namely Paul Ryan vs Biden) and were called liars on stage, and after the debate finally went through studies finally proved them right on the taxes they proposed. You just aren’t aware of that fact. There were studies just before the election that said they were wrong, and coincidentally just after the same people admitted the were wrong and Romney was right. Too little, too late.
The last two elections republicans have seen good candidates lose. They want to see a fighter now.
And it is isn’t just his fighting.
Watch Trump’s meeting with Hannity in Nevada and tell me Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about in regards to business. He makes a good point, and talks about bringing jobs back. He also talks about, as he has before, giving healthcare to everyone. His means is a different delivery. The idea is the government pays, and negotiates prices, for those who need immediate treatment. It is as he worded it, somewhat similar to an expansion of medicaid.
So he wants moderate aspects, he is not an extreme republican.
His tax plan makes sense. If you look at studies, his taxes would benefit the economy if funded. Now look at the corporate tax revenues he wants to bring in by doing a one time tax on repatriated earnings. It brings in enough to finance what he talks about.
His commentary on pharmaceuticals sounds like a democrat. Regarding cutting cost there.
The guy is essentially a combo of democrat and republican.
The reason he is winning the nomination isn’t vitriol. It is people see him as potentially a non politician based fighter, who is a moderate.
But do you even know this?
Have you even looked up Trump other than to see how much of a screw up he is and from the perspective of him being a liar and a lunatic?
Try looking at what he says outside of the debates. He is clearly a good speaker.
You are clueless on politics.
Here is another aspect that shows my moderate behavior:
Ted Cruz and Rubio and Jeb are the republican equivalents of Hillary Clinton. Allow me to explain, since you are not a moderate:
They are the big money candidates with corruption.
Bernie sanders is naive, and in my opinion his policies would be bad, but he is good in regards to intentions. He is not the special interests.
And in the case with republicans, Trump is the equivalent. He is not the special interest.
If Trump and Sanders ran, I have little doubt that Sanders would win, just on a little naive behavior part of the American people. But the fact that Trump and Sanders are in the election show a double sided crack up, not just one. And it isn’t due to vitriol.
People are sick of the crap UW. Yourself included.
But in your case, you are a partisan jerk, the exact type of personality that created this vitriol and you’re accusing others of it.
You will see me often change my mind here. You think I’m thick headed, but:
Did you not see where I told Rosenblatt I am afraid of Trump winning the nomination?
In another section I said Bernie would be the worst possible choice.
Now here I am taking elements I like of Bernie, elements I like of Trump, weighing the actuality (the healthcare one is a big one, and Trump and Sanders hypothetically have similar ideals in regards to healthcare for all, which is why I changed my mind on both of them. Not one. Both UW.).
I now think Hillary is the worst option, someone who will do a lot of nothing but the same as Obama.
I mean FFS kid, stop calling me a partisan voter.
This is exactly why you liberals may lose the next election. You claim the republicans do it to moderates and some moral high ground.
Yes, republicans do this as well, but it simply doesn’t work! I have never seen a republican use this argument point and then have it work.
But in your side, I have seen it work. This shows the greater burden of morality is on the republican, not the democrat.
Romney and Ryan lost on idealistic image destruction. Fear, telling people that the elderly and children would die. They lost due to commercials showing a Ryan look alike push a Granny off a cliff! You think Trump is over the top, look inward as to why this is happening! The wars you claim you didn’t start, were indefinitely the primary factor.
I would vote democrat if I saw this power struggle flip the other way.
If I saw a commercial about Obama in a menacing outfit pushing people off cliffs maniacally saying he wants to kill (born and between the ages of 3-10) children, and it ACTUALLY WON the election.
But I DON’T see this happening. I see republicans fighting and losing. I see them losing on the debt deal even though they were right. The healthcare issues, even though they are right.
Do you know moderates??? They want what the republicans proposed! They don’t want obamacare!
Yet they vote against what they want due very well coordinated image attacks. Now we have again people going after the republican party and turning a blind eye to the democrats.
This is literally the biggest reason I vote republican (other than knowing how much democrats pass laws that allow law suits, and government assisted power for businesses and I can list how, whereas you will just list tax decreases for ALL companies as proof of cronyism for republicans I can show how democrat laws made Comcast the ONLY choice in my neighborhood, and killed DHT in Oregon, and favored Fex ex in Ohio, do you have ANY examples of a republican cronyism law?)
I mean really. This is insanity. And we need it ended.
You actually tried to argue that a minimum wage increase to $15 wouldn’t harm the economy.
Do you even know the republican solution?
It’s always the same battle with democrats. Allow me to explain:
The republicans said they are ok with a minimum wage increase if it applies as a percentage of left over capital. So that say small businesses wouldn’t be hurt.
Obama then says: I will only pass an across the board $15 rate.
The republicans say ok then we won’t support it.
Then Obama lies to the public and says: Republicans are against minimum wage increases! They hate the middle class!
Let’s show some others:
Ron recently asked why republicans were against Obama’s lower tax rate. That’s because of the same reason. It was”t just a lower tax rate. He tied it to business laws. Now if we want to change those laws he tied to it, they are tied together and are harder to modify.
The gay discrimination laws in WA State. The republicans said they needed the law to protect celebratory fees. So they wouldn’t pass it.
The democrats put that in there on purpose, so the republicans would say no to the law and then could say : Republicans don’t like gays.
Then we have the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act. The republicans said it would allow for previous companies to sue someone who had nothing to do with the discrimination at hand. Considering punitive damages, you could have this system worked in the wrong way.
Then Obama said that republicans were against women.
It’s the same thing every single time.
It is no coincidence that Obama said once: We try to pass things they like and they still tell us no!
He knows this well because he sets it up in advance, it is what he does that he says they do.
Use some examples comparable. Am I still talking like a typical republican? Did you even know these things?
So in other words, the Trump supporters are tired of this.
The democrat slash and burn games work very well. It isn’t just slash and burn. They put up laws with the very intent of having them rejected, and knowing the public won’t read the law, or the republican reaction as to why they are against it.
They need someone who will point this out. The only way is to have someone barge in there, saying “You’re a liar. Here’s what we are doing.”. Then when the democrat tries a come back, to interrupt him again, and not let him try his lie, and say “No. You’re lying. Here is the truth.” Then interrupt again, and say how terrible they are.
Because the fact is, if this doesn’t happen, the bully here is going to win. And sorry, the bully is the democrat politicians.
Allow me to point out why the democrats are hypocrites on the minimum wage rate not harming the economy as well, or were lying in the Paul Ryan debate:
Biden was swinging his hands around saying “97% of all businesses are $250,000 or smaller”
How affordable do you think a jump of roughly $7 in many states (which is $14,560 dollars at 40 hour weeks) would be for a firm that is supposedly $250,000 in billings?
If 97% of businesses are that size, if you knew anything about profit margins, you would know the numbers for an across the board $15 increase wouldn’t work.
Biden was trying to say that any tax increases in that range could destroy the economy. But a $14,560 charge wouldn’t?
Do you or do you not see the lying in this?
We can’t allow Paul Ryan to do a middle tax cut that he would have to do! (Believes that he would do what he said he would do while not believing Paul Ryan as he is saying what he will do? Doesn’t make sense). It’s impossible!
Oh by the way, it’s not impossible. Oh by the way now we want to charge those same businesses almost $15,000 per employee and that will not affect the economy.
Flip flop tick tock, I remember.
February 29, 2016 at 7:08 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24
4
Bob, there is a lot of ignorant bullshit here, even for you. I originally thought you were slightly more intellectual than the average conservative. I admit I was terribly wrong. You are an average right-wing dolt. It’s so much I will only address a few things.
First, you state, “I mean really, this is coming from the same guy who claims studies show that minimum wage increases to $15 say it won’t harm the economy.”
I replied to this, with studies. I do however it was a good amount of time after your long, incorrect statements, so you probably did not see it.
The best general study on minimum wage is this one. It shows that the preponderance of all recently published studies on this show no effect on jobs for an increase of minimum wage at this level. It also shows that the ones that show a big negative impact are far less rigorous and incorporate more data. I would argue this is intentional, because the right-wing fraud machine is so large, but he article does not state that. Your commentary on Republicans offering an above capital alternative to minimum wage is also completely wrong, because it wasn’t really supported. It’s also a terrible idea. You have to search very hard to find that, because it wasn’t pushed by them as an actual alternative. Again, the leading candidates don’t believe in it, and Trump, the leader, has said it should be lower. Yes, if you go back before WWII you can find a handful of GOP guys in favor of it, but it’s not something the party supports. You also incorrectly state, “Obama then says: I will only pass an across the board $15 rate.” Which is interesting since the highest I have seen him go is $12/hr, and I’m sure you were here complaining when he had to override a filibuster by Republicans to even raise it to the $7 range, even though they are in favor of it.
You comically state, “Romney and Ryan lost on idealistic image destruction.” Which is incorrect. They lost because Romney slipped and exposed the Republican ideology about every non-rich person being a parasite, and because Ryan got annihilated in the VP debate (as Romney did in the last 2 debates). Ryan, the GOP wonderkid is a fraud, who puts forward fraudulent budgets. He’s a lightweight, and was exposed as such.
The rest of your comments are the moronic rantings of an uneducated person, so why bother. But, you seem to cling to delusions of competence when it comes to minimum wage, despite all the actual economic evidence disproving your statements. I’m sure you have a Glenn Beck-level source to cite, by somebody who isn’t an economist, and looks at prewar rural areas, or some other bullshit, but the modern, real-world evidence is pretty overwhelming.
Your debt rant is equally deluded. We are at near 0% interest rates, and for a time were at negative real interest rates, or approaching it. Debt is almost a non-issue right now, especially with an economy lagging on the demand side. Obama should have taken on significantly more debt in order to create spending projects, and decrease the value of the dollar a little. The main articles your side cite, by Reinhart & Rogoff has been exposed as completely wrong at least, and potentially fraudulent, as usual.
You are far more clueless than I thought, nothing more than an idiotic, know-nothing, right-wing dolt. Go Trump you will be saying any day now.
March 2, 2016 at 2:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
And I replied to you, showing 3/4ths of the studies out there in this state view that you are wrong.
You just did what I accused you of doing.
This is called disagreeing. It does not make me ignorant, and it does not make me an illiterate right winger.
I am not a dolt for quoting studies. I don’t have time for your stupidity right now UW.
I’m out.
March 2, 2016 at 2:53 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
This site quotes students of Harvard, and Richard Sutch.
Have you ever watched Glen Beck? I haven’t. Do you even know what he says? This is your issue, your labeling.
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. That is one of my sources. He is a California University Professor of Economics.
The jury is not settled on this. Your links have no more proven it doesn’t have a harm than mine disprove it. Neither make the argument settled as you have in partisan lunacy implied.
If 3/4ths of the studies in one state disagree with you, you don’t get to say that it is settled debate.
This would be like the supposed ignoring of climate change scientists, it is irresponsible.
If you want to disprove my other areas you are free to try, instead of calling me a dolt, why don’t you try talking to the MODERATE who thinks you’re a fool?
Your tactics work so well, that many people in my state don’t watch Fox News (myself included). They don’t source quote many conservative people.
For all you bring up Glenn Beck, I’ve never quoted him. For all you quote Bill O’reily I’ve never quoted him.
I have used the CBO, I have given links to laws and studies. I have taken the WHO study and broken it down.
I showed Libby the sections of the patriot act that Obama passed when she said they were the least controversial, with the law itself. She was wrong.
Have you ever even looked at a law and tried to interpret it?
Or have you relied on the interpretations of others, and labeled some, and relied on who you know type of source quoting as opposed to what you say?
You see, even if Glenn beck were wrong 50% of the time, if someone quoted him, you would still have to prove the concept wrong, not Glenn Beck. While you democrats love this association game when it benefits you, I could just as easily go back to Obama’s Kenyan father, and Obama’s God Damn America priest that he loves so much.
But it isn’t appropriate is it?
And you know it. So stop doing it.
March 2, 2016 at 3:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
Which section am I so wrong in UW?
Show me.
With Biden’s debate about taxes on those making $250k and his 97% of businesses comment?
Go watch the vice president debate. He does say it.
Am I wrong that a $15 dollar minimum wage would cost more than removing a mortgage tax break? If this business was filing under the marginal rates, and had a building worth even $500,000 dollars, at even a 5% rate they would pay $440,000 in interest over 30 years, a deduction amortized of $14,665 per year. They would be in the 15% tax range or lower after deductions outside of the mortgage. That would be $2,200 dollars. That is what Biden said could ruin businesses. That is far lower than $14,000 per employee. I am 100% correct on this hypocrisy by the numbers.
I might not be right about minimum wage long term affects. As I said, the jury is out on that one. Either could be correct. For you to call me illiterate for looking into it is insane.
Republicans did end segregation in larger numbers and passed the civil rights bill of 1964 in larger numbers, and they did start the 1957 act before democrats did. You can’t just say that dixiecrats in the south were the true racists and that republicans went republican in the south due to racism. If the dixie crats broke off, they certainly didn’t become republican in the long or short run. Considering more republicans voted against racism and segregation, it simply cannot be that the the south would be racist and support the republican party, no matter what spin you put on it. So I am 100% correct there. The republican party is no more racist than the democrat. You cannot prove this by making some ignorant dixie crat statement.
The democrats did go against fed ex. It happened. The Ohio senator then said he represents Ohio and no one can comment even though he passed a federal regulation.
In Seattle Google has already said it is Bureaucracy as to why they aren’t here:
How many circumstances like this do you suppose exist?
Do you think it’s coincidence?
March 2, 2016 at 3:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Now onto the gay rights laws in Washington state:
I read the law. The celebratory fees are the primary issue. Do you deny this?
You just want to fall back onto homophobia as the reason why they won’t pass the law. Of misogyny. And at the same time you claim the republicans are the true party that do these types of attacks.
It is insane.
You are clueless UW. Not I.
March 2, 2016 at 4:00 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
10
1
Bob, you are a fucking idiot.First, dolt, you didn’t address the study I linked, because you obviously didn’t read it. It didn’t look at liberal economists, moron, it looked at all modern published work on the topic. Yes, as stated there are some showing both sides, and far and away the studies showing job losses have smaller datasets and are significantly less rigorous. Of course your reply is an article by a computer scientist and a story based on anecdotal evidence that doesn’t even claim what you lie and cite as a statistic.
Also, I find it pretty telling that along with your economic illiteracy you claim to know about conservatives and lecture people on what they want and call for, but have never listened to someone as influential in their movement as Beck.
You’re clueless, get a grip. Explain why the vast majority of actual economists don’t believe your claim about minimum wage, and their work and studies support this. It’s also funny how you cite so many computer scientists and people with English degrees. Urs, there is debate on this, but the economic work, literature and data overwhelmingly point to my claim being correct and your opinion being wrong, and most of the work pointing your way is substandard. This isn’t just my opinion, it’s the finding in the largest comprehensive academic study on the topic, and that’s not debatable.
Go back to trying to bully people who don’t know better, lightweight.
March 2, 2016 at 4:55 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10
0
Bob, you have such a superficial view on seemingly everything, it’s just absurd. As mentioned before, and ignored by you, the party makeup is drastically different now than 50+ years ago. Yes, more Republicans voted for the bill, and that’s where dumb people like yourself stop. In reality that’s because it was primarily a north/south issue. When you break it down on north/south lines, or roughly like the civil war the people for the bill are the modern liberals/Democrats. The Democrats against it were the Dixiecrats who ended up leaving the Democratic Party to become Republicans largely because the Democrats weren’t racist like them, e.g. Strom Thurman.
The votes for the bill were largely because so many of these dixiecrats were in office in the south. In north/south comparisons in every category a higher percentage of Democrats were against it than Republicans, but the total number of deep south democrats was high. These people left to become Republicans. Not to mention the Democratic leadership pushed the bill and it we signed by a Democratic president. We can ignore the modern Republicans against the bill and the right-wing supreme court justices striking down parts of the bill I guess.
Your views on everything are so superficial and so absent of any depth you seem as if you have never read a substantive book, and certainly haven’t about politics or history.
February 24, 2016 at 3:54 pm
MeIsEinstein says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19
4
Here we go, another “Google Compare” venture. Let this be of record that on 02/24/2016 MeIsEinstein predicted that the “Lemonade” would go sour very soon.
Google Compare at least had some serious money behind it. Even they couldn’t make a go out of Personal Auto. I pity the fool that allows them to write a policy for them.
I’ve read several pieces on Lemonade and can’t for the life of me, figure out what they are going to do? Is it auto? Life? GL? I mean what kind of insurance do they intend to offer? Where? When? $13 million isn’t enough $ to carry forward an office lease on Manhattan for 8 months, so where will all the ‘real’ capital come from? They have a lot of answering to do so they should put up some real plans or shut up about until they have some real plans.
God if you were doing a comedy bit you would be borderline genius. It would be much easier for you to just make every post something like, “You young punks get off my lawn!”
I occasionally enjoy trolling the conservative pinheads that seem to populate this site — but UW is on a glowing hot streak now so I’ll just sit back and smile. You go guy!!
Thanks. I was extra busy for a while so I had to take a break but I’m back for a while now. It’s fun because not a single one has the facts on their side. I know we have the majority on our side and most stay silent because it’s so annoying dealing with them but I find it enjoyable.
February 26, 2016 at 9:28 am
Bill says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22
1
“Lemonade’s founders promise their firm’s technology and approach will disrupt and reinvent the insurance industry business model and make insurance a ‘delightful’ experience for consumers.”
I suspect, like most of these recent start-ups, that the “experience” they refer to is the buying experience, not the claim experience. If the latter, the delightful experience will turn into the disastrous experience when:
1. The insurer claims rep says, “That’s not covered” or
2. The insured says, “Hey, that’s not enough money to pay for….”
Bill, it is largely the claims part, although I’m sure they will sell it through a relatively simple app.
They plan on having people pay into a pool, and then instead of a company taking all the profit they will refund the people buying into the fund with the reserves and presumably take a smaller profit (the articles I’ve read did not state anything on profit, but it should be assumed).
This will most likely be a terrible idea for a few reasons. Many companies barely make any profit on their premium, or actually lose a little, but as most here (should) know, make a lot of their money on their investments of premium. Refunding the majority of premium will significantly cut into their reserves to pay losses. This could be fine most of the time, until they get unlucky and have a lot of losses, or some catastrophic event resulting in mass claims/losses. Giving premium back also means they will have less money invested in the long-term significantly reducing the profit they gain on compound interest after many years. It’s almost like Warren Buffet, without the investing part.
Ariely has done some interesting work in the past, but based on his books I don’t think this is the right direction for this company, unless he is relatively cheap. He could be good in a marketing sense, or along the lines of “If we do X, we can get unexpected result Y,” because behavioral economics can be pretty good at that.
I will have to read more as it comes out, but I don’t see this company lasting long-term without changes based on the amount of premium they plan on giving back.
If you watch that video, it only takes seconds to realize this guy has no real grasp or understanding of the insurance business. For example he talks about the very small print and exclusions in policies. Well, every state has regulations about the size of the font that can be in a policy form. There has not been “fine print” in policies for many years, at least the 30 years I have been in the business. If one needs to perpetuate a myth to get their point across, their point must have little merit.
Their assumptions about why people commit fraud are wrong. Therefore the entire premise of their business model is flawed. They’ll discover this as soon as the peers begin adjusting each others claims. When it’s their money in the pool, and it starts disappearing with inflated/fraudulent claims, they are forced to raise rates as a result, and the peers start demanding answers……..they’ll become “heavy handed” very quickly.
This company will not pay on your claims, there are very dishonest. Had fire back in September 29, 2017 and they still have not pay on damages, nor liability, and replacement claims. They work through a silly App that only works with Apple & some Android phones and you have no live customer service to talk to for your claims. They want to talk about dishonest for within.
I think this company will flop really quickly. I’d put the over/under at 2 1/2 years from the sale of the first policy to when doors are closed. Thoughts?
Good Luck. They’ll need it.
You know what they say…..give ’em enough rope. In the battle twixt corrupt, fallible human nature and Lemonade, I’ll have to bet
on human nature. Sorry………….
‘The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.’ – Damon Runyon —
What the hell is peer-to-peer insurance anyway?
Notice nobody that deals with the retail public was engaged. In a business that deals with the legal, regulatory and uneducated masses, good luck on the delightful experience thing.
Only an intelligent person realizes that insurance is a good investment, even if you don’t have a claim. The rest abhor paying money for no tangible return.
BTW this is a silly idea and will fail.
They will last exactly as long as the burn rate on the invested capital, and then the reinsurers will be left with the proverbial bag. Good luck changing humans. I think what they’re missing is that insurance claims disrupt lives, and people don’t like having their lives disrupted. And if they seriously believe they are going to change the behaviors of claimants and their attorneys, well, I know of this bridge for which I can quickly produce a quit claim deed if they’re willing to send me part of the VCs’ money…
Great point on much of the “problem” being disrupted lives.
$13 million would go a long way in helping Michigan get lead free water or feeding hungry people or helping Bernie Sanders get nominated. Instead, it will line the pockets of people with a dumb idea.
What could be dumber than getting Bernie Sanders nominated?
A crook like Hillary getting nominated.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You misspelled bipolar. You are also incapable of answering how ” the typical far left Progressive Democrat” would answer.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
No Bob, actually I’m not incompetent when it comes to conservatives. I am from a very conservative place, studied them extensively in college, and have read almost every conservative philosophy book. As an example, I also correctly predicted Trump would have staying power in the primary, because I understand conservatives in the US. On the other hand Agent predicted these guys would fall off presumably resulting in a win for Bush. Not 3 months ago mind you, but less than one month ago.
Even if that were not true I could still comment accurately about Agent’s skills of analysis, because based on his comments here I know for a fact he is an outright dolt. You should check yourself since you seem to share most of his idiotic views. If you can’t read 5 of his comments and recognize him as an outright moron, sorry, but you’re just not educated, nor are you intelligent.
You on the other hand repeat every bullshit right-wing talking point, and even went so far as dismissing Dixiecrats having moved to the Republican Party, something not really debated anywhere even halfway serious. You are more literate, but just as misinformed as Agent. I will acknowledge that an error in spelling is not relevant, unless it is something other than a typo or autocorrect, and done in the context of assuming a person’s intelligence. I see in other stories you have foregone the false civility you cling to so hard, which is a step in the right direction.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Bob, there is a lot of ignorant bullshit here, even for you. I originally thought you were slightly more intellectual than the average conservative. I admit I was terribly wrong. You are an average right-wing dolt. It’s so much I will only address a few things.
First, you state, “I mean really, this is coming from the same guy who claims studies show that minimum wage increases to $15 say it won’t harm the economy.”
I replied to this, with studies. I do however it was a good amount of time after your long, incorrect statements, so you probably did not see it.
The best general study on minimum wage is this one. It shows that the preponderance of all recently published studies on this show no effect on jobs for an increase of minimum wage at this level. It also shows that the ones that show a big negative impact are far less rigorous and incorporate more data. I would argue this is intentional, because the right-wing fraud machine is so large, but he article does not state that. Your commentary on Republicans offering an above capital alternative to minimum wage is also completely wrong, because it wasn’t really supported. It’s also a terrible idea. You have to search very hard to find that, because it wasn’t pushed by them as an actual alternative. Again, the leading candidates don’t believe in it, and Trump, the leader, has said it should be lower. Yes, if you go back before WWII you can find a handful of GOP guys in favor of it, but it’s not something the party supports. You also incorrectly state, “Obama then says: I will only pass an across the board $15 rate.” Which is interesting since the highest I have seen him go is $12/hr, and I’m sure you were here complaining when he had to override a filibuster by Republicans to even raise it to the $7 range, even though they are in favor of it.
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
You comically state, “Romney and Ryan lost on idealistic image destruction.” Which is incorrect. They lost because Romney slipped and exposed the Republican ideology about every non-rich person being a parasite, and because Ryan got annihilated in the VP debate (as Romney did in the last 2 debates). Ryan, the GOP wonderkid is a fraud, who puts forward fraudulent budgets. He’s a lightweight, and was exposed as such.
The rest of your comments are the moronic rantings of an uneducated person, so why bother. But, you seem to cling to delusions of competence when it comes to minimum wage, despite all the actual economic evidence disproving your statements. I’m sure you have a Glenn Beck-level source to cite, by somebody who isn’t an economist, and looks at prewar rural areas, or some other bullshit, but the modern, real-world evidence is pretty overwhelming.
Your debt rant is equally deluded. We are at near 0% interest rates, and for a time were at negative real interest rates, or approaching it. Debt is almost a non-issue right now, especially with an economy lagging on the demand side. Obama should have taken on significantly more debt in order to create spending projects, and decrease the value of the dollar a little. The main articles your side cite, by Reinhart & Rogoff has been exposed as completely wrong at least, and potentially fraudulent, as usual.
You are far more clueless than I thought, nothing more than an idiotic, know-nothing, right-wing dolt. Go Trump you will be saying any day now.
And I replied to you, showing 3/4ths of the studies out there in this state view that you are wrong.
You just did what I accused you of doing.
This is called disagreeing. It does not make me ignorant, and it does not make me an illiterate right winger.
I am not a dolt for quoting studies. I don’t have time for your stupidity right now UW.
I’m out.
This site quotes students of Harvard, and Richard Sutch.
Have you ever watched Glen Beck? I haven’t. Do you even know what he says? This is your issue, your labeling.
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. That is one of my sources. He is a California University Professor of Economics.
The jury is not settled on this. Your links have no more proven it doesn’t have a harm than mine disprove it. Neither make the argument settled as you have in partisan lunacy implied.
If 3/4ths of the studies in one state disagree with you, you don’t get to say that it is settled debate.
This would be like the supposed ignoring of climate change scientists, it is irresponsible.
If you want to disprove my other areas you are free to try, instead of calling me a dolt, why don’t you try talking to the MODERATE who thinks you’re a fool?
Because let me tell you:
You’re not recruiting well for democrats.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/inequality/the-effects-of-raising-the-minimum-wage#sthash.AKoEIAqM.dpuf
I might add UW:
Your tactics work so well, that many people in my state don’t watch Fox News (myself included). They don’t source quote many conservative people.
For all you bring up Glenn Beck, I’ve never quoted him. For all you quote Bill O’reily I’ve never quoted him.
I have used the CBO, I have given links to laws and studies. I have taken the WHO study and broken it down.
I showed Libby the sections of the patriot act that Obama passed when she said they were the least controversial, with the law itself. She was wrong.
Have you ever even looked at a law and tried to interpret it?
Or have you relied on the interpretations of others, and labeled some, and relied on who you know type of source quoting as opposed to what you say?
You see, even if Glenn beck were wrong 50% of the time, if someone quoted him, you would still have to prove the concept wrong, not Glenn Beck. While you democrats love this association game when it benefits you, I could just as easily go back to Obama’s Kenyan father, and Obama’s God Damn America priest that he loves so much.
But it isn’t appropriate is it?
And you know it. So stop doing it.
Which section am I so wrong in UW?
Show me.
With Biden’s debate about taxes on those making $250k and his 97% of businesses comment?
Go watch the vice president debate. He does say it.
Am I wrong that a $15 dollar minimum wage would cost more than removing a mortgage tax break? If this business was filing under the marginal rates, and had a building worth even $500,000 dollars, at even a 5% rate they would pay $440,000 in interest over 30 years, a deduction amortized of $14,665 per year. They would be in the 15% tax range or lower after deductions outside of the mortgage. That would be $2,200 dollars. That is what Biden said could ruin businesses. That is far lower than $14,000 per employee. I am 100% correct on this hypocrisy by the numbers.
I might not be right about minimum wage long term affects. As I said, the jury is out on that one. Either could be correct. For you to call me illiterate for looking into it is insane.
Republicans did end segregation in larger numbers and passed the civil rights bill of 1964 in larger numbers, and they did start the 1957 act before democrats did. You can’t just say that dixiecrats in the south were the true racists and that republicans went republican in the south due to racism. If the dixie crats broke off, they certainly didn’t become republican in the long or short run. Considering more republicans voted against racism and segregation, it simply cannot be that the the south would be racist and support the republican party, no matter what spin you put on it. So I am 100% correct there. The republican party is no more racist than the democrat. You cannot prove this by making some ignorant dixie crat statement.
The democrats did go against fed ex. It happened. The Ohio senator then said he represents Ohio and no one can comment even though he passed a federal regulation.
In Seattle Google has already said it is Bureaucracy as to why they aren’t here:
http://crosscut.com/2014/12/google-fiber-never-come-seattle-broadband-internet-2/
How many circumstances like this do you suppose exist?
Do you think it’s coincidence?
Now onto the gay rights laws in Washington state:
I read the law. The celebratory fees are the primary issue. Do you deny this?
You just want to fall back onto homophobia as the reason why they won’t pass the law. Of misogyny. And at the same time you claim the republicans are the true party that do these types of attacks.
It is insane.
You are clueless UW. Not I.
Bob, you are a fucking idiot.First, dolt, you didn’t address the study I linked, because you obviously didn’t read it. It didn’t look at liberal economists, moron, it looked at all modern published work on the topic. Yes, as stated there are some showing both sides, and far and away the studies showing job losses have smaller datasets and are significantly less rigorous. Of course your reply is an article by a computer scientist and a story based on anecdotal evidence that doesn’t even claim what you lie and cite as a statistic.
Also, I find it pretty telling that along with your economic illiteracy you claim to know about conservatives and lecture people on what they want and call for, but have never listened to someone as influential in their movement as Beck.
You’re clueless, get a grip. Explain why the vast majority of actual economists don’t believe your claim about minimum wage, and their work and studies support this. It’s also funny how you cite so many computer scientists and people with English degrees. Urs, there is debate on this, but the economic work, literature and data overwhelmingly point to my claim being correct and your opinion being wrong, and most of the work pointing your way is substandard. This isn’t just my opinion, it’s the finding in the largest comprehensive academic study on the topic, and that’s not debatable.
Go back to trying to bully people who don’t know better, lightweight.
Bob, you have such a superficial view on seemingly everything, it’s just absurd. As mentioned before, and ignored by you, the party makeup is drastically different now than 50+ years ago. Yes, more Republicans voted for the bill, and that’s where dumb people like yourself stop. In reality that’s because it was primarily a north/south issue. When you break it down on north/south lines, or roughly like the civil war the people for the bill are the modern liberals/Democrats. The Democrats against it were the Dixiecrats who ended up leaving the Democratic Party to become Republicans largely because the Democrats weren’t racist like them, e.g. Strom Thurman.
The votes for the bill were largely because so many of these dixiecrats were in office in the south. In north/south comparisons in every category a higher percentage of Democrats were against it than Republicans, but the total number of deep south democrats was high. These people left to become Republicans. Not to mention the Democratic leadership pushed the bill and it we signed by a Democratic president. We can ignore the modern Republicans against the bill and the right-wing supreme court justices striking down parts of the bill I guess.
Your views on everything are so superficial and so absent of any depth you seem as if you have never read a substantive book, and certainly haven’t about politics or history.
Here we go, another “Google Compare” venture. Let this be of record that on 02/24/2016 MeIsEinstein predicted that the “Lemonade” would go sour very soon.
Google Compare at least had some serious money behind it. Even they couldn’t make a go out of Personal Auto. I pity the fool that allows them to write a policy for them.
You know where lemonade comes from, right?
Just the name alone is enough to sink them.
“LEMONADE”
The article says insurance sucks. To quote Butthead: “aaaaaaaah idea this sucks, dude”.
I’ve read several pieces on Lemonade and can’t for the life of me, figure out what they are going to do? Is it auto? Life? GL? I mean what kind of insurance do they intend to offer? Where? When? $13 million isn’t enough $ to carry forward an office lease on Manhattan for 8 months, so where will all the ‘real’ capital come from? They have a lot of answering to do so they should put up some real plans or shut up about until they have some real plans.
Perhaps they will pay any claims in bitcoins?
God if you were doing a comedy bit you would be borderline genius. It would be much easier for you to just make every post something like, “You young punks get off my lawn!”
I occasionally enjoy trolling the conservative pinheads that seem to populate this site — but UW is on a glowing hot streak now so I’ll just sit back and smile. You go guy!!
Thanks. I was extra busy for a while so I had to take a break but I’m back for a while now. It’s fun because not a single one has the facts on their side. I know we have the majority on our side and most stay silent because it’s so annoying dealing with them but I find it enjoyable.
“Lemonade’s founders promise their firm’s technology and approach will disrupt and reinvent the insurance industry business model and make insurance a ‘delightful’ experience for consumers.”
I suspect, like most of these recent start-ups, that the “experience” they refer to is the buying experience, not the claim experience. If the latter, the delightful experience will turn into the disastrous experience when:
1. The insurer claims rep says, “That’s not covered” or
2. The insured says, “Hey, that’s not enough money to pay for….”
Bill, it is largely the claims part, although I’m sure they will sell it through a relatively simple app.
They plan on having people pay into a pool, and then instead of a company taking all the profit they will refund the people buying into the fund with the reserves and presumably take a smaller profit (the articles I’ve read did not state anything on profit, but it should be assumed).
This will most likely be a terrible idea for a few reasons. Many companies barely make any profit on their premium, or actually lose a little, but as most here (should) know, make a lot of their money on their investments of premium. Refunding the majority of premium will significantly cut into their reserves to pay losses. This could be fine most of the time, until they get unlucky and have a lot of losses, or some catastrophic event resulting in mass claims/losses. Giving premium back also means they will have less money invested in the long-term significantly reducing the profit they gain on compound interest after many years. It’s almost like Warren Buffet, without the investing part.
Ariely has done some interesting work in the past, but based on his books I don’t think this is the right direction for this company, unless he is relatively cheap. He could be good in a marketing sense, or along the lines of “If we do X, we can get unexpected result Y,” because behavioral economics can be pretty good at that.
I will have to read more as it comes out, but I don’t see this company lasting long-term without changes based on the amount of premium they plan on giving back.
Check out this video of the Chief Behavioral Officer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNOh243EtHc
50 bucks says he’s never read his own auto or homeowners policy. Clueless.
Bill, I watched that youtube and this guy could be the campaign manager for Bernie Sanders or the unsub on Criminal Minds BAU unit.
It’s Obama or Millenials, because that’s everything to you, idiot. Your statement makes no sense.
If you watch that video, it only takes seconds to realize this guy has no real grasp or understanding of the insurance business. For example he talks about the very small print and exclusions in policies. Well, every state has regulations about the size of the font that can be in a policy form. There has not been “fine print” in policies for many years, at least the 30 years I have been in the business. If one needs to perpetuate a myth to get their point across, their point must have little merit.
Their assumptions about why people commit fraud are wrong. Therefore the entire premise of their business model is flawed. They’ll discover this as soon as the peers begin adjusting each others claims. When it’s their money in the pool, and it starts disappearing with inflated/fraudulent claims, they are forced to raise rates as a result, and the peers start demanding answers……..they’ll become “heavy handed” very quickly.
This company will not pay on your claims, there are very dishonest. Had fire back in September 29, 2017 and they still have not pay on damages, nor liability, and replacement claims. They work through a silly App that only works with Apple & some Android phones and you have no live customer service to talk to for your claims. They want to talk about dishonest for within.