Until the public becomes well versed in insurance, what it does, how it does it, what is proper coverage, … the majority of people need an agent to explain and examine their needs for insurance. This story covers this fact well: people do not know what limits or coverage they need, and they aren’t going to tell a computer when their needs change.
Still waiting for someone to sue Lemonade or other online service for “providing” them the wrong coverage.
Can you EVER engage in thoughtful discussion of a topic, or is politically misanthropic sniping all you’re capable of?
Look at the other two thoughtful, well-reasoned comments on this article. These are the sort of contributions that stimulate discussion and add value to the IJ forum. There’s always room for a little humor and off-topic remarks, but the non-stop political vitriol does nothing except drive people away.
I don’t want to put words in Agent’s mouth, but I didn’t read his comment as political vitriol, but rather a commentary on people outside insurance imagining that making good coverage decisions could ever be “as easy as going on Amazon.” The comment would have been just as illustrative whoever said it – it happened it was Obama but any politician might have said it, and I think that was the point. Agent, please feel welcome to correct me if you were actually bashing 44.
Humor and truth I have no problem with, my blinder-wearing friend. It’s consistently negative misanthropes, or “haters” in the current vernacular, that bug me. I’m guessing Will Rogers never met you.
This reminds me of the buzz back in the late 1990s when Citibank was going to “get into insurance” through its well-publicized “marriage” with Travelers, only to get out of insurance, for the most part, through its equally high-profile divorce from Travelers. In 2015, Google announced it was getting into insurance (not really); in 2016, it announced it was getting out of insurance (perhaps not entirely).
Consumers may be inclined to “use” online marketing giants for insurance, but it’s not clear that those giants want to use them. Organizations outside of insurance are attracted by the prospect of fee income, but balk at the regulatory scrutiny and friction with policyholders that occurs over claims, which inevitably impacts brand identity, rightly or wrongly.
Insurance is a different kind of business, but the one that makes all others possible. Anyone committed to meeting its unique demands and operating within its unique imitations can be successful. We’ll see how interested the online giants really are.
Until the public becomes well versed in insurance, what it does, how it does it, what is proper coverage, … the majority of people need an agent to explain and examine their needs for insurance. This story covers this fact well: people do not know what limits or coverage they need, and they aren’t going to tell a computer when their needs change.
Still waiting for someone to sue Lemonade or other online service for “providing” them the wrong coverage.
One of the biggest jokes ever was when our former POTUS said that shopping for Health Insurance was as easy as going on Amazon.
Can you EVER engage in thoughtful discussion of a topic, or is politically misanthropic sniping all you’re capable of?
Look at the other two thoughtful, well-reasoned comments on this article. These are the sort of contributions that stimulate discussion and add value to the IJ forum. There’s always room for a little humor and off-topic remarks, but the non-stop political vitriol does nothing except drive people away.
I don’t want to put words in Agent’s mouth, but I didn’t read his comment as political vitriol, but rather a commentary on people outside insurance imagining that making good coverage decisions could ever be “as easy as going on Amazon.” The comment would have been just as illustrative whoever said it – it happened it was Obama but any politician might have said it, and I think that was the point. Agent, please feel welcome to correct me if you were actually bashing 44.
Nice try, PolarCarrierGuy. How many sock puppets in the stable these days, anyway?
Fair, can’t stand humor or truth? Tissue?
Humor and truth I have no problem with, my blinder-wearing friend. It’s consistently negative misanthropes, or “haters” in the current vernacular, that bug me. I’m guessing Will Rogers never met you.
FPF said “…There’s always room for a little humor”
Agent replied with “…can’t stand humor…?”
Reading comprehension fail, take 5,280.
This reminds me of the buzz back in the late 1990s when Citibank was going to “get into insurance” through its well-publicized “marriage” with Travelers, only to get out of insurance, for the most part, through its equally high-profile divorce from Travelers. In 2015, Google announced it was getting into insurance (not really); in 2016, it announced it was getting out of insurance (perhaps not entirely).
Consumers may be inclined to “use” online marketing giants for insurance, but it’s not clear that those giants want to use them. Organizations outside of insurance are attracted by the prospect of fee income, but balk at the regulatory scrutiny and friction with policyholders that occurs over claims, which inevitably impacts brand identity, rightly or wrongly.
Insurance is a different kind of business, but the one that makes all others possible. Anyone committed to meeting its unique demands and operating within its unique imitations can be successful. We’ll see how interested the online giants really are.
I’ve had more than one professional doctor or other professional tell me, ” I have no idea how you understand this insurance stuff.”