Because they make more money that way.

In order to stop them, you'd need a large percentage of customers go out of their way to purchase policies from companies with the lowest advertising budgets.

This is one of a thousand reasons why the entire insurance industry should be burnt to the ground

Car insurance ads are bad, but health insurance ads are worse. Every time I see one I wonder whose treatment got denied to pay for it.

What, are you just gonna not have insurance? Something could go wrong! You don’t wanna go bankrupt because of a health problem, do you? Also, we can’t guarantee you won’t still go bankrupt with our insurance, but you won’t have to pay for basic drugs! Maybe…

It's not, that's wby it only occur in USA

i hop between geico, progressive, and allstate. after the 6month bait deal ends i just call and move over to the next competitors 6 month sweet deal.

It's easy to maintain, just 3 tabs on my browser and now you don't even have to talk to a person.

i learned after graduating in 2006 and walking face first into 2008s bullshit. if they want to hot potato lumps of debt, ill just hot potato competing services.

a petition to ban marketing, advertising, and sale of personal information in general would be a good way to have a chance at shattering big tech and commercial crap all at once, but it'll never happen 🙁

I live in Canada and used to work as an adjuster and dated an American broker. There are many good insurers in the US, none of them advertise. Go to an honest broker and they'll tell you about those boring good ones.

The differences in our systems were astonishing. Those advertised insurers let you go around with basically no coverage. I can't believe your minimum third party liability amounts, especially considering the crazy medical costs in your country. It's just over a tenth of the minimum we allow in my province, and we have socialized health care and more robust social safety nets. A serious accident will ruin you for life if you take that cockney lizard's policy. He's a scam artist from the mean streets of London.

Let's put aside the many, many problems of insurance companies in reality and talk in terms of two parties acting in good faith for ease of demonstration.

Let's take random person Alice who has insured her wrench set at Insurance Company X. Her wrench set is very important to her job and she only believes in high quality tools, so it is quite expensive. So expensive, that if something were to happen to it, she might not be able to replace it right away. Instead, she pays Company X for an insurance policy. Alice can afford to pay a little bit every month and so this is a good set up.

Uh oh, an impromptu stomp band raided Alice's store and appropriated her wrenches as drumsticks. They're ruined! Luckily, Alice is insured and Insurance Company X pays her for replacement wrenches.

Unfortunately for Company X, Alice needed new wrenches before her monthly payments would exceeded the price of the wrenches. So how did they have the money? Well, they have more customers than just Alice. They use some of the money that they get from others to help buy the wrench set in the same way some of Alice's money is used with other problems as a way to socialize the losses.

As you might guess, this requires more people. More people contributing at once means a bigger pool of money that can cover bigger individual losses when the time comes. As such, Insurance Company X uses a portion of the money they get to recruit more users and thereby make their system work better.

But also greed. Lots and lots of greed.

Not sure what the issue is here, but this may be a US-centric problem..?

Here in Australia, insurance companies are required to demonstrate sufficient means to cover the risk they carry on their books. We have a government body (APRA) that regulates and routinely audits this (along with other requirements).

What the company spends on coffee, furniture or marketing has no bearing on this - those are expenses for them to manage after they satisfy the above requirements.

That's why I purchase a plan from a company that doesn't advertise.

At one point around the enaction of Obama-care there was a dude with a combover that came around to our office to tell us that "yes, healthcare costs are high in America, but I'm here to tell you that insurance companies are not the problem."

So here he is: a guy lying to himself about his hair loss with a full-time job going around to different companies saying how insurance companies are not the problem...surely he couldn't be lying, a waste, or a lying waste.

There are two reasons

1. The market is saturated. Everybody pretty much already has insurance and they only shop for it when they have a reason to. So you want them to have your company's name on their mind when the time comes. The biggest source of new customers are people who switch from someone else.

2. GEICO was having name recognition problems when it transitioned from covering government employees exclusively.(Government Employees Insurance Company) This is where the lizard mascot came from. It was a huge success and other insurance companies followed suit. What we have now is a sort of arms race where all the major companies spend ridiculous amounts on advertising, but nobody wants to scale back for fear of being buried by their competitors ads.

I'm assuming you're in the US.

Do non profit or cooperative insurance companies exist? They would seem like a less evil option if available.

Well, it's not your money. You're gambling with them, your bet is that you'll get sick or have an accident within X period of time, they're gambling that you won't. At the same time, to uphold your gamble, you have to do everything any sane person would do to avoid illness or accidents.

You pay the ante up-front, just like on gambling tables, that's no longer your money. You're down that money.

But, if your gamble gets an out, you get payed big time. Hopefully in the form of them covering a portion or a totality of your healthcare expenses. It's a big dangerous casino, and as usual, the house always has the edge.

On every single professional sports game I’ve ever seen, every single show, every single channel. Isn’t this our fucking money you’re meant to give out should, god forbid, something happen?

While there's certainly no redeeming feature to be found in the advertising industry, I feel like you might be missing the point of insurance. An insurance does not safe-keep "your" money. You pay insurance for a service, you then receive the service and your money is gone, spent, as if you had bought groceries. The service you receive is what is called "coverage" but what is more easily thought of as "immunity against bankruptcy due to X", X being the insurance case. That's what you buy.

Figuring out how to best allocate the money is up to the insurance - it's their money, after all.

Before choosing your insurance provider, google the company and "combined ratio". Anything over 100 and they are paying out more than they are making. Investors want to see a combined ratio in the mid 90s, so if you are not an investor maybe you want the ones with high CR? Or they might be wasting it I guess, but either way less savvy I suppose.

One reason insurance ads are so stupid is that they are tightly regulated as to what they can actually say. They’re not allowed to make big promises. So you get lizards talking to car tires or whatever the fuck.

Advertising. They make it seem like the best thing since sliced bread so if someone is considering changing providers, that company comes to mind. The more they repeat it the more likely people are to think of it when considering options. It doesn't work on everyone, but this tactic has enough supporting data for them to keep dumping money into it.

To answer your question about why they are allowed to do it, I would imagine there are little to no regulations on how much is spent on advertising campaigns. It all depends on what a business can afford to spend. Since insurance companies are all about denying coverage, I'd imagine they have quite a bit to dump into advertising. I haven't looked into it that much, but it looks like they can also claim these as business expenses and get tax write-offs. It wouldn't be surprising if they tacked on other expenses to the advertising budget and claimed those as write-offs as well.

It shouldn't be, but enough people are either ignorant that it's a racket or they profit somehow by it that nobody says anything, or they'll call you a damned commie if you openly question powerful people like that

Their primary goal is to make profit for investors. They kind of also sometimes help people.

Why do you think getting insurance to actually pay out is so difficult?

If you're in the USA I would suggest using Amica for your insurance. They are great, and I've never seen an advertisement for them!

Billions? Trillions? Ummmm, anyway...

The reason is because they aren't idiots, it works or they wouldn't do it. The issue with car insurance (and I assume this is what you are talking about since they bombard me also) is that it is a commodity. Let's face it, they are all the same and heavily regulated by states. The only way they can grab customers is by the "plant our name in your head" method and that requires yelling at you constantly.

That said I HATE those ads. Geico has now been replace by Liberty Mutual as the most annoying company.