Progressive Insurance defends client's killer
 

Wow.

PREMIUM FISHER | My Sister Paid Progressive Insurance to Defend Her...

The backlash on the internet was intense, and Progressive backpedaled.
Justice served.

What backpedaling?

Progressive is just trying to lie their way out of a situation they have created for themselves. See: PREMIUM FISHER | Today, in response to my blog post entitled

http://bronytoki.tumblr.com/post/297...o-my-blog-post - More

Progressive are just trying to lie, lie, and stall to evade the (rightfully deserved) blowback on this.

Wasn't the Progressive driver at fault?

No.

Cliffs: Underinsured driver hits progressive-insured driver. Progressive refuses to honor their policy. Progressive then defends the underinsured driver in court to try to not pay their policy. Progressive then lies about what they did.

Yeah, that's pretty gay.

From the tone of the posting, one would think he believes that Progressive is somehow unique in this way, or that they should be forking over money to the family rather than protcting their own financial interests.

This is exactly how corporations are supposed to behave in the absence of strong regulation and governental oversight.

While I completely understand this reasoning and often defend it, I still find this behavior appauling. I feel like the defense attorney who fights tooth and nail for a client that they hope burns in hell.

This is where my small government free-market stance on politics is pretty weak. While I think a corporation should be able to run any way they choose to make money (and people should vote with their dollars by going to another company if they don't like it), I do not support companies doing this kind of thing and it seems the only way to prevent them is by making laws they must follow. I completely agree with your attorney analogy. I want progressive to die in a fire, but I kind of want to defend their right to be cheap. I kind of don't though.

People shouldn't have been using Progressive from that start...but people are dogs and love that the owner is good friends with George Soros and donates heavily to moveon.org. This stunt is right up their ally; ends jusitfies the means. You Kant have you cake and eat it to, gays.

I'm not sure what George Soros has to do with it. When I select an insurance company, it's based on one thing only: price. Over the past several years, I have had auto / motorcycle policies with Geico, Progressive and State Farm, and no factor other than price has ever played a determening role.

Price is only one aspect.

Y8s won't eat at chic-fil-a (before this new issue) because they are a christian company, but he might love the food. I wont use Geico or Progressive for personal reasons as well.

If you're letting emotion and religion influence your purchasing decisions, then you're not acting in your own best interest, and breaking capitalism.

Boycotting an insurance company or a sandwich shop because they are pro-Christian is just as bad (if not worse) than boycotting a tire store because the owner is Jewish, or a grocery store because they refuse to hire blacks or Irish people.

Why is the Jewish tire store the only example I have trouble with there? The rest seem fine to me and I'm confused why.

You only have a problem with the Jewish tire store because discriminating against the Jewish community or any other previously discriminated against minority is openly a bad thing and that is drilled into your brain. However, people often openly discriminate against Christians or other non-typical groups because society has not become "outraged" about it. Christians also tend to have a certain group of extremists that speak out for "all" Christians that just make it easy. It is obvious why the last one does not trouble you. You are discriminating against discrimination. Oh the irony.

I do not view the behavior of boycotting a company because you disagree with its political or social stances as "breaking" capitalism though. This is just an extension of the free market that is not linked to the price but in some sense the "quality or experience" of the product. These are valid reason not to support a company in a truly free market and is often argued by libertarians as to how a truly free market would deal with Corporate social responsibility.

In fact, you could argue that you are acting in your own self-interest by not supporting those who oppose your social/political interests. If there are enough like minded people that act in this same way then the company could become crippled and any influence they had on these issues in the political arena or otherwise could be severely diminished.

What I don't get is, if Progressive had "won" the case and been able to convince the jury that their customer WAS at fault, wouldn't they have owed the customer's family the entire amount of the policy rather than just the difference in what the underinsured customer's insurance paid? It seems like it would make more sense to want your customer to not be at fault.

Also, LOL that I'm getting Progressive ads at the bottom of the screen now.

No, I have plently of other options for insurance and can choose how I damn well please, not how someone else decides I should pick. forgive me, but that's capitalism at its fullest. Voluntary exchange is the heart of capitalism. You have a company providing good prices, but donating to a cause I don't stand for, I'll choose another. I'm not forced to go with them, and I'm not forced by any means to choose the company with the lowest rates. Unlike you, who is clearly a broke mother f'er you can only buy the cheapest product on the market, regardless of quality.

I never said I'm boycotting them, I'm choosing not to exchange my dollar for their service, the end. Same with y8s; even though I think that's silly.

The retarded Christian discrimination and white discrimination myths have always and will always continue to make me lol.

Something like ~85% of the country is Christian. Are you saying that the vast majority of the country discriminates against itself?

I can not disagree more.

It is up to the purchaser do decide which company offers the best value for their hard earned dollars. Value may be comprised of many factors, some quantitative, some may be based on subjective, non-quantitative reasoning. The company that the purchaser decides to do business with as the best value may not be the company that has the lowest price offer.

For instance, something that you may wish to consider when selecting an insurance company is the premium (rate) for the policy. However something else that you may wish to factor is the company's history on paying valid claims. If company A costs X and has a poor record of claim payout, however company B costs 1.02X and has a great record, perhaps your better value is in choosing to business with company B. This is capitalism at its best. Those wishing to go with the lowest rate possible will choose A. Those looking for something else will go elsewhere. By your own admittance, you may fall into the former category, and that's perfectly fine, but I'm not working in an anti-capitalist manner if I go with company B.

You confuse the words "often" with "many". Few people can do something "often" without being "many". There is a distinct difference. Do I believe that Christians are severly harmed by discrimination? No. Have I heard many people, especially young people, who are not of the Christian faith openly discriminate against Christians? Yes, atleast once a week. I am not even religious myself but discrimination comes in many forms and in varying degrees. Everyone discriminates including myself. The point of the post was that certain forms of discrimination are not openly accepted while others are.

No one should complain about religous discrimination but the jews.