|
407 tolls to rise (another Liberal promise broken) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
premiums are regulated, AFAIK...ALL rate increases are filed and approved by the regulatory powers that be.
While insurance is mandatory, isn't it only liability that is both mandatory and the only type that any company MUST offer you? You think you're a great driver and could do better without insurance? Ok, drop your collision and comprehensive coverage and save some money then ;)
Insurance is a mess here...no question...I will certainly agree with you there.
I'm not sure I have a problem with them pulling driving abstracts and raising premiums based upon at fault claims though. If you cause accidents or are repeatedly ticketed for dangerous driving habits, you're damn right I think you should have to pay more than I would with my 100% clean record. Sure, maybe I just didn't get caught, lol, but anyone with basic knowledge of stats could tell you that given a large enough sample size (eg. the general driving population) and timeframe, that should even out.
I don't think not-at-fault accidents should result in increases (and after 2, they do). I don't think minor speeding tickets should result in increases. Minor speeding does not equal dangerous driving. Run a stop sign, red light, speed through school zones, etc...then YES.
the real problem is fraud and escalating healthcare payouts. I bet that many people know someone, even a friend of a friend, who's scammed an insurance company before...whether it's related to home, auto, bank, work benefits, whatever.
Premiums vs. payouts does not result in profit...I think that's quite the misconception. Insurance companies apparently make their money from the returns they receive for investing the pre-paid premiums they collect (again AFAIK). The argument can still be made that they should then still charge lower premiums...
Think about it...to use fabricated figures, $200/month in premiums over 20 years is only 48k (and most people will not drive claims free for 20 years). One tard writes off a half decent car, there goes that money. Usually accidents involve two cars, so even if HIS insurer doesn't pay, the other does. So damage to two cars, rentals, loss of wages, healthcare, cost of processing the claims (staff, adjusters), etc...factor in multiple car accidents or multiple passengers having injuries too...and you can see the the comparative pittance paid in premiums quite likely does NOT cover payouts.
I'm not defending the industry...it's f**ked...but it's not as simple as many people like to think (not pointing at you necessarily, just in general). So many people get a hike and just hate their insurer, lol... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'm not sure I have a problem with them pulling driving abstracts and raising premiums based upon at fault claims though. If you cause accidents or are repeatedly ticketed for dangerous driving habits, you're damn right I think you should have to pay more than I would with my 100% clean record. Sure, maybe I just didn't get caught, lol, but anyone with basic knowledge of stats could tell you that given a large enough sample size (eg. the general driving population) and timeframe, that should even out.
I don't think not-at-fault accidents should result in increases (and after 2, they do). I don't think minor speeding tickets should result in increases. Minor speeding does not equal dangerous driving. Run a stop sign, red light, speed through school zones, etc...then YES. |
Minor traffic offenses and not-at-fault accidents are precisely what I'm talking about here. They have no right to know that information, and almost every place except Ontario recognizes that.
That's like a health insurance company asking your doctor if you catch colds often.
| quote: | | Premiums vs. payouts does not result in profit...I think that's quite the misconception. Insurance companies apparently make their money from the returns they receive for investing the pre-paid premiums they collect (again AFAIK). The argument can still be made that they should then still charge lower premiums... |
Yes, I know exactly how it works - they take the money they get in premiums and invest it. The reason premiums are so high is that they keep losing money on their investments - so they find an excuse to raise the premiums to compensate.
In my mind, that is fraud. True insurance calculates the premiums based on the projected payouts, not on profits/losses. If they make poor investment choices then that's their own damn fault.
How can something legitimately be called insurance if you're just going to end up paying for every claim with higher premiums? That's not insurance at all - it's simply another tax on drivers. |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
I remember a lot of empty promises from the tories too...but who care now........it's what politics is all about. You can't just single one...and exculpate the other...especially not when they all...make promises...for an election.
Some day you should end this fixation against the liberals...b/c there are a lot of positive things out there...and it makes no sense to keep complaining.
Leave the complaining to the snot nosed that have nothing better to do. |
Well I think the trouble with Canadians is that we are TOO complacent...If we are pissed off about something the government does then we should do what they do in some European countries and have general strikes.
The other thing too is that I am no fan of the Tories but the Liberals/Mcguinty made a blatant lie with NOT raising taxes & yet they/he does it:mad:I'll guaranty you that in the next election, If John Tory ( the cable guy) heads the PC party, then you'll see the Tories sweep to power. |
|
|
| xls |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Last i checked most publications and media outlets in Canada were leftwing.
The only true conservative voice Canada has is the Post. (even they are that conservative) |
Sounds to me like you need to check again my friend. And saying the Post isn't that conservative is like saying Fox News is a good source of unbiased information.
http://www.canwestwatch.org |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by xls
Sounds to me like you need to check again my friend. And saying the Post isn't that conservative is like saying Fox News is a good source of unbiased information.
http://www.canwestwatch.org |
So you're showing us a blatantly left-wing anti-Canwest site as proof that the major media outlets aren't left-wing? There's no factual information on that site, it's just a bunch of hateful rhetoric directed toward Canwest and conservatives in general.
The Globe is slightly left-wing (maybe a 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 to 10). The star is FAR left. The Post is slightly right-wing, again maybe a 2 or 3. Other papers are just rags.
Same goes for news channels. The CBC is nauseatingly Liberal, as are all the other ones we get. The only exception is Global, which tries from time to time to bring on a few intelligent conservative minds. They had a very good interview about the Pit Bull bans, for example. Fox News is actually substantially less biased than the CBC is. No doubt they're a right-wing news channel and nobody's denying that, but they are not nearly as far to the right as many other media outlets are to the left.
That article about why Canwest hates the CBC was hilarious; anyone with a shred of intelligence would realize that conservatives hate the CBC because it's mind-numbingly left-wing and statist AND WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT OUT OF OUR TAX DOLLARS. Why should we have to pay for something that (a) we don't support and (b) is patently unnecessary to the country? |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
The argument can still be made that they should then still charge lower premiums... |
And they do... everywhere else but in Ontario.
If you live in Quebec, car insurance is about 1/5 of what you end up paying in Ontario. How can they charge so little? Maybe they know a thing or two about investing that the Ontario peeps don't... :conf:
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The insurance situation in Ontario is one that the Ontario government created:
- Insurance companies have access to driving records without the driver's consent (in Quebec and most U.S. states, this is considered to be none of their business)
- Insurance is mandatory for all drivers
- Premiums are completely unregulated
- Government skims a load from the insurance companies, so half of your premiums go to a bureaucratic black hole
|
a trip to Quebec, anyone? |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
Ya know how I avoid paying those tolls?
I don't use the 407 & use hwy 7 instead;) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Crazy Serb
a trip to Quebec, anyone? |
No - what I'd love to do is just get a piece of empty land somewhere in Quebec and register my car to that address. Maybe it would even be worth it to just build a garage on a rural route or something.
You'd think, with all the RIDICULOUS driving in Montreal, that insurance would be sky-high over there, but it isn't, and the insurance companies still somehow make money. So it's not an excuse to say that the problem is scams or reckless driving - those happen everywhere.
| quote: | Originally posted by RobbyG.
Ya know how I avoid paying those tolls?
I don't use the 407 & use hwy 7 instead;) |
Exactly. I think Jay pointed that out before too (in a different thread). Seems that a lot of people can't stand the idea of having to pay for better service/product - Highway 7 runs DIRECTLY parallel to the 407 if any of you folks are too poor to drive on the "elite" highway. :p
Even if highway 7 didn't exist, that still wouldn't be an excuse, but the fact that 7 is right there just makes those complaints *ridiculous*.
I for one am glad that the courts upheld the 407/ETR's right to charge whatever they please. Who the hell is McGuinty to tell them how much money they're allowed to make? |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by RobbyG.
Well I think the trouble with Canadians is that we are TOO complacent...If we are pissed off about something the government does then we should do what they do in some European countries and have general strikes. |
Canadian's complacent...yup...I'd have to agree. But I don't think a strike is the best solution either. |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
Canadian's complacent...yup...I'd have to agree. But I don't think a strike is the best solution either. |
do you suggest a peaceful resolution taking, hum, let's say a few years of negotiations and ? |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Crazy Serb
do you suggest a peaceful resolution taking, hum, let's say a few years of negotiations and ? |
Nope...
Just not down with people getting too emotional and breaking out into physical fights....it happens too often during strikes. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Crazy Serb
do you suggest a peaceful resolution taking, hum, let's say a few years of negotiations and ? |
I would've suggested an impeachment proceeding. That got Clinton on his toes pretty fast. |
|
|
|
|
