Topic: Public vs Private Insurance

[dorin]

Either way I do not receive good service from Canada ppsy. I do receive good service from FED EX nothing you say will change that fact.

This Canada Post/FedEx tangent is amusing so I'll continue. 

I'm not debating that FedEx gives you better service than CanadaPost, but a) you're also paying a lot more for it and b) you and everyone else still has the option of using Canada Post.  As such, the equivalent insurance system would be public insurance with the option of paying more and going with private insurance for those who want the so-called better service.  I'm fine with that and most other people seem to be as well.  However, you want us not to have the option of a public system at all.  So you want us all to only have FedEx, pay way more for it, and put up with the worse service compared to Canada Post to boot.

Personal experiences aside, there is a strong consensus here that public insurance is cheaper, fairer, and that people want that option.  It would be churlish of you to pretend that people are really better with the private-only system that they don't want under the best of circumstances.  Given that you actually work for private insurance makes your arguments self-serving as well as inaccurate.

[2latecrew]

Either way I do not receive good service from Canada ppsy. I do receive good service from FED EX nothing you say will change that fact.

This Canada Post/FedEx tangent is amusing so I'll continue. 

I'm not debating that FedEx gives you better service than CanadaPost, but a) you're also paying a lot more for it and b) you and everyone else still has the option of using Canada Post.  As such, the equivalent insurance system would be public insurance with the option of paying more and going with private insurance for those who want the so-called better service.  I'm fine with that and most other people seem to be as well.  However, you want us not to have the option of a public system at all.  So you want us all to only have FedEx, pay way more for it, and put up with the worse service compared to Canada Post to boot.

Personal experiences aside, there is a strong consensus here that public insurance is cheaper, fairer, and that people want that option.  It would be churlish of you to pretend that people are really better with the private-only system that they don't want under the best of circumstances.  Given that you actually work for private insurance makes your arguments self-serving as well as inaccurate.

If you'd actually read my posts you'd understand its you who are inaccurate.

My company provides software to BOTH private insurance and a very large public insurance company.

I have no insterest in seeeing one triumph over the other. Its foolish to assume its "self serving"

You also conunually fail to acknowlegde that I've said I prefer private insurance for NOVA SCOTIA. Based on yes service and the Nova Scotia government track record as well as financial issues.

You do rel;ize that an insurance company has to keep reserves equivilant to its prmums don't you? Where will the bllions of dollars required to do this come from? I know the govenment of Nova scotia doesn't have it. Newfoundland certainly doesn't have it.

[dorin]

If you'd actually read my posts you'd understand its you who are inaccurate.

My company provides software to BOTH private insurance and a very large public insurance company.

I have no insterest in seeeing one triumph over the other. Its foolish to assume its "self serving"

Thank you for the clarification.  My apologies for misunderstanding.

You also conunually fail to acknowlegde that I've said I prefer private insurance for NOVA SCOTIA. Based on yes service and the Nova Scotia government track record as well as financial issues.

Oh please, I don't see you ever acknowledging that a lot of us are talking about the private insurance system in Ontario.  You've also brought up federal examples to bash the idea that government in Canada is a trustworthy institution, so let's not be coy and claim that this is somehow a Nova Scotia-specific thread.  It's about public and private insurance in general.

You do rel;ize that an insurance company has to keep reserves equivilant to its prmums don't you? Where will the bllions of dollars required to do this come from? I know the govenment of Nova scotia doesn't have it. Newfoundland certainly doesn't have it.

Do Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders really pay billions annually in auto insurance premiums?  Now the cash reserves equivalent to premiums rules make sense in terms of private insurance companies which could theoretically declare bankruptcy at any moment.  The rules would not be necessary for gov't-run public insurance which would not just get up and leave.  Now if people would somehow want to have public insurance provided by an arms-length corporation that is separate from the gov't, then that corporation could use the profits from the insurance premiums to build up its cash assets until they cover the premiums and the gov't could cover the balance in the meantime.  Either way, this is a moot point and not an obstacle to public auto insurance.

[tpl]

"'m not debating that FedEx gives you better service than CanadaPost, but a) you're also paying a lot more for it and b) you and everyone else still has the option of using Canada Post.  As such, the equivalent insurance system would be public insurance with the option of paying more and going with private insurance for those who want the so-called better service. I'm fine with that and most other people seem to be as well.  However, you want us not to have the option of a public system at all.  So you want us all to only have FedEx, pay way more for it, and put up with the worse service compared to Canada Post to boot."

Then why can you not be good with this on health care as well ?  IIRC you do not approve of that. The mixed system that is.   We both completely agree on a public system available to all.

[random006]

In Alberta, dereg has increased accessability,

Holy crap yes. I was in Calgary a few months back and was shocked  to see how many liquor stores there were. Oh, and I loved the garish bright green & orange signs they used too! Made me want to put on a balaclava, grab a .38 and rob one 

Quebec has lived with alcohol available in convenience stores (a.k.a. depanneurs, tabernaque! ), grocery stores, specialty stores and of course the official SAQ (Societé des Alcools du Quebec) for many years now.  Accessibility is therefore increased when compared to other provinces but I'm not aware of an epidemic of DUI's running rampant in the streets and courts.  Perhaps all Alberta needs is some time to adjust.

[dorin]

Then why can you not be good with this on health care as well ?  IIRC you do not approve of that. The mixed system that is.   We both completely agree on a public system available to all.

I'm okay with the current "either/or" mixed system for healthcare.  We already have that.  I am not okay with a "both" system for healthcare.

[Titanium48]

My take on it is every driver should have public liability insurance not only car owners. This should be tied to their driver's licence and record.
Coverage of the vehicle can be either public or private..I don't really care.

Good idea.  I believe this is the way it works in Manitoba (yearly drivers license renewals that get more expensive if you have a less than perfect record).

[No H2O]

Which is better and why? Discuss

I don't think either is better.

If its public insurance, it doesn't make any sense and if it is government run insurance, it isn't run efficiently.

Most drivers would opt for insurance the way it is run in some other countries, but for some reason insurance companies here wouldn't want that (they wouldn't be able to rip us off as much).

Insurance is totally effed up in Ontario and maybe where you live.

1st, there should be two types of insurance; one tied to the driver's licence and the other to the vehicle itself.

Anything not related to the vehicle itself (fire, theft, collision, etc) should be tied to the driver's licence.

Like...why do I need Accident Benefits for every vehicle that I own when they'll only pay out no more than if you owned one vehicle...or worse yet...not at all if you are covered through the workplace for loss of income or if you are retired and receiving a guarranteed fixed income. That practice is fraudulent if you ask me.

And whats this BS...a six star rating? Why can't I have a 32 star rating?

And for those losers that seem to have accidents every so often, let their rates skyrocket which doesn't seem to be the case.

[UmroAyyar]

Which is better and why? Discuss

I don't think either is better.

If its public insurance, it doesn't make any sense and if it is government run insurance, it isn't run efficiently.

Most drivers would opt for insurance the way it is run in some other countries, but for some reason insurance companies here wouldn't want that (they wouldn't be able to rip us off as much).

Insurance is totally effed up in Ontario and maybe where you live.

1st, there should be two types of insurance; one tied to the driver's licence and the other to the vehicle itself.

Anything not related to the vehicle itself (fire, theft, collision, etc) should be tied to the driver's licence.

Like...why do I need Accident Benefits for every vehicle that I own when they'll only pay out no more than if you owned one vehicle...or worse yet...not at all if you are covered through the workplace for loss of income or if you are retired and receiving a guarranteed fixed income. That practice is fraudulent if you ask me.

And whats this BS...a six start rating? Why can't I have a 32 star rating?

And for those losers that seem to have accidents every so often, let their rates skyrocket which doesn't seem to be the case.

I would like to think you mean the losers that 'cause' accidents.
I had two back to back accidents with my car earlier this year, both times my car was stopped.

[No H2O]

I would like to think you mean the losers that 'cause' accidents.
I had two back to back accidents with my car earlier this year, both times my car was stopped.

Well, you should have "stopped" somewhere else. 

Seriously, avoiding them is part of the equation as well, although not always possible...as in being jammed bewteen cars in front and behind at a light while some lame brain with a coffee mug stuck to their snout goes barreling into the car behind you.

But I've avoided many that would not have been my fault, thanks to those doing everything but what they should be doing behind the wheel...driving...what a concept!

[UmroAyyar]

I would like to think you mean the losers that 'cause' accidents.
I had two back to back accidents with my car earlier this year, both times my car was stopped.

Well, you should have "stopped" somewhere else. 

Seriously, avoiding them is part of the equation as well, although not always possible...as in being jammed bewteen cars in front and behind at a light while some lame brain with a coffee mug stuck to their snout goes barreling into the car behind you.

But I've avoided many that would not have been my fault, thanks to those doing everything but what they should be doing behind the wheel...driving...what a concept!

First time, the car was parked between lines. Second stopped in my lane waiting to turn when an oncoming car drifted and hit my car. No time to avoid.

Anyhow, I agree with the sentiment that the people at fault get their rates raised, they do get that actually.

I didn't like it when my insurance rates were raised(10%) (before the accidents) without satisfactory explanation last year. "We have new rates, raised for everyone".

[No H2O]

Anyhow, I agree with the sentiment that the people at fault get their rates raised, they do get that actually.

Yes, but not nearly enough. People will argue that their rates shouldn't go up if they have an accident, because essentially over time, they end up paying for the accident itself.

IF I get the extras, I try to get the highest deductible possible to keep premiums down. In fact, I'd sooner just get insurance that covers me for catastrophic loss, not for something as basic as a windshield or a dent in a fender.

I've been paying premiums for 32 years; cars and motorcycles. This is how much I needed to collect: $0.

[random006]

OK, as promised, I RTFM'ed the Quebec method and found this:

http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/accident_victim/insurance_policy/index.html

You do need private insurance on top of what your vehicle registration gets you but its cost is vastly reduced as a consequence.  I just received my renewal forms for my private car insurance and it stands at $735.00, down from $850.00 or so.  Even at its highest for my current vehicle, I think it was below $1000.00.

[articsteve]

I guess I shouldn't mention that ppl with private health care benefits/insurance CANNOT collect the mandatory Accident Benefits (Ontario).  (benefits that one must pay a premium for, but unable to collect as by law, private insurance supercedes them).

[No H2O]

I guess I shouldn't mention that ppl with private health care benefits/insurance CANNOT collect the mandatory Accident Benefits (Ontario).  (benefits that one must pay a premium for, but unable to collect as by law, private insurance supercedes them).

Exactly what I was saying...paying a premium for something you'll never collect on.

Now I wonder about the legality of that. Insurance companies say they have to buy law, but nothing forces them to charge those premiums.

I know if I ever end up in that situation, I WILL sue my insurance company. Now, if I could only have an accident one of these days.

[EV Dan]

Here is an interesting piece:

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/071130-1.htm

""The Driver Risk Premium is tied to the driver's license and will have to be paid, regardless of whether the driver owns or insures a vehicle. It will be paid on top of the yearly cost of auto insurance, with those with Criminal Convictions paying the most, with an annual $905 per year for three years.""

Now I'm not sure if $905 is the grand total or Risk Premium. I only wonder how low the insurance is for good drivers like myself with only one NOT at fault accident over the past 7 years. The thing is I once spoke to a dude from BC and he said "I pay 300 and smth bucks for my insurance" Little did I know he meant a yearly premium  , coz he was somehow physically disabled  (mind, he could walk just fine). So what are you guys paying in BC?

P.s. And another unrelated question: Can ya swim in Pacific in Summer? (well, I lived across the pond from y'all and kind of missing the the stormy one    )

[thatdaveguy]

I am in Saskatchewan with SGI.

I'm 20 years old.

I drive a 2006 Pontiac Pursuit GT.

My coverage:
$350 deductible on everything, $50 on glass
$0 deductible hitting animals
1 million liability

$120/mo

they've sent me two refund checks so far for dropping premiums.

[dorin]

Wow, count yourself lucky that you have SGI.  In Ontario you would be paying at least three times as much.

[tpl]

Somebody always comes out ahead in the socialist heavens.  Every other  Sask taxpayer is subsidizing thatdaveguy's insurance even if only a tiny amount.

I wonder what the basic premiums would be like if SGi/ICBC was extended into Ontario. Undoubtedly a lot higher than Sask/BC  but I would agree, a lot less that they are now for a 20 yr old male.

Note that I am in favour of Public auto insurance  ( post 18 in this thread)

[Snowman]

Ontario is different because we have the insanity in the GTA. If I lived in Southern Ontario it would cost me double to insure a WRX than here in Northern Ontario.