They wanted to use it to sell all their other products by getting new customers and wrapping them up with loans mortgages credit cards etc.which would offset insurance losses
|
|
|
Google Auto Insurance
- Thread starter alangolding25
- Start date
They wanted to use it to sell all their other products by getting new customers and wrapping them up with loans mortgages credit cards etc.which would offset insurance losses
Hahahahah you prepared to lose everything or get nothing from a third party who injures you or damages your property????
many have exited the business or sold out... Bank of Montreal doesn't do house or car insurance at all.
and the Beer Store makes 700 milion a year so what are you talking about???? There's an example of government run business if you think government insurance would be cheaper think again. It might be on face value but your taxes will be making it up on the other side
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...arly-from-near-monopoly-study-finds-1.1382689
What are you talking about? Insurance is mandatory in australia
https://www.keys2drive.com.au/guide/insurance.aspx
Car insurance in Australia is mandatory, and it is illegal to drive without one. Third party insurance is compulsory in Australia, and you pay for it upon registering your car. This will insure you and all those involved in an accident. Again, car registration and insurance differs from territory to territory, so please contact the respective motorist group for more information. A popular car insurance company in Australia, for example, is Australian Associated Motor Insurers (AAMI), where you can get free quotes on various policies.
Last edited:
There is a minuscule amount of value to the comment. In fact, a lot of people are acting as if they don't have insurance by paying cash for damages or repairs because they fear massive premium penalties if they go through insurance.
If you go back to the 1950's Ontario didn't have vehicle safety certificates, didn't have sales tax and insurance wasn't mandatory. You could buy a beater car for a hundred dollars, pay a few bucks to transfer it and drive. If you had a crash because the brakes failed or you didn't put them on fast enough the victim was out of luck. That system only works for the irresponsible you-can't-get-blood-from-a-stone crowd.
I don't know if a deductible for liability would work but let's say a $5K deductible for a premium decrease would eliminate a lot of claims if one could handle the $5K hit. Unfortunately the no-fault insurance rules lets the insurance industry company assign blame so guess who they're going to favour.
The real way to decrease premiums is to have decent driver testing, increase police investigation of fraud and increased police enforcement of laws other than speeding. Unfortunately these go against the "Policing for profit" direction of the government.
Unfortunately the government has so badly mismanaged our finances that correcting the situation means selling off our birthrights.
Yup, that sounds about right. Gotta go after the root cause, not just band aid solutions that will make people feel better.
Carlos Vincent
Well-known member
I can’t believe I just read that comment.
You’re driving your $50,000 car, someone without insurance hits you and your car is a total loss.
The 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party has nothing to offer, not a penny on his pocket.
It also means you’re out of a car, unless you can buy another.
If the comment is to be true why are people claiming $1200 when they have a $1000 deductible, they’re only going to get $200 back.
This is one vicious circle and people are claiming for everything and nothing.
BrownBrady
Well-known member
You got it. Less demand, less claims, equals lower insurance premiums.
I am not, so I would have insurance, but there are many that would choose to go without, which drives prices down (lower demand), even though I'm paying for their stupidity (my insurance would cover damage to me and my vehicle regardless of fault). Not to mention actual COMPETITION.
Also there is absolutely no way any company would continue to bother with a near 0% overall return, regardless of whatever side business keeps them afloat. What happens is budget gets assigned to departments, and is marked down as 'spent' (or one department pays another for services, so that the insurance portion of things looks like 0%, but there's income from whatever business the one department does for the other) and we see a 0-4% profit margin. There's lots and lots and lots of ways to make numbers tell whatever story you want.
I mean, all that, plus Brampton...
It's just unreal how people defend the industry here though, everywhere else in the bloody world insurance works for less than 5-10% median income of the population.
You are wrong on all levels
I didn't say that I think the government (specifically Ontario version of it ... LOL) could do it cheaper ... I said if the government thinks they can do it cheaper, perhaps they should take over (since they are trying to lower rates across the board). if it were true, and it was not profitable business, why would anyone agree to the cuts of already low profits, as you put it.
So 700mil, is enough for beer store ... but 200mil is not enough for any insurance company? Or what's your magic number here???
How much does it cost BC province to run auto-insurance? Don't forget, break even will do ....
I don't think you are getting it. Every person has a chance to insure against such scenario. Most people will do some people will not. It's a free choice. I don't think anything wrong with that. I think people are so brain-washed with the Ontario way being the only way, that they are not willing to consider anything else.
Usually, in jurisdictions which allow such concept, you have a small mandatory component and much larger voluntary one. So no, nobody can use a vehicle WITHOUT insurance, but every has a choice to insure for certain scenarios. And it all comes out much much cheaper than what the Ontario program mandates and without any discrimination of location! I have never heard of jurisdiction with a location sensitive surcharge as high as Ontario ....
Listen, I can honestly say their books are pure truth. You can take that to your bank ... LOL
they are trying to lower rates for political gain not because the rates are too high. They have no choice but to reduce the rates, the liberal government isn't asking them they are telling them. The auto rates are regulated and the Insurance companies can't increase or decrease them without approval. As a side note you notice after last years ice storm and flooding you don't see the government ranting about rate decreases again. The insurance companies met with the liberal government and showed them the massive payouts they are making and how they now have to increase the home premiums to offset losses their and the hammering they are getting in auto.
The magic number is whatever the company can make. The more profit they make the more it is reflected in rates going down. ICBC has made profit but has also increased rates the last few years.you are just assuming all over the place that government insurance is better or cheaper
LOL .... Sure, you do that.
LOL is for teenagers and people who don't own or run a business by the way
|
|
|
|
|