Will Ford tackle Insurance issues? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Will Ford tackle Insurance issues?

Mad Mike

Mad Mike

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
The Ontario Liberals have a cozy relationship with the insurance industry, together they collaborate on regulations and setting rates so the gov't maximizes revenues and the insurance lobby maximizes profits. The insurance buying public gets stuck with the bills in this faux-market system.

Do you think there is a way Ford can be persuaded to reduce regulation and make auto insurance more competitive for Ontarians?
 
Ask him about filtering and lane-splitting too...
 
He promised he'd investigate corruption. "He'll clean this mess up! "
 
If he does, it'll be much like every other Conservative policy. They save you money by reducing the overall service provided. They'd probably allow the insurance companies to offer you a super cheap policy but when you read the fine print it only covers you if you crash on a Wednesday when the weather is clear and Saturn is in retro-grade.
 
Sounds like a second term issue. Isn't that when Wynne "tackled" and may have made it worse?
 
I'd like to see mandatory accident benefits removed
anyone with a decent job has disability insurance
and we already pay for health care
this should be completely voluntary
it is a huge portion of the premium
older riders will remember we never had to pay this before
 
JavaFan said:
I'd like to see mandatory accident benefits removed
anyone with a decent job has disability insurance
and we already pay for health care
this should be completely voluntary
it is a huge portion of the premium
older riders will remember we never had to pay this before
Click to expand...
Glad I'm not the only one who wants these gone. It is a sizeable chunk of the premium. I was asking my broker to remove these, only to find out these are mandatory.
 
JavaFan said:
I'd like to see mandatory accident benefits removed
anyone with a decent job has disability insurance
and we already pay for health care
this should be completely voluntary
it is a huge portion of the premium
older riders will remember we never had to pay this before
Click to expand...

Not everyone has benefits. The lower paid the job the more one needs benefits. However the fraud industry enjoys the gravy.

What annoys me is how the victim in a crash has to pick up part of the tab for the careless driver.
 
nobbie48 said:
Not everyone has benefits. The lower paid the job the more one needs benefits. However the fraud industry enjoys the gravy.

What annoys me is how the victim in a crash has to pick up part of the tab for the careless driver.
Click to expand...

sure, some will need the coverage offered by accident benefits
for those that don't it should be optional
 
I think the problem becomes those that need it, will opt out to save money, and the cycle continues. You could argue let the dummies suffer, but that's not the liberal way.
 
Dofo won't do bupkus - much like his brother did(n't).
He doesn't have a platform. His (and Mammoliti's) answer to everything is NO.
 
Morrissey said:
If he does, it'll be much like every other Conservative policy. They save you money by reducing the overall service provided. They'd probably allow the insurance companies to offer you a super cheap policy but when you read the fine print it only covers you if you crash on a Wednesday when the weather is clear and Saturn is in retro-grade.
Click to expand...
PC doesn't stand for program cuts. PC's generally focus on waste and program spending that doesn't serve general good of the electorate.

Your comment suggests you don't want to think for yourself -- do you prefer the thinkin' be done by the nanny state?
 
It's not about accident benefits, it's about the regulatory climate that puts industry in cahoots with gov't to fix prices for guaranteed revenues and profits.

1) Their pricing and risk rating schemes are not transparent. Who knows if Hayabusa riders pay more because insurance companies expect them to be high earners or because insurance payouts are higher than those riding R3s. We're not allowed to know.
2) They have zero incentive to fight fraud. Other regulations make that difficult and the regulator lets insurance companies build losses into the cost base they use to determine their profit guarantee.
3) There is no opportunity for aggressive competitors to enter the market - it's closed by virtue of membership and regulation.

Why should a 20 your old driving a Jeep Patriot pay $1400 in Winnipeg, $3000 in Calgary and $4200 in Toronto?

I'm a conservative so I carefully think through any recommendations that involve gov't doing more. Considering our economy is hip-linked to transportation, this might just be an area where a gov't run program like MB and BC could actually benefit the province AND it's taxpayers.
 
Spoiler alert: No.

Trying to deal with stupid prices for this sort of thing is basically impossible. Cell service, cable service, internet service, airfare, gas prices, hydro costs.

If you want to investigate one, any of them are fair game (potentially upsetting any number of groups), and it would be an expensive project with potentially minimal gains. Even if a government inquiry found that insurance companies were gouging everyone, what would they do about it? Fine them, fix prices, something else? What if they were only gouging people for $50/year but the investigation took years and cost millions of dollars?

I'm a lefty in general, and have voted both NDP and Liberal in the past, but nobody is going to do anything about this particular issue. Given that the conservative standpoint is historically to have less regulation, I think they would be near the back of the line of people who would be tackling this issue.
 
The current insurance environment rewards companies for high premiums by linking total profit to premium cost and there is really just about zero incentive to fight insurance fraud and/or do anything to reduce accident rates.

Public run systems have there own issues but is there an effective way to link insurance, infrastructure funding, post accident healthcare and vehicle repairs to fix poor road design where possible, identify fraud and have premiums stabilized or lowered long term. Aviva did a study and found that 90% of repair shops overcharged for their work in Ontario. I don't pretend to have the answer, but the current "system" is broke and each of us will spend tens of thousands of dollars over our lifetime paying excessive vehicle insurance premiums.

BC's ICBC is far from perfect, but they do have an enormous amount of data they've gather over the years and some of the reports make interesting reading. Could a "single payer" type system aggressively manage the variables to reduce accident rates, fraud and could this result in lower premiums overall?

http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Pages/Lower-Mainland-Crash-Map.aspx
 
Mr.K said:
Spoiler alert: No.

Trying to deal with stupid prices for this sort of thing is basically impossible. Cell service, cable service, internet service, airfare, gas prices, hydro costs.

If you want to investigate one, any of them are fair game (potentially upsetting any number of groups), and it would be an expensive project with potentially minimal gains. Even if a government inquiry found that insurance companies were gouging everyone, what would they do about it? Fine them, fix prices, something else? What if they were only gouging people for $50/year but the investigation took years and cost millions of dollars?

I'm a lefty in general, and have voted both NDP and Liberal in the past, but nobody is going to do anything about this particular issue. Given that the conservative standpoint is historically to have less regulation, I think they would be near the back of the line of people who would be tackling this issue.
Click to expand...
The issue here is regulation - multiple layers that create a quagmire of issues. Prices are regulated through FSCO, and insurance packages are regulated by the province. Insurers like it this way because it predictable and guarantees profits. Gov't likes it this way because it guarantees their revenues.

Insurance buyers pay for the layers of regulation and stymied competitive landscape.

Another negative to complicated regulation is that it attracts people that look to game the system. In the case of Ontario, an entire ecosystem of bottom feeding fraudsters, lawyers, therapists, clinics, and users are abusing the system. They legally exploit unintended conditions created by the rules (regulations). Neither govt or the insurance industry is compelled to fix this when they can just bill it to the user.
 
ReSTored said:
The current insurance environment rewards companies for high premiums by linking total profit to premium cost and there is really just about zero incentive to fight insurance fraud and/or do anything to reduce accident rates.

Public run systems have there own issues but is there an effective way to link insurance, infrastructure funding, post accident healthcare and vehicle repairs to fix poor road design where possible, identify fraud and have premiums stabilized or lowered long term....
Click to expand...
Manitoba is probably a better example to follow. They have a longer history, fairer rate system, low rates and they genuinely reduce costs for the gov't and the consumer.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom