Ontario Insurance Reform - Can we be loud unough to hear? | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ontario Insurance Reform - Can we be loud unough to hear?

Ontario public health care covers post-accident physio with a doctor's referral
may not be a taj mahal facility, and may not be as convenient as a fully private clinic
but the services are there, I took advantage of them last year in my community

the rest of that is quack science
I don't expect the province to fund my happy ending

what happened prior to accident benefits?
people got no treatment?

of course they did
 
Massage :lmao:
I have a wife for that.

Sounds like one of those US commercials but you missed eye exams and dentistry!
 
I'm going to forge ahead and make a case for motorcyclists. Would like a few to join me. I'm gonna do two things:

1) Get some consensus on issues and recommendations. I'll do that here.
2) Get petitioners. This is probably the biggest and hardest. I'm gonna use petition.com to capture interest, all folks need to do is visit and sign on if they are supporters - this is where everyone can help -- get friends, use other social media platforms to spread the word.

I'll need 2-3 days to setup, then if we can muster a few volunteers to drive signatures -- we might just have our voice heard. Hey you Sikhs -- you did it already, please jump in and help!
 
No in the past 20 years or so, the Gov't, delisted, (stopped paying for), things like chiropractors, and massage therapy, (I am speaking of Registered Massage Therapist), not your local rub and tug...lol

I assume you have never taken advantage of a Chiropractor, otherwise, you would know it is hardly "quack science." As with every profession, there are those, who ply their trade professionally, then there are those who, have no idea what they are doing, and contribute to the rampant fraud within the system.

I always made it clear that I was attending for treatment to get better, NOT to fatten my wallet, with fraudulent activities. Physio's can also, be unaware/unable to produce results with REAL treatments. I had to attend 3 separate clinics, before I was able to settle on one which was prepared to do actual treatments, rather than just place a pad of some sort on the affected areas, then go off to surf the net on their cell.
Ontario public health care covers post-accident physio with a doctor's referral
may not be a taj mahal facility, and may not be as convenient as a fully private clinic
but the services are there, I took advantage of them last year in my community

the rest of that is quack science
I don't expect the province to fund my happy ending

what happened prior to accident benefits?
people got no treatment?

of course they did
 
I used to service microscopes for the chiropractic college in Toronto :thumbup: good people, always paid their bills and very appreciative of the service. Apparently more to that profession then just bone crunching to include microscope studies in their courses, acupuncture :/ pass thanks, I don't do needles.
My personal experience with post accident physiotherapy services funded by an insurance company :bs: far less then satisfactory, ymmv. I'd rather go to a vet.
 
No in the past 20 years or so, the Gov't, delisted, (stopped paying for), things like chiropractors, and massage therapy, (I am speaking of Registered Massage Therapist), not your local rub and tug...lol

I assume you have never taken advantage of a Chiropractor, otherwise, you would know it is hardly "quack science." As with every profession, there are those, who ply their trade professionally, then there are those who, have no idea what they are doing, and contribute to the rampant fraud within the system.

I know people with back problems that have found relief with chiro where traditional doctoring has done nothing
but I'm still not a believer, and while it may be rare, they do accidentally leave patients crippled or dead sometimes

I always made it clear that I was attending for treatment to get better, NOT to fatten my wallet, with fraudulent activities. Physio's can also, be unaware/unable to produce results with REAL treatments. I had to attend 3 separate clinics, before I was able to settle on one which was prepared to do actual treatments, rather than just place a pad of some sort on the affected areas, then go off to surf the net on their cell.

I've read some of your stuff from your accident, nasty bit of business
so you have different insight into the issue than I may have

but I'd still like to see AB as optional coverage
many have extended health benefits through work
that will cover off the shortfalls of OHIP

it should be our choice to buy the extended coverage
or pass if we don't need/want duplicate coverage

but it's unlikely to happen
AB came about, around the same time as the FedGov was trying to balance their budget
they did it by cutting transfer payments and downloading services to the provinces
Ontario found a way to download part of the biggest public expense - healthcare
to our private auto insurance

the bone they through to the insurance industry to go along
was they eliminated the right to sue except for extreme circumstances

game, set match - Ontario rate payers got hosed
then the fraud started, and AB became the most expensive part of an auto policy
 
Sometime in the late `80s I lived in Markham. I called my MP to speak about my bike insurance..GPz900. I actually did get a call from him, a few minutes of bafflegab, deflection and "yes it is a problem" he says. I have known now for years that every position(mostly) of realistic importance at any Gov`t level is a disaster. Riders complaining about insurance.....nobody cares, seen it for 35 years. Maybe ALL Ontario riders should wear a turban for a day in protest, make mine hi-viz yellow.
 
.@Hedo2002 I have to agree with @JavaFan on this one....iirc you said in another thread that all employer extended benefits must be exhausted before they get to the auto benefits anyway. I'm basically paying for benefits that I will almost never use after I get through my and my wife's benefits.

Sent from my purple G4 using Tapatalk
 
I'm going to forge ahead and make a case for motorcyclists. Would like a few to join me. I'm gonna do two things:

1) Get some consensus on issues and recommendations. I'll do that here.
2) Get petitioners. This is probably the biggest and hardest. I'm gonna use petition.com to capture interest, all folks need to do is visit and sign on if they are supporters - this is where everyone can help -- get friends, use other social media platforms to spread the word.

I'll need 2-3 days to setup, then if we can muster a few volunteers to drive signatures -- we might just have our voice heard. Hey you Sikhs -- you did it already, please jump in and help!

Go for it, the least we can do is try. Hope as many members can join in.
 
OK, lets see if we can make some noise.

The first thing we need to do is get a few folks cooperating on the message -- what do we want to say? What do we want to influence? Are there any volunteers who want to help vet the message?


Next, we need a place to gain support. I can setup a petition at Change.org - the community will need to send people to show support. I figure we need at least 1000 signers to get any traction -- more would be better.

We have 4 weeks.
 
California bans gender in setting car insurance rates

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-insurance-california-bans-gender-as-a-factor-in-setting-rates/

Wonder if this would lead to higher insurance rates for everyone equally, rather than being low for gender.

Absolutely, lowering the rates for one group just means other groups pay more.

Current Government of Ontario survey asks a similar question re where you live having a factor on rates. Several months ago some Brampton residents and their MPP had a news conference alleging that higher rates in Brampton are discriminatory, pushing for home address to not be a factor in rate setting. It's common knowledge that Brampton residents pays some of the highest rates in ON and this is due to the fact that Brampton residents have one of the highest accident rates in the province. Looking at the rate map shows who would benefit and who would pay from removal of this rate factor.

https://www.kanetix.ca/insuramap
 
Absolutely, lowering the rates for one group just means other groups pay more.

Current Government of Ontario survey asks a similar question re where you live having a factor on rates. Several months ago some Brampton residents and their MPP had a news conference alleging that higher rates in Brampton are discriminatory, pushing for home address to not be a factor in rate setting. It's common knowledge that Brampton residents pays some of the highest rates in ON and this is due to the fact that Brampton residents have one of the highest accident rates in the province. Looking at the rate map shows who would benefit and who would pay from removal of this rate factor.

https://www.kanetix.ca/insuramap
The problem in Ontario is insurance companies justify rates based on risk but set rates set rates to maximize profits, not solely to minimize risk. They can also quantify risks however they like in order to justify premiums. Brampton is a good example -- I believe the accident rates are not higher, Brampton suffers from very high insurance fraud rates which impacts Accident Benefit payouts. From an actuarial point of view, insurers are penalizing every Brampton resident by lumping them into a higher risk category instead of working to fight local fraud trends - easier profits. Think about it... if you move from Georgetown to Brampton, do you present a higher risk of perpetuating fraud based on your new address? Insurers are entitled to say you do and will justify this without public scrutiny to a regulator (FCSO) who OKs them to charge you accordingly.


Without transparency, payout data is used only for profit management. That would be OK in an open market, but it's troublesome in a highly regulated market that includes a cartel of insurance companies, gov't, and a regulator who keeps the cartel happy, and a consumer who flies blind.
 
................. I believe the accident rates are not higher, Brampton suffers from very high insurance fraud rates which impacts Accident Benefit payouts..................From an actuarial point of view, insurers are penalizing every Brampton resident by lumping them into a higher risk category instead of working to fight local fraud trends - easier profits. ........... if you move from Georgetown to Brampton, do you present a higher risk of perpetuating fraud based on your new address? Insurers are entitled to say you do and will justify this without public scrutiny to a regulator (FCSO) who OKs them to charge you accordingly.

I think Brampton residents have a high accident rate + high rate of fraud, maybe someone in the insurance industry can chime in on this.

The issue of addressing ( or rather, not addressing ) fraud is one of incentive re cost and reward. Insurance company premiums are based on a rate of return managed by the FSCO http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/Pages/default.aspx. It's not clear to me that insurance companies have any real incentive to combat fraud as rates are based on revenue (including a set rate of return) - expenses. Lower revenue based on lowered overall cost means lower profit. Law enforcement agencies do not have the budget to do extensive investigations to shut down crooked tow truck drivers, repair shops and healthcare establishments milking the system. As well, there are no resources for charging and following through to prosecution the thousands of insured actively scamming the system and the provincial court system is already swamped.

While I'm not defending the existing rate management system of using home address to establish risk it is a commonly used one. What other types of risk management systems are out there in the market? Is there a market in NA or Europe that fairly and accurately assesses risk minimizing premiums and fraud?
 
I think Brampton residents have a high accident rate + high rate of fraud, maybe someone in the insurance industry can chime in on this.

The issue of addressing ( or rather, not addressing ) fraud is one of incentive re cost and reward. Insurance company premiums are based on a rate of return managed by the FSCO http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/Pages/default.aspx. It's not clear to me that insurance companies have any real incentive to combat fraud as rates are based on revenue (including a set rate of return) - expenses. Lower revenue based on lowered overall cost means lower profit. Law enforcement agencies do not have the budget to do extensive investigations to shut down crooked tow truck drivers, repair shops and healthcare establishments milking the system. As well, there are no resources for charging and following through to prosecution the thousands of insured actively scamming the system and the provincial court system is already swamped.

While I'm not defending the existing rate management system of using home address to establish risk it is a commonly used one. What other types of risk management systems are out there in the market? Is there a market in NA or Europe that fairly and accurately assesses risk minimizing premiums and fraud?
I agree there is no incentive for insurers to fight fraud. The problem lies with the regulator IMHO. Want a few common sense approaches?
1) Allow insurers to offer plans that inherently reduce fraud. For instance Rate Plan A requires insurer selected tow operators and body shops only in exchange for a better rates.
2) Force insurers to reorganize products around individuals and vehicles. For example, if you want to drive, you should be required to have liability and accident benefits that cover you no matter what car or bike you are driving. Vehicles should be insured against theft, collision and comprehensive damages.
3) Make AB optional and a-la-carte. Like in point 1, provide discounts to users who agree to use pre-approved service providers.
 
I don't think this is widely known, but CAA offers a pay-as-you-go plan that's great if you have a specialty veehicle or a spare. I keep a Dodge Ram 1500 4x4 that I use sparingly -- move the boat, pickup a motorcycle or firewood. I don't drive it much, but I do like having it handy. I pay $66 for the first 1000km, then 66 for each up to a max of $660/year.

https://www.caamypace.com/
 
Found this:
"Ontario motorcycle riders are required by law to have the following insurance coverages on their motorcycle to get an Ontario plate and to ride legally: Liability, Accident Benefits, Uninsured Automobile and Direct Compensation Property Damage."

So why do they go on to express these as 4 separate items? Cover the 'required by law' features and sell it to me as 'minimum coverage' tell me exactly what it does cover without all the square talk and give me the option to purchase extras as I deem fit.
:dontknow: maybe that's too simple.

Note that they are making me pay for insurance incase the other guy doesn't have it. That part better be pretty darn cheap or they are double dipping because the assumption is that everybody has insurance. If they don't then take away their car and crush it, that would reduce the frequency of non-compliance real quick.
 
Last edited:
Found this:
"Ontario motorcycle riders are required by law to have the following insurance coverages on their motorcycle to get an Ontario plate and to ride legally: Liability, Accident Benefits, Uninsured Automobile and Direct Compensation Property Damage."

So why do they go on to express these as 4 separate items? Cover the 'required by law' features and sell it to me as 'minimum coverage' tell me exactly what it does cover without all the square talk and give me the option to purchase extras as I deem fit.
:dontknow: maybe that's too simple.

Note that they are making me pay for insurance incase the other guy doesn't have it. That part better be pretty darn cheap or they are double dipping because the assumption is that everybody has insurance. If they don't then take away their car and crush it, that would reduce the frequency of non-compliance real quick.
What irks me is the fact they tack liability and accident benefits to the vehicle -- they should be attached to the driver so she/he can drive anything. If I have 4 cars, they make me pay as if I have 4 drivers all using them at the same time.
 

Back
Top Bottom