Maggie
Active Member
Unbelievable and far beyond the rate of inflation. Thanx lobbyists and spin doctors you bastards. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/667105
|
|
|
Insurance rates going up drastically.
- Thread starter Maggie
- Start date
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Why should someone who rarely uses their car have to pay the same as those who use them to commute? Shouldn't one get a discount on their car insurance if use a TTC MetroPass?
nfitz
Superstar
One does pay less insurance if one doesn't use your car for driving to work. That's the question they ask you on how far you drive to work; it's normally printed right on your policy. I've changed mine a few times, and the rate goes up and down accordingly. Normally it's related to the how far do you drive in a year question.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
But if you have a MetroPass, it is proof to the insurance company that one uses their car less. It is not the same as using your car to get to work over a short distance. You are still using the car in heavy traffic, which is not that same as not using at all.
lister
Active Member
My insurance went down. I've been paying around $1900 but this year it's about $1600. I don't drive to work and have very low mileage on my car. I think the insurance company goes as low as 15K for mileage but I'm way lower than that every year. I wonder if the drop is related to me no longer being in the 18-34 demographic and my car now being 10 years old. The few joys of getting older...
nfitz
Superstar
I'm not sure what the MetroPass proves. Besides, your insurance rate is a function of the distance you drive. If you drive only a couple of km to work, you pay less than if you drive 15, and you pay less if you drive 50. Not sure the relevance of the Metropass here ... sure it indicates you drive less; but given you have to state how much your drive, your declaration is a better indicator.
wonderboy416
Active Member
The insurance industry, much like the economy is cyclical. In 2002-2004 insurance companies were taking a massive financial beating, rates were extremely high and a lot of companies closed their books to new clients. Then things got better.. much better. Companies were in the black, profits rising, and rates were coming down. It was no longer newspaper headline worthy... no one seemed to complain when their rates dropped to pre-2002 levels (those with good records that is). As rates increase surely people will call bloody murder.
Car insurance is one of the trickiest industries to make a profit in, companies basically have a 3-4 window of making profits to cover the 2 years of huge loses they will suffer, that's the nature of the beast and that's what the public doesn't understand. Of all the major financial sectors, car insurance is the least profitable and has the highest risk of loss. If you don't like it, don't drive... if there were a gov't option things would not be better, you'd simply have a higher tax bill to subsidize your low premiums ala BC.
Car insurance is one of the trickiest industries to make a profit in, companies basically have a 3-4 window of making profits to cover the 2 years of huge loses they will suffer, that's the nature of the beast and that's what the public doesn't understand. Of all the major financial sectors, car insurance is the least profitable and has the highest risk of loss. If you don't like it, don't drive... if there were a gov't option things would not be better, you'd simply have a higher tax bill to subsidize your low premiums ala BC.
Maggie
Active Member
While I agree that companies should make a profit I don't agree with the rate increase they want. Sure they go in cycles but so do a lot of industries. When everyone from the Teachers Pension Fund to Auto makers and other industries are seeing drops in revenue what makes the Insurance industry so special. Have they had any major layoffs? Have they moved there Head offices out of downtown Toronto to save on Land rents taxes etc? I have not seen anything yet to promote any reason for the insurance industry able to justify cost increases other than inflation.
I for one would be willing to try public insurance. It seems that every time a new government is formed the first thing they do is change the insurance industry policies. Remember Raes no fault insurance? Well lets try a new approach.
slowtyper
New Member
That idea of a TTC metropass discount doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see how that proves that you use your car less. You can drive a lot and still have a metropass for other situations, or you can just borrow a friends TTC metropass to register with the insurance co as a loophole.
The better way to prove you drive less is to have the insurance company verify how many kms are being put on the car.
The better way to prove you drive less is to have the insurance company verify how many kms are being put on the car.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
So using my car on a cross Canada tour for a month would add too many kms on the car.
MetroMan
Senior Member
Because insurance is mandatory by law, I don't think we should be left at the submission of private companies to provide that insurance.
There should be a non-profit public minimum insurance policy to cover the mandatory liabilities and then people can purchase additional insurance from private companies to cover anything above that.
The crazy insurance rates in Ontario (I've lived in cities where I would pay $500 per year on insurance!) deter me from car ownership. While I could afford it, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Instead, I choose to live downtown and walk to most places or use the TTC when I need to get further. When I need a car for business or pleasure, there's nothing better than renting: free insurance (courtesy of VISA) and I always have a new car (that I don't have to maintain).
I calculate that insurance + lease/payments + maintenance would cost me $600 per month. I can rent a car 10 times per month and still pay less than that. I end up renting only a few times a month.
Taking living downtown into consideration, let's say I pay half those $600 into living closer to downtown. I still have $300 left per month for rentals.
Simply put, for myself and many downtowners, it's just not worth owning a car.
There should be a non-profit public minimum insurance policy to cover the mandatory liabilities and then people can purchase additional insurance from private companies to cover anything above that.
The crazy insurance rates in Ontario (I've lived in cities where I would pay $500 per year on insurance!) deter me from car ownership. While I could afford it, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Instead, I choose to live downtown and walk to most places or use the TTC when I need to get further. When I need a car for business or pleasure, there's nothing better than renting: free insurance (courtesy of VISA) and I always have a new car (that I don't have to maintain).
I calculate that insurance + lease/payments + maintenance would cost me $600 per month. I can rent a car 10 times per month and still pay less than that. I end up renting only a few times a month.
Taking living downtown into consideration, let's say I pay half those $600 into living closer to downtown. I still have $300 left per month for rentals.
Simply put, for myself and many downtowners, it's just not worth owning a car.
nfitz
Superstar
They ask for the approximate mileage a year. A one-time event isn't an issue. And once you are into those kind of mileages, the increases aren't that severe. The biggy is going from using it to get to work, and not using it to get to work - and even then I don't think we are talking more than 10% - perhaps I can figure it out from my recent changes; I've switched a few times in the last 18-months (to not being used for parental leave; to changing it back after; to noticing they got it wrong, and changing the amount again; to deciding to use transit primarily).
wonderboy416
Active Member
While I agree that stability in the rates we pay would be a wonderful thing.. it is an open market and competition is fierce with over 100 competitors chomping at the bit for your insurance dollar. So when things are good, insurance companies play a very dangerous game of dropping their rates enough to stay competitive with everyone else and maintaining their profitable business... this of course is not sustainable for when the market eventually turns, so rates go up to counter it. Simply a product of capitalism...
How do you propose changing that system?
I personally agree with the notion that insurance should come with every vehicle's license plate (if it's properly licensed and so is the driver, there should be liability and accident benefit insurance) and then the private companies can cover the physical damage aspect... but in reality (the provinces that have gov't insurance) the taxpayers are subsidizing lousy drivers who are a drastically higher risk than the good ones. The biggest payouts in accidents come from bodily injury claims - not from repairing a vehicle. At least in Ontario we have the best accident benefit coverage in north america.
Maggie
Active Member
Lets have the public decide? Lets have a public insurance plan vs a private sector plan?! A two tier system if you will. Since the strike I've heard nothing about how great the private sector is and cost efficient it is, well lets see. When you have a 100 companies with administration costs vs 1 public administration cost ( and of course many other factors). We also subsidize the private sector insurance through high rates because of crappy drivers already. Crappy drivers are everywhere.
afransen
Senior Member
Fine, but require that the system break even. I'd say set a price, slap a 30% surcharge on it, and refund proportionately any profit at the end of the year (a credit toward the next year's insurance, say).