Insurance profits up 665%
17-Mar-2004, 09:26 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Streetsville
Posts: 2,290
Insurance profits up 665%
Insurance companies made a profit of 326 million last year. This year, the profits are 2.6 BILLION!!! This is in Canada -- population 30 million!!!
This is absolutely unnacceptable. Love capitalism, love profit, hate gouging...
The IBC spin doctors were on the news saying that they've had 6 difficult years, and blah, blah...
2.6 billion Profit....Profit argh...
This is absolutely unnacceptable. Love capitalism, love profit, hate gouging...
The IBC spin doctors were on the news saying that they've had 6 difficult years, and blah, blah...
2.6 billion Profit....Profit argh...
17-Mar-2004, 09:51 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 389
Yeah, damn those companies for making a profit, they should be losing money .. .lol ... you do realize there are 326 Insurance Companies in Ontario, 325 made combined around $10 million, and the rest of the profit came from RBC ... read a little closer next time ... Plus this is based on ALL INSURANCE, ie, Home, Auto, Liability, Life, Umbrella Liability, Commerical ... no one made a cent in Auto ... Gotta love the unbias news..lol....
17-Mar-2004, 10:46 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Streetsville
Posts: 2,290
Originally posted by Insuranceman
Yeah, damn those companies for making a profit, they should be losing money ...
Yeah, damn those companies for making a profit, they should be losing money ...
Read/listen, think, type...good advice for you...
Now, back to the people that matter.
17-Mar-2004, 10:56 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 13,184
well seeing as all insurance companies are linked up (i.e. offer home, life and auto) then they should figure out some way to save us a few dollars... oh wait but they don't have to because insurance is mandatory!!
i didn't notice my income at work increasing 665% last year... anyone else?
i didn't notice my income at work increasing 665% last year... anyone else?
17-Mar-2004, 11:07 AM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Streetsville
Posts: 2,290
Originally posted by SilverSiG
well seeing as all insurance companies are linked up (i.e. offer home, life and auto) then they should figure out some way to save us a few dollars... oh wait but they don't have to because insurance is mandatory!!
i didn't notice my income at work increasing 665% last year... anyone else?
well seeing as all insurance companies are linked up (i.e. offer home, life and auto) then they should figure out some way to save us a few dollars... oh wait but they don't have to because insurance is mandatory!!
i didn't notice my income at work increasing 665% last year... anyone else?
The sad part is that the insurance companies' mouthpiece/spinner, the IBC, really thinks that everyone will swallow it...
I'll be looking carefully at the spin; I need a good spin when I take my CFO takes my company's books the accountants...
17-Mar-2004, 11:18 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 13,184
hahaah no see the IBC spin guys know we'll buy it because we're canadians... we forget about **** real fast... we'll be mad as hell one day and then forget the next... lol **** like the Liberals mismanagement of money... Shawinnigan (sp) was a prime example and everyone forgot hahah and now it's come into the light again.. 10 bucks says give it a few weeks and everyone will forget... we don't have good memories... or we just don't care..
17-Mar-2004, 11:18 AM
#10
Insuranceman, you gotta agree!! The US has way lower insurance rates, yet their courts award ridiculous amounts of settlements. In Canada, even for the most unwanted results, the courts are pretty reasonable. I mean, I'm all for profit... if it's LEFT TO COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF MARKET FORCES. However, insurance is mandated by the gov't, so why are the prices left unchecked?? It's like this.... you HAVE to buy this regardless of cost! How would you like it if hydro prices were unregulated? Say you were paying $500/month for hydro, and the hydro companies made $80 billion dollars profit... and every house HAS to have hydro by law? Wouldn't you ask yourself "WTF is going on?". Esp this... I only have liability coverage. No claims in prolly... 4 or 5 years. And not just no claims... no accidents. My car get's stolen, I'm out prolly $30K replacement value for my car. Insurance won't cover it. Basically anything happens to my car I have to pay for it. If I'm in a collision, the other person's ins company pays for their car, I pay for my own. So.... what am I paying for??
17-Mar-2004, 11:23 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,906
Re: Insurance profits up 665%
Originally posted by audiophilia
2.6 billion Profit....Profit argh...
2.6 billion Profit....Profit argh...
and here insuranceman has been telling us insurance companies are just scraping by all the long
can't say i didn't see those numbers coming...
17-Mar-2004, 11:25 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 13,184
Originally posted by bbarbulo
Insuranceman, you gotta agree!! The US has way lower insurance rates, yet their courts award ridiculous amounts of settlements. In Canada, even for the most unwanted results, the courts are pretty reasonable. I mean, I'm all for profit... if it's LEFT TO COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF MARKET FORCES. However, insurance is mandated by the gov't, so why are the prices left unchecked?? It's like this.... you HAVE to buy this regardless of cost! How would you like it if hydro prices were unregulated? Say you were paying $500/month for hydro, and the hydro companies made $80 billion dollars profit... and every house HAS to have hydro by law? Wouldn't you ask yourself "WTF is going on?". Esp this... I only have liability coverage. No claims in prolly... 4 or 5 years. And not just no claims... no accidents. My car get's stolen, I'm out prolly $30K replacement value for my car. Insurance won't cover it. Basically anything happens to my car I have to pay for it. If I'm in a collision, the other person's ins company pays for their car, I pay for my own. So.... what am I paying for??
Insuranceman, you gotta agree!! The US has way lower insurance rates, yet their courts award ridiculous amounts of settlements. In Canada, even for the most unwanted results, the courts are pretty reasonable. I mean, I'm all for profit... if it's LEFT TO COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF MARKET FORCES. However, insurance is mandated by the gov't, so why are the prices left unchecked?? It's like this.... you HAVE to buy this regardless of cost! How would you like it if hydro prices were unregulated? Say you were paying $500/month for hydro, and the hydro companies made $80 billion dollars profit... and every house HAS to have hydro by law? Wouldn't you ask yourself "WTF is going on?". Esp this... I only have liability coverage. No claims in prolly... 4 or 5 years. And not just no claims... no accidents. My car get's stolen, I'm out prolly $30K replacement value for my car. Insurance won't cover it. Basically anything happens to my car I have to pay for it. If I'm in a collision, the other person's ins company pays for their car, I pay for my own. So.... what am I paying for??
17-Mar-2004, 11:25 AM
#13
I dunno if I explained myself well.
Basically I'm saying this... IF you're gonna mandate insurance, then regulate ALL of it, from what's required, to who needs it, to how much they pay. Don't just say "Everyone needs it... go get your own". That's doing it half-assed.
If you're gonna let insurnace be privatised, then let ALL of it be private, including the decision to buy.
In economics, we studied how much insurance a consumer will buy. Ppl would still buy insurnace on their own. Except now the prices would HAVE to be representative of the risk involved, and the insurnace industry would see far smaller profits so they'd have to really MANAGE risk. Not what they do now.
Now they gouge.
Insurance should be a zero-sum game (actually it IS in a market economy). I am inclined to think it would be best handled by the gov't. I don't believe FAIR insurance is a business that a private company should be involved in, ESPECIALLY where insurance is mandated.
Basically I'm saying this... IF you're gonna mandate insurance, then regulate ALL of it, from what's required, to who needs it, to how much they pay. Don't just say "Everyone needs it... go get your own". That's doing it half-assed.
If you're gonna let insurnace be privatised, then let ALL of it be private, including the decision to buy.
In economics, we studied how much insurance a consumer will buy. Ppl would still buy insurnace on their own. Except now the prices would HAVE to be representative of the risk involved, and the insurnace industry would see far smaller profits so they'd have to really MANAGE risk. Not what they do now.
Now they gouge.Insurance should be a zero-sum game (actually it IS in a market economy). I am inclined to think it would be best handled by the gov't. I don't believe FAIR insurance is a business that a private company should be involved in, ESPECIALLY where insurance is mandated.
17-Mar-2004, 11:27 AM
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Streetsville
Posts: 2,290
A friend's beater is worth 1000. His insurance is 5000. His broker says they insure the driver not the car (21, two claims -- not his fault).
Maggie Thatcher tried that in England. The Poll Tax. A tax on people, not property. It was finally overturned after several deaths and huge numbers of riots and unrest. She was very popular at the time. The Brits of all parties and classes decided they would not take it. We need to take a leaf out of their book...
Maggie Thatcher tried that in England. The Poll Tax. A tax on people, not property. It was finally overturned after several deaths and huge numbers of riots and unrest. She was very popular at the time. The Brits of all parties and classes decided they would not take it. We need to take a leaf out of their book...
17-Mar-2004, 11:30 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,906
although how the insurance companies operate is a model that all business should follow... i mean they charge rediculous rates for cheap cars... take mine for example... i probably pay about as much in one year as my cars total value... keeping in mind that any aftermarket parts i've purchased would be replaced wiht the cheapest available.... so for every year i'm insured they've already made there money on me pending i get into an accident... but if i got into an accident would i actually go through insurance?? hell no... i'd get a bank loan to pay for any repairs/ new car....
cause if i go into a shop and say i need a new front end, like bumper, fenders and hood... a quote for me might be $1400.... but i say my insurance company is paying for it that number magically jumps to near $3000... i did actually try that at a shop so it is a fact....
but pretty much the only reason i even have insurance is if by chance i get pulled over it really sucks not having any ($5000 fine) or if by chance some idiot hits me or something and somebody dies... cause its awefully damn hard to get into an accident in a civic that is your fault...
cause if i go into a shop and say i need a new front end, like bumper, fenders and hood... a quote for me might be $1400.... but i say my insurance company is paying for it that number magically jumps to near $3000... i did actually try that at a shop so it is a fact....
but pretty much the only reason i even have insurance is if by chance i get pulled over it really sucks not having any ($5000 fine) or if by chance some idiot hits me or something and somebody dies... cause its awefully damn hard to get into an accident in a civic that is your fault...
17-Mar-2004, 11:38 AM
#17
that's funny Anthony, cuz I can drive your car and I'm fully insured... the insurance rolls with the car, NOT the driver.
you can drive MY car and you'd be insured just as if I was driving it.
since I don't live at home, I can drive my parent's cars and be fully insured.
So how is the insurance rate based on the driver then??
you can drive MY car and you'd be insured just as if I was driving it.
since I don't live at home, I can drive my parent's cars and be fully insured.
So how is the insurance rate based on the driver then??
17-Mar-2004, 11:42 AM
#18
Rick, the insurance companies are merely taking advantage of their environment... they are a private corp and as such have a duty to their investors to extract maximum profits. We cannot blame them for good business.
However, we SHOULD blame the gov't for creating the circumstances under which ins co's operate. MANDATORY insurance, regardless the cost. THIS is the root of the problem - gov't policy.
If we wanna do something about it, it's time to take a political stance.
Ironically, two of my good friends both insure with RBC since they were the cheapest out of all the companies... I salute them on good risk managment and for making such awesome profits. And I'm not being sarcastic... I truly believe they're doing a great job.
However, we SHOULD blame the gov't for creating the circumstances under which ins co's operate. MANDATORY insurance, regardless the cost. THIS is the root of the problem - gov't policy.
If we wanna do something about it, it's time to take a political stance.
Ironically, two of my good friends both insure with RBC since they were the cheapest out of all the companies... I salute them on good risk managment and for making such awesome profits. And I'm not being sarcastic... I truly believe they're doing a great job.
17-Mar-2004, 11:58 AM
#20
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Streetsville
Posts: 2,290
Originally posted by bbarbulo
that's funny Anthony, cuz I can drive your car and I'm fully insured... the insurance rolls with the car, NOT the driver.
you can drive MY car and you'd be insured just as if I was driving it.
since I don't live at home, I can drive my parent's cars and be fully insured.
So how is the insurance rate based on the driver then??
that's funny Anthony, cuz I can drive your car and I'm fully insured... the insurance rolls with the car, NOT the driver.
you can drive MY car and you'd be insured just as if I was driving it.
since I don't live at home, I can drive my parent's cars and be fully insured.
So how is the insurance rate based on the driver then??
So, maybe they are insuring the driver's risk, but definitely not the value of the car...
It's the assessment that I have such a problem with...the companies are not in business to make Anthony's day easier, but it should be fair. Their numbers are skewed or plain wrong, and I find it completely immoral...
