my insurance doubled
09-Jul-2003, 11:06 PM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 389
Originally posted by bbarbulo
And you never told me who will pay for a reduction of quality of life if my wife is killed by a stray bullet or a sexual offender or something?
And you never told me who will pay for a reduction of quality of life if my wife is killed by a stray bullet or a sexual offender or something?
10-Jul-2003, 09:53 AM
#42
So OHIP will pay me $1-9Million dollars for loss of a spouse??? As a tax payer, I'm outraged that my money is being wasted so!!! 
See, there is no pleasing me. 
Insuranceman, I thought about it last night, and I have an even more reasonable proposition that would NOT require a radical change in insurance... rather.... provide an incentive for ppl to NOT get in accidents. How? By making insurance like a co-op institution, where the policyholders are actual owners/investors (which we are, we just don't know it ) and at the end of it all (annually), we get back a percentage for NOT having a claim. Cuz, well, the insurance assumed a risk... risk did not take place, insurane made some money by holding that premium, and then they pay back part of it like a dividend, since the policyholder is also now an investor. So it's in his interest to not have a claim.
See, there is no pleasing me. Insuranceman, I thought about it last night, and I have an even more reasonable proposition that would NOT require a radical change in insurance... rather.... provide an incentive for ppl to NOT get in accidents. How? By making insurance like a co-op institution, where the policyholders are actual owners/investors (which we are, we just don't know it
) and at the end of it all (annually), we get back a percentage for NOT having a claim. Cuz, well, the insurance assumed a risk... risk did not take place, insurane made some money by holding that premium, and then they pay back part of it like a dividend, since the policyholder is also now an investor. So it's in his interest to not have a claim.
10-Jul-2003, 10:07 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 389
bbarbulo - your plan is already at work, its called a Mutual insurance company ... any company that has "mutual" in the title can be owned by its policyholders, you just have to buy shares in the company ..... and they get assloads of discounts .....
PunkInDrublic - "and the worst part about insurance... i know this one first hand.... say you get into an accident... 100% not at fault... and the other persons insurance pays for all damages... so your insurance company doesn't have to pay anything.... they still double ones rates.... i mean hell my car wasn't even in motion when it happened.... and i gotta fork out double the money now"
************************************************** *
You don't know that for a fact because you are wrong - the way no fault insurance works is YOUR COMPANY pays for your damage, no matter who is at fault .... If you are at fault you pay a deductible and your rates go up - if you are not at fault, you pay no deductible and your rates don't go up - either way your insurance company pays for the damage ....People need to educate themselves before shooting off their mouth
PunkInDrublic - "and the worst part about insurance... i know this one first hand.... say you get into an accident... 100% not at fault... and the other persons insurance pays for all damages... so your insurance company doesn't have to pay anything.... they still double ones rates.... i mean hell my car wasn't even in motion when it happened.... and i gotta fork out double the money now"
************************************************** *
You don't know that for a fact because you are wrong - the way no fault insurance works is YOUR COMPANY pays for your damage, no matter who is at fault .... If you are at fault you pay a deductible and your rates go up - if you are not at fault, you pay no deductible and your rates don't go up - either way your insurance company pays for the damage ....People need to educate themselves before shooting off their mouth
10-Jul-2003, 10:15 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,906
i think that would be a good idea actually... but theres always someone out there who doesn't know how to drive that causes it.... and i mean i have avoided lots a near crashes of people not signaling and turning into my lane... but there always gonna be that one person who smashes up and you might be the unlucky one getting smoked by there stupidity....
and the worst part about insurance... i know this one first hand.... say you get into an accident... 100% not at fault... and the other persons insurance pays for all damages... so your insurance company doesn't have to pay anything.... they still double ones rates.... i mean hell my car wasn't even in motion when it happened.... and i gotta fork out double the money now
and the worst part about insurance... i know this one first hand.... say you get into an accident... 100% not at fault... and the other persons insurance pays for all damages... so your insurance company doesn't have to pay anything.... they still double ones rates.... i mean hell my car wasn't even in motion when it happened.... and i gotta fork out double the money now
10-Jul-2003, 10:30 AM
#45
Ya, my bro's car was fooking WRECKED New Years eve 1999/2000 while parked downtown. No one apparently saw a thing... there was a cop on every corner, yet his new 1999 Jetta apparently made no noise as the front end smashed in 
LOL $6K in damage. Ouch! I said **** it, we'll put a nice Golf conversion on it, Oettinger kit and fix it all for like $2K... nope.. he did the insurance thing. After his $1000 deductable, his insurance still went up soooo much. Dumbass j/k
Ya, Insuranceman, that's what I wanna know... if every insurance policy pays for the car it covers (which I know is true from my experiences).... then it makes no sense to make insurance mandatory unless the car is leased or financed. Cuz if you bought it, and you don't wanna insure it, that should be your own perogative. Since if you crash into someone... their insurance pays for it anyways, you just cover their deductable. And you throw your own car in the garbage and buy a new one
LOL $6K in damage. Ouch! I said **** it, we'll put a nice Golf conversion on it, Oettinger kit and fix it all for like $2K... nope.. he did the insurance thing. After his $1000 deductable, his insurance still went up soooo much. Dumbass j/kYa, Insuranceman, that's what I wanna know... if every insurance policy pays for the car it covers (which I know is true from my experiences).... then it makes no sense to make insurance mandatory unless the car is leased or financed. Cuz if you bought it, and you don't wanna insure it, that should be your own perogative. Since if you crash into someone... their insurance pays for it anyways, you just cover their deductable. And you throw your own car in the garbage and buy a new one
11-Jul-2003, 06:43 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1
I don't know if you guys watch the news, or listen to the radio... but his is what I heard on both: many Government parties are currently submitting insurance control campaigns specifically aimed at bringing down insurance premiums.... There are/have been talks of premiums freezes, caps, and even roll backs within these campaigns...
If you're of age to vote... now might be a good time to start checking out what political parties are promising in their campaigns as far as this topic goes. But I'm pretty sure that all the parties have recognized this as an issue they'll have to deal with if elected.
On another note, I read in a local paper that the automobile insurance industry recorded a loss of 800 million last year.... just thought I'd throw that in the mix.
If you're of age to vote... now might be a good time to start checking out what political parties are promising in their campaigns as far as this topic goes. But I'm pretty sure that all the parties have recognized this as an issue they'll have to deal with if elected.
On another note, I read in a local paper that the automobile insurance industry recorded a loss of 800 million last year.... just thought I'd throw that in the mix.
11-Jul-2003, 06:56 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: on a race track
Posts: 17,846
yes they lost money ..... but the key is how they lost the money... did they lose it simply because paying out damages exceeded bringing in premiums.... (of course their are other expenses like salaries) or did they lose money because they brought in money invested it poorly , lost money and also had to make payouts and operating costs that are less then premuims brought it.... if they lost the money because of poor investment choices then I think they have no right to raise rates if it is the first one they should raise rates... however I also think that paying out 1 to 9 million for a loss of life is &*(*ed up...
the whole point is to allow any dependants (or parents that have to pay funeral costs and clear up the deceased debts) any hardship.... so if the dude used to make 50000 dollars has a 30000 mortgage left and 3000 in credit cards and has 2 dependants... and is 45 years old, the payment should be able to offer the dependants to pay off all debts and survive on the same income for what whole have been the persons expected life... I think it would amount to about 1.25 million... however 9 million??? who got killed a billionaire???
the whole point is to allow any dependants (or parents that have to pay funeral costs and clear up the deceased debts) any hardship.... so if the dude used to make 50000 dollars has a 30000 mortgage left and 3000 in credit cards and has 2 dependants... and is 45 years old, the payment should be able to offer the dependants to pay off all debts and survive on the same income for what whole have been the persons expected life... I think it would amount to about 1.25 million... however 9 million??? who got killed a billionaire???
11-Jul-2003, 09:03 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 389
Originally posted by gatherer
yes they lost money ..... but the key is how they lost the money... did they lose it simply because paying out damages exceeded bringing in premiums.... (of course their are other expenses like salaries) or did they lose money because they brought in money invested it poorly , lost money and also had to make payouts and operating costs that are less then premuims brought it.... if they lost the money because of poor investment choices then I think they have no right to raise rates if it is the first one they should raise rates... however I also think that paying out 1 to 9 million for a loss of life is &*(*ed up...
the whole point is to allow any dependants (or parents that have to pay funeral costs and clear up the deceased debts) any hardship.... so if the dude used to make 50000 dollars has a 30000 mortgage left and 3000 in credit cards and has 2 dependants... and is 45 years old, the payment should be able to offer the dependants to pay off all debts and survive on the same income for what whole have been the persons expected life... I think it would amount to about 1.25 million... however 9 million??? who got killed a billionaire???
yes they lost money ..... but the key is how they lost the money... did they lose it simply because paying out damages exceeded bringing in premiums.... (of course their are other expenses like salaries) or did they lose money because they brought in money invested it poorly , lost money and also had to make payouts and operating costs that are less then premuims brought it.... if they lost the money because of poor investment choices then I think they have no right to raise rates if it is the first one they should raise rates... however I also think that paying out 1 to 9 million for a loss of life is &*(*ed up...
the whole point is to allow any dependants (or parents that have to pay funeral costs and clear up the deceased debts) any hardship.... so if the dude used to make 50000 dollars has a 30000 mortgage left and 3000 in credit cards and has 2 dependants... and is 45 years old, the payment should be able to offer the dependants to pay off all debts and survive on the same income for what whole have been the persons expected life... I think it would amount to about 1.25 million... however 9 million??? who got killed a billionaire???
Ya we paid out $9 million for a billionaire .....lol .... The highest court award I saw was $9 million for a 30 year old Doctor (plastic surgeon) with 2 kids, a rather hefty mortgage and a standard of living well above yours or mine ... to put this into view, didn't the courts in the US (whom Canada is now following in awards might I add) award a lady who burnt herself with hot coffee over a million in damages .... and you think were out to lunch .....
12-Jul-2003, 07:50 AM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 389
Originally posted by gatherer
yes they lost money ..... but the key is how they lost the money... did they lose it simply because paying out damages exceeded bringing in premiums.... (of course their are other expenses like salaries) or did they lose money because they brought in money invested it poorly , lost money and also had to make payouts and operating costs that are less then premuims brought it.... if they lost the money because of poor investment choices then I think they have no right to raise rates if it is the first one they should raise rates...
yes they lost money ..... but the key is how they lost the money... did they lose it simply because paying out damages exceeded bringing in premiums.... (of course their are other expenses like salaries) or did they lose money because they brought in money invested it poorly , lost money and also had to make payouts and operating costs that are less then premuims brought it.... if they lost the money because of poor investment choices then I think they have no right to raise rates if it is the first one they should raise rates...
From personal experience, my company was right on the line in the 4th quarter last year, we had a high loss ratio and the investment side wasn't the greatest (not because of poor investments but remember how the stock market went into the *******) but we did end up making money as I said and were even paid a profit sharing cheque as an employee ....
14-Jul-2003, 12:50 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,906
Originally posted by Insuranceman
PunkInDrublic - "and the worst part about insurance... i know this one first hand.... say you get into an accident... 100% not at fault... and the other persons insurance pays for all damages... so your insurance company doesn't have to pay anything.... they still double ones rates.... i mean hell my car wasn't even in motion when it happened.... and i gotta fork out double the money now"
************************************************** *
You don't know that for a fact because you are wrong - the way no fault insurance works is YOUR COMPANY pays for your damage, no matter who is at fault .... If you are at fault you pay a deductible and your rates go up - if you are not at fault, you pay no deductible and your rates don't go up - either way your insurance company pays for the damage ....People need to educate themselves before shooting off their mouth [/B]
PunkInDrublic - "and the worst part about insurance... i know this one first hand.... say you get into an accident... 100% not at fault... and the other persons insurance pays for all damages... so your insurance company doesn't have to pay anything.... they still double ones rates.... i mean hell my car wasn't even in motion when it happened.... and i gotta fork out double the money now"
************************************************** *
You don't know that for a fact because you are wrong - the way no fault insurance works is YOUR COMPANY pays for your damage, no matter who is at fault .... If you are at fault you pay a deductible and your rates go up - if you are not at fault, you pay no deductible and your rates don't go up - either way your insurance company pays for the damage ....People need to educate themselves before shooting off their mouth [/B]
can you explain how me being at a complete stop and a transport truck ramming me from behind puts me at fault??? i mean should i have put on my 4 ways so he knew i was stopped for the red light?? or maybe put some of those orange pylons behind my car so he'd see that my car wasn't moving?? or maybe i should've just ran the red light then i'd still be paying cheap insurance and even if i did get caught i'd probably only get a small ticket with maybe a few points which i could take to court and get it thrown out... i could tell the judge... some transport truck was tail gating me and i had to run through...
maybe you need to be educated on reality and not what your boss whats you to say to make the company look better...
14-Jul-2003, 01:57 AM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 322
Screw you insurance companys!
The purpose of insurance is to ENSURE that if a policy holder gets in an accident, their damages are covered by the issuing company. But the reality is, most people are afraid to go through insurance in fear that their premiums will go through the roof.(which they do)
Insurance companys are taking advantage of the fact that every driver must be insured.
The purpose of insurance is to ENSURE that if a policy holder gets in an accident, their damages are covered by the issuing company. But the reality is, most people are afraid to go through insurance in fear that their premiums will go through the roof.(which they do)
Insurance companys are taking advantage of the fact that every driver must be insured.
14-Jul-2003, 07:25 AM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 389
Originally posted by PunkInDrublic
can you explain how me being at a complete stop and a transport truck ramming me from behind puts me at fault??? i mean should i have put on my 4 ways so he knew i was stopped for the red light?? or maybe put some of those orange pylons behind my car so he'd see that my car wasn't moving?? or maybe i should've just ran the red light then i'd still be paying cheap insurance and even if i did get caught i'd probably only get a small ticket with maybe a few points which i could take to court and get it thrown out... i could tell the judge... some transport truck was tail gating me and i had to run through...
maybe you need to be educated on reality and not what your boss whats you to say to make the company look better...
can you explain how me being at a complete stop and a transport truck ramming me from behind puts me at fault??? i mean should i have put on my 4 ways so he knew i was stopped for the red light?? or maybe put some of those orange pylons behind my car so he'd see that my car wasn't moving?? or maybe i should've just ran the red light then i'd still be paying cheap insurance and even if i did get caught i'd probably only get a small ticket with maybe a few points which i could take to court and get it thrown out... i could tell the judge... some transport truck was tail gating me and i had to run through...
maybe you need to be educated on reality and not what your boss whats you to say to make the company look better...
14-Jul-2003, 07:27 AM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 389
Originally posted by RApiDArTiFAcTs
Screw you insurance companys!
Insurance companys are taking advantage of the fact that every driver must be insured.
Screw you insurance companys!
Insurance companys are taking advantage of the fact that every driver must be insured.
14-Jul-2003, 02:22 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 322
"Insurance companys typically lose 1$ per year" if this is in fact true(which I believe ur opinion to be slightly biased Insuranceman). Then why are companys still in the business? This 1 mil/yr statistic may have been the trend just recently, but what about 10 years ago? The consensus shows most policy holders believe the insurance companys are only out to "line their pockets" and not genuinely concerned with the damages of the people involved in accidents.
14-Jul-2003, 03:41 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 389
Originally posted by RApiDArTiFAcTs
"Insurance companys typically lose 1$ per year" if this is in fact true(which I believe ur opinion to be slightly biased Insuranceman). Then why are companys still in the business? This 1 mil/yr statistic may have been the trend just recently, but what about 10 years ago? The consensus shows most policy holders believe the insurance companys are only out to "line their pockets" and not genuinely concerned with the damages of the people involved in accidents.
"Insurance companys typically lose 1$ per year" if this is in fact true(which I believe ur opinion to be slightly biased Insuranceman). Then why are companys still in the business? This 1 mil/yr statistic may have been the trend just recently, but what about 10 years ago? The consensus shows most policy holders believe the insurance companys are only out to "line their pockets" and not genuinely concerned with the damages of the people involved in accidents.
