Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
They did announce it yesterday with a pretty crap presser and slide show:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...stem-1.7390247
Glossed over a lot of the main points while promising a care-first model run by private-insurance companies who for some reason will have our interests at heart.
There were some inferences drawn about declining profits and that the implementation of this was to cover for increased property claims (Jasper, Fort Mac, Hail storms) which is hilarious.
The system appears to be similar to WCB model (it's actually the Sask model) run by private companies. injury payouts are on a schedule; long-term care is promised but unknown. you can potentially sue for "pain and suffering" if the driver is convicted of an offence like dangerous driving.
It's a convoluted mess which will inherently leave injured parties worse off, frustrated, and will allow for no accountability or promises from insurers to limit rate hikes.
It's a big win for insurance companies; an absolute unknown for insurance payers; and a huge loss for injured.
I stand by my long-standing statement that every big announcement this government has made has been absolute trash. |
Yeah, its the worst of every possible world. If you have no fault, you need a public insurer. Which, of course is soshulism. No fault and private insurers is a recipe for bad faith denials, crammed down lowball payout and no watchdog. I don't much like PI lawyers as a group - they inflate claims - but they do ensure that insurers don't trample victims.
And why is someone's pain and suffering somehow less if the offender was not convicted of an offence (which sounds a lot like fault).
This will (a) increase insurance profits (b) lower payments to injured and (c) maybe - but maybe not - reduce premiums. Where's the incentive for premium reductions exactly?