Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not sure if you're taking a shot at me and saying that I don't understand insurance?

The property rates will increase as the costs increase. When we have catastrophes like record-breaking hailstorms or wildfires, your insurance premiums are rising. I would contest that this increase is not small.

Yeah just the first sentence was replying to you, I should have split that up, no shots. I'm not saying the increases are small but more gradual unlike the upcoming auto rates will have to be due to playing catch up.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by BigThief

His reply to SebC legit confused me. Like who is Cliff responding to? Was he just eager to use Chattering Classes and wedged it into a reply?

You’re easily confused.

SebC wrote this: “we've rigged our society to benefit billionaires at the expense of everyone else.”

It’s not at the expense of everyone else. The educated, professional upper-middle-class have been big winners of the globalized knowledge economy. They don’t like to acknowledge that they’re winners. But that doesn’t change the fact they’re doing better than counterparts 30 years ago, and that the gap between them and the working class is widening.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

For starters you need to separate yourself from political views, this isn't a political move even though this is the only good thing the UCP has and will probably ever do.

Details on Alberta have yet to be released but we can assume it will be similar to the Ontario model. Here is the main system.

"With Ontario no-fault insurance your insurance company will cover you and your passengers for damages and injuries from a car accident. The rationale is that you will get compensation quicker so that you can move on with your life faster.

In some cases, however, you can’t move on with your life because the injuries that you have sustained are permanent and disabling. In the case of serious injuries, you can still sue an at-fault driver for pain and suffering, loss of income not covered by your auto insurer, and other expenses not covered by your auto insurer, such as medical rehabilitation expenses."

https://tinyurl.com/Link-to-more-details

So with the current system you get a diagnosis of your injuries, usually soft tissue injuries such as whiplash by a physiotherapist, chiropractor, or doctor. There are 3 categories 1 and 2 are soft tissue and a set amount of treatments are approved, 3 involves worse injuries such as broken bones etc. So you are diagnosed as a 2 and given 21 treatments to use in basically any medicinal field like massage, acupuncture, chiro, physio and the more obscure like prolotherapy (Sugar water injections). you finish the 21 treatments and then you are either back to near pre accident condition. This is treatment under protocols now if you were not at fault you are entitled to a settlement for pain and suffering, out of pocket expenses, lost wages etc but the cap on the settlement for pain in suffering as of Jan 2024 was $6,061. So 6 grand, maybe some out of pocket expenses etc they cut you a cheque for $10,000 let say. Very reasonable and no one would complain about these losses being excessive, but if you have a lawyer for this they take their cut and its not really worth their time.

BUT lawyers are resourceful and they know there must be things that would take you outside of the cap so now every injury claim has a TMJ injury, psychological injuries etc. Now you are outside of the cap and the chequebook is wide open. Now keep in mind your insurance company is the one helping you with treatments but the at fault company deals with your settlement compensation. You have been treating for a year with no progress, your neck still hurts in the morning so your company decides to send you for an independent medical exam, these are a group of doctors you submit to for a report, you don't choose the doctor its meant to be random. Doctor looks over everything and decides you don't need more treatment, your company gets the report back and cuts you off. Now your lawyer is threatening to sue your insurance company for bad faith as well as the other company for your injuries. Insurance companies don't want to go to court and will usually settle so in this scenario everyone has settled.

So lets recap in scenario 1 you got paid out $10,000 for your sore neck (In this scenario not assuming injuries don't get worse) and the whole process was over in a few months.

Scenario 2 the whole injury claim from both sides has cost 10x as much, you are going to get more money though lets say $30,000 plus out of pocket expenses, lost wages etc but lawyers fees and other fees jumped the total cost paid out to over $100,000.

Times are tough and who wouldn't want $30,000, your whole claim now for one accident including damages to vehicles and everything else is going to run about $200,000.00.

Now this is your first accident, you have been paying premiums for 20 years so its not fair that your premiums and everyone else go up but that 20 years of premiums covered maybe $50,000 of this one claim. Insurance is a big pot of money that we all pay into so there is enough when you need it but your one "minor" injury accident just wiped out 20 years of premiums of your own and more. The pot of money isn't allowed to go lower so everyone now needs to make up the difference but insurance companies aren't allowed to raise premiums so now what do they do?

This is a very basic take on this from a non insurance person but I assure you its very accurate. I would never advocate taking away peoples rights to monetary compensation for serious injuries and the new system does not do that it just removes the ability for minor injury costs to be inflated out of control.

Edit: I also want to add this scenario assumes you are alone in your vehicle, lets add 3 or 4 more people and you can see where this is going and this is an insured person that went into this with no intentions of taking advantage of the system now lets add people that do take advantage and have fraudulent accident/injuries.

The value of a claim is the value of the claim. If a court thinks a claim is worth $100,000.00 it's worth $100,000.00 regardless of how the claimant pays their lawyer.

So if an insurance company offers you $10,000.00 for your injury, but you can hire a lawyer to get $100,000.00, who is the scammer in this case?

UCP is doing one worse. They are wanting to keep private insurers but eliminate/reduce an individuals right to sue. There is no incentive for the private sector to reduce insurance rates, and there is every incentive to lowball injured parties.

Anecdotally, i do not practice PI, but i have dabbled in it to help friends and family. My sister was offered $20,000.00 for an injury claim after it happened. I sent the insurance company a letter saying i was retained and reviewing the matter. That offer immediately went to $90,000.00 with one letter.

Publicly provided no-fault insurance is probably the best option; but we all have to realize that if you are injured, your rights are diminished.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You’re easily confused.

SebC wrote this: “we've rigged our society to benefit billionaires at the expense of everyone else.”

It’s not at the expense of everyone else. The educated, professional upper-middle-class have been big winners of the globalized knowledge economy. They don’t like to acknowledge that they’re winners. But that doesn’t change the fact they’re doing better than counterparts 30 years ago, and that the gap between them and the working class is widening.

I was looking for graphs or stats on this, do you have a source? I can't find anything good.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The fact you think I’m talking about multi-millionaires just proves my point. 100k income puts you in the top 20 per cent of Canadian individuals. A household with two education professionals earnings 100k+ is affluent by Canadian standards, and that class of household has been pulling away from the pack for decades now. The growing inequality between the upper middle class and households earning 50k or 60k is more salient to the everyday lives of most Canadians than whatever the 0.1 per cent are up to.

I guess we follow different media spaces, because I see far more warnings (like SebC’s) about what billionaires are doing to social cohesion than what the professional classes are doing.

The top 20%, on average, makes 3.4 Million dollars.

If you’re specifically talking about the top 20 percent, excluding everybody above, say, the top 10 percent, your point would make some sense.

And the fact that the bottom of the top 20 percent is closer to the bottom of the top 50 than it is to the top 1% goes entirely against your point is wealth equality.

But you’re right, I don’t read a lot of people like Jonathan Kay who throw around terms like “chattering classes” to disparage liberal “elites” and academics, so our social media consumption is probably pretty different.

[Fuzz]

I'd also love to go with an insurance company that doesn't pay out damages for vinyl siding. Gotta be some rate savings there. I don't know why insurance covers this repeatedly. They should pay out once, with the option of the home owner paying for hail resistant siding upgrade to get continued coverage. Otherwise it's one payout and you are on your own if you go for the same inadequate (but cheap!) siding material. Why should I have to pay for this stuff over and over in my premiums? Crazy.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Yeah just the first sentence was replying to you, I should have split that up, no shots. I'm not saying the increases are small but more gradual unlike the upcoming auto rates will have to be due to playing catch up.

I guess what I'm saying is that property damage (like physical auto damages here, as opposed to property coverage) is a significant driver of that auto premium increase, though. I think that might have been confusing, but I would like to see how that portion of auto claims has inflated as compared to the personal injury side.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Anecdotally, i do not practice PI, but i have dabbled in it to help friends and family. My sister was offered $20,000.00 for an injury claim after it happened. I sent the insurance company a letter saying i was retained and reviewing the matter. That offer immediately went to $90,000.00 with one letter.

.

I don't doubt you, but that's one hell of a letter....

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I was looking for graphs or stats on this, do you have a source? I can't find anything good.

These stats are American, but they show the share of income going to upper income households ($207K in 2018) increasing dramatically over the last 50 years relative to middle-income households.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-t...5%20to%2048%25.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't doubt you, but that's one hell of a letter....

I do doubt it and would put that in the things that didn't happen category and then under F for fraud

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

These stats are American, but they show the share of income going to upper income households ($207K in 2018) increasing dramatically over the last 50 years relative to middle-income households.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-t...5%20to%2048%25.

OK, didn't know we were talking about the US(I couldn't find anything for Canada). I'm not sure you can just apply that to Canada, given this graph at the same link:

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SebC

A theoretical advantage of no-fault insurance is that you stop paying the personal injuries lawyers and judges out of your insurance premiums and taxes.

Judges are federally appointed, paid a set salary no matter what laws are in place, and personal injury cases are a pretty small part of their workload given that most cases never see a trial. There won't be fewer judges. Just smaller amounts of compensation.

And whether premiums go down because of no fault (and the hit on lawyers) - we shall see. They are also removing caps. In BC it is a public insurer. Seems like soshulism.

[Sliver]

Are we gonna get some Marlaina Bucks at some point? That'd be sick. Still think back fondly on the hard partying my friends and I did when those Ralph Bucks hit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't doubt you, but that's one hell of a letter....

It's more like (and I doubt Cappy was claiming otherwise) that the mere discovery that an accident victim has legal advice and won't take a lowball offer turns the discussion into a more reasonable direction. It was probably still a low offer, but not a stink one.
Hell, a decent portion of the difference between 10 and 90K for the uinsuere is the fees of their own lawyers and experts.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's more like (and I doubt Cappy was claiming otherwise) that the mere discovery that an accident victim has legal advice and won't take a lowball offer turns the discussion into a more reasonable direction. It was probably still a low offer, but not a stink one.
Hell, a decent portion of the difference between 10 and 90K for the uinsuere is the fees of their own lawyers and experts.

Maybe, I don't know Cappy, but I'd suggest that anyone that jumped $70,000 from a single letter is #### at their job.

Further, for a single letter to cause a $70,000 jump due to legal costs....wow that's an expensive letter.

Usually the legal costs are added onto the settlement of the injury, ie: $10,000 + costs. You used to see (and might still see) all inclusive costs, but generally lawyers prefer their costs be added onto the settlement.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Maybe, I don't know Cappy, but I'd suggest that anyone that jumped $70,000 from a single letter is #### at their job.

Further, for a single letter to cause a $70,000 jump due to legal costs....wow that's an expensive letter.

Usually the legal costs are added onto the settlement of the injury, ie: $10,000 + costs. You used to see (and might still see) all inclusive costs, but generally lawyers prefer their costs be added onto the settlement.

It's not the letter that caused the jump - it's the knowledge that to go further will cause the insurer to spend $70K on their own lawyer, medical experts, etc.

And plaintiffs' lawyers in personal injury generally don't settle with costs added - it's a contingency field. It is all inclusive. Sometimes there is apportionment of the amount for different heads of injury, but that's more about taxes and bankruptcy issues.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Are we gonna get some Marlaina Bucks at some point? That'd be sick. Still think back fondly on the hard partying my friends and I did when those Ralph Bucks hit.

With the price of oil I wouldn't bet on it. Looking like a deficit for the provincial budget.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's not the letter that caused the jump - it's the knowledge that to go further will cause the insurer to spend $70K on their own lawyer, medical experts, etc.

And plaintiffs' lawyers in personal injury generally don't settle with costs added - it's a contingency field. It is all inclusive. Sometimes there is apportionment of the amount for different heads of injury, but that's more about taxes and bankruptcy issues.

Again if the valuation of the injury was $70,000 out a whack I would say the person making that offer is #### at their job

Also, the just because the injured party retained a lawyer doesn't mean the insurance company needs to retain a lawyer or involve their inhouse counsel which often happens with these smaller files.

Insurance companies settle plenty of claims with people's lawyers without involving their own lawyer or medical experts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Again if the valuation of the injury was $70,000 out a whack I would say the person making that offer is #### at their job

Also, the just because the injured party retained a lawyer doesn't mean the insurance company needs to retain a lawyer or involve their inhouse counsel which often happens with these smaller files.

Insurance companies settle plenty of claims with people's lawyers without involving their own lawyer or medical experts.

No, they are trying to save as much money as possible. If that offer is accepted by someone who doesn't feel like investigating the options, that adjuster excelled at their job. Insurers lowball all the time. And they always hire outside counsel if the plaintiff is represented. Their inhouse counsel is not for litigation. At all.

[Fuzz]

Former prime minister Stephen Harper has been appointed the new chairman of the board of AIMCo, the Alberta Investment Management Corporation, the Alberta government said Wednesday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...388582?cmp=rss


It's a good thing they took the time to do a long exhaustive search to find the best person for the job, with decades of experience managing large pension funds.


No surprise at this point, just more appointments of old dog Conservatives looking to take more control of everything because they obviously know best, because reasons.