Yeah insurance (scam) is way out of control. Just got our new quotes and wow/ not sure how anyone can afford any of this. Wild.
Such a scam. Government has totally ####ed this up. This issue alone is enough to boot the UCP. Total disaster.
I think insurance should be nationalized. Since the government makes it mandatory to have insurance on homes and cars then the government should provide insurance at more reasonable rates where the goal is to protect people's assets and livelihoods instead of prioritizing corporate profits and CEO bonuses.
BC's public insurance is looking pretty good in that graph, especially in the automotive graph. I expect their housing insurance costs are higher because the cost of housing in Vancouver and Victoria is so high compared to MB, NL, and PEI. Although, I am really curious how the QC home insurance numbers are so low.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
I think insurance should be nationalized. Since the government makes it mandatory to have insurance on homes and cars then the government should provide insurance at more reasonable rates where the goal is to protect people's assets and livelihoods instead of prioritizing corporate profits and CEO bonuses.
BC's public insurance is looking pretty good in that graph, especially in the automotive graph. I expect their housing insurance costs are higher because the cost of housing in Vancouver and Victoria is so high compared to MB, NL, and PEI. Although, I am really curious how the QC home insurance numbers are so low.
I thought ICBC only provided Auto insurance, I am not 100% sure but think SGI Property insurance is private and I don't know about MPI.
Does the Government make property insurance mandatory? I don't think they do. I think banks make it mandatory if you have a mortgage.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I'm usually in the "hate insurance companies" camp, but the numbers highlighted in this CBC article sure paint an alarming picture.
Quote:
It found that four of these postal-code regions in Calgary — concentrated in the city's northeast — accounted for $39 million in premiums paid to insurers last year for comprehensive coverage (which includes hail damage) versus $420 million in claims paid out by insurers.
Quote:
Total payouts per policy increased 74 per cent from 2020 (which also happened to see a major hailstorm strike northeast Calgary) to $1,707 last year.
That pushed Alberta insurers' loss ratio to 97 per cent, meaning for each dollar in premium earned, they paid out 97 cents in claims alone.
Insurers also have additional costs for staffing, commissions and other expenses, which typically amount to about 27 cents per dollar collected in premiums, meaning the industry took significant losses in 2024.
I mean, that's just ####ty business that's not sustainable, so there's really only one possible outcome...
I'm usually in the "hate insurance companies" camp, but the numbers highlighted in this CBC article sure paint an alarming picture.
I mean, that's just ####ty business that's not sustainable, so there's really only one possible outcome...
That's really pinpointing one small area in the province where the result for insurance companies weren't thunderous profits. They absolutely made up the difference elsewhere in the province.
Also, this year there wasn't a huge hailstorm, so insurance went right back to making money hand over fist in that area.
Also, insurance isn't simply home for these companies, so they continued to make profit in other avenues, like auto.
As taxpayers, insurance is a business to get into, even if it's to gouge everyone at the same rate as private business, at least the profit would go to the province.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
That's really pinpointing one small area in the province where the result for insurance companies weren't thunderous profits. They absolutely made up the difference elsewhere in the province.
Also, this year there wasn't a huge hailstorm, so insurance went right back to making money hand over fist in that area.
Also, insurance isn't simply home for these companies, so they continued to make profit in other avenues, like auto.
As taxpayers, insurance is a business to get into, even if it's to gouge everyone at the same rate as private business, at least the profit would go to the province.
It doesn't read like they did...
I may have been too selective in the parts I quoted (probably should've quoted the whole article and highlighted the points, but here we are...), but if you read the article, the 97% payout ratio seems to refer to the entire province across all insurance sectors - at least, that's how I read it... It goes on to mention that payout rates (again, reading as across all sectors) have increased 74% in the past 5 years and
Quote:
23 out of 25 major insurers in the province lost money last year, with an average loss of 20 per cent of premiums collected. Six companies saw losses in excess of 40 per cent.
Again, I hate insurance companies as much as the next guy, but can also see that the numbers quoted in the article don't make for a sustainable business and rate increases aren't surprising...
The microcosm of the NE and the insured damages caused by hailstorms puts a bigger emphasis on the broader situation and everyone is left paying for it.
That's really pinpointing one small area in the province where the result for insurance companies weren't thunderous profits. They absolutely made up the difference elsewhere in the province.
Also, this year there wasn't a huge hailstorm, so insurance went right back to making money hand over fist in that area.
Also, insurance isn't simply home for these companies, so they continued to make profit in other avenues, like auto.
As taxpayers, insurance is a business to get into, even if it's to gouge everyone at the same rate as private business, at least the profit would go to the province.
What percentage of profit is "gouging"? Bearing in mind that you want to have solvent insurers, and they can't run at a loss forever, so you do have a floor there.
The rates the different brokers and insurance companies make no sense. Companies A, B, and C will quote me rates ranging that are nowhere close. Obviously I’ll choose the lowest one, say company B. A year later company B decides to hike my rates (no accidents, no change in car, another year of flawless driving). Annoyed I “shop” again. Go through the entire thing again and now company C is now the cheapest. Switch again. It’s just the same crap over and over. I’m just sick of changing insurance every year or two. At this point it just seems like a game of “confuse the consumer and hope you can get him to pay more than he should”. Insurance companies like to make it think determining rates is comparable to splitting the atom. It’s not.
I get rates go up. I’m not saying they shouldn’t if it’s based on facts and data. But I can guarantee you any province with public options are not going through this absolute clown show Albertans have just more or less accepted as reality.
I thought ICBC only provided Auto insurance, I am not 100% sure but think SGI Property insurance is private and I don't know about MPI.
Does the Government make property insurance mandatory? I don't think they do. I think banks make it mandatory if you have a mortgage.
That makes sense and it would explain the difference in the two graphs. The public auto insurance in BC wins that graph and the private home insurance in BC is middle of the pack.
It does still suggest that the best path forward is to create public insurance options and undercut the market. Perhaps a federal public insurance option to cover the whole country would be the solution so that the differences between jurisdictions is eliminated.
A federal insurance company would be an interesting argument for bringing down the trade barriers between provinces.
I'm usually in the "hate insurance companies" camp, but the numbers highlighted in this CBC article sure paint an alarming picture.
I mean, that's just ####ty business that's not sustainable, so there's really only one possible outcome...
I read the article and it's a joke. The data (as vaguely stated) is cherrypicked from 2024 for the hailstorm cost and makes it look like insurance companies are losing money hand over fist. 23 of 25 major insurance companies? Which ones? It doesn't say largest. Could it be 25 "major" insurance companies in Calgary that were looked at?
Average payout of 1700$ per claim. Okay, who here is paying 1700$ or less for their car insurance? How many people are making claims?
Quote:
Insurers also have additional costs for staffing, commissions and other expenses, which typically amount to about 27 cents per dollar collected in premiums, meaning the industry took significant losses in 2024.
27% Seems like pretty damn good operating costs. I do notice the article never mentions their typical payout ratio outside of 2024. How could we possibly be that out of line with the rest of Canada? They even mention accidents are down 10% in the last 5 years. They do say the severity is up 65% but this number also includes the hailstorms where the number would've been 43% to 2023 instead of using 2024 as the example. I for one am super upset that some insurance companies lost money for the first time since they've been in business.
That makes sense and it would explain the difference in the two graphs. The public auto insurance in BC wins that graph and the private home insurance in BC is middle of the pack.
It does still suggest that the best path forward is to create public insurance options and undercut the market. Perhaps a federal public insurance option to cover the whole country would be the solution so that the differences between jurisdictions is eliminated.
A federal insurance company would be an interesting argument for bringing down the trade barriers between provinces.
A major consideration is that many public systems have removed consumer rights. Specifically, many of those are no-fault jurisdictions, where you cannot sue in the event of an accident. I disagree with that, personally, and while the coverage is cheaper, it comes at a cost.
And as far as property damages go, it can't be denied that Alberta has some different issues on that front compared to some other provinces. We don't suffer from the same flooding or similar issues as others do, but we have a significant risk for hail and those events. As a result, enormous amounts can be paid for damages here, impacting your premiums, whether public or private.
I'll pop this in here- Separatist Jeff Rath did 2 hours on the Ryan Jesperson podcast yesterday- He's really.....something. Made it through about half an hour before rolling my eyes right out of my head
I'll pop this in here- Separatist Jeff Rath did 2 hours on the Ryan Jesperson podcast yesterday- He's really.....something. Made it through about half an hour before rolling my eyes right out of my head
That man seems like a POS
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
A major consideration is that many public systems have removed consumer rights. Specifically, many of those are no-fault jurisdictions, where you cannot sue in the event of an accident. I disagree with that, personally, and while the coverage is cheaper, it comes at a cost.
And as far as property damages go, it can't be denied that Alberta has some different issues on that front compared to some other provinces. We don't suffer from the same flooding or similar issues as others do, but we have a significant risk for hail and those events. As a result, enormous amounts can be paid for damages here, impacting your premiums, whether public or private.
No-Fault just means that you cannot sue the other party. You can still sue your insurance company if they are not delivering the benefits you are supposed to receive... if you can afford it.
Besides, Alberta is already looking at moving to No-Fault (care first) automotive insurance while keeping it private and allowing the prices to skyrocket. We are going to end up paying the largest insurance rates and receiving the worst results.
On the one hand, I agree with eliminating suing from the process. It is a system that benefits people who have the money to afford a lawyer and sue other people and thus puts people at the disadvantage if they cannot navigate the suing process.
On the other hand, how this is being implemented is wrong (as with most things the UCP does). Private insurance companies are not answerable to the people and yet in a no-fault system, the insurance company gets to decide the care and benefits that you receive. Since their motivation is profit, they will always select the worst outcomes for the people and then wait to see who has enough money to sue the insurance company.
The A-NDP should add public insurance to their platform for next election.
On the one hand, I agree with eliminating suing from the process. It is a system that benefits people who have the money to afford a lawyer and sue other people and thus puts people at the disadvantage if they cannot navigate the suing process.
This issue with No Fault as it relates to the ability to sue is that now the mechanism of injury decides if you can sue.
Break your arm in a motor vehicle collision you can't sue.
Break your arm slipping on someone's drive way you can sue.
I don't like that.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
No-Fault just means that you cannot sue the other party. You can still sue your insurance company if they are not delivering the benefits you are supposed to receive... if you can afford it.
Besides, Alberta is already looking at moving to No-Fault (care first) automotive insurance while keeping it private and allowing the prices to skyrocket. We are going to end up paying the largest insurance rates and receiving the worst results.
On the one hand, I agree with eliminating suing from the process. It is a system that benefits people who have the money to afford a lawyer and sue other people and thus puts people at the disadvantage if they cannot navigate the suing process.
On the other hand, how this is being implemented is wrong (as with most things the UCP does). Private insurance companies are not answerable to the people and yet in a no-fault system, the insurance company gets to decide the care and benefits that you receive. Since their motivation is profit, they will always select the worst outcomes for the people and then wait to see who has enough money to sue the insurance company.
The A-NDP should add public insurance to their platform for next election.
Yes, I know we're taking away that right here in Alberta, and I disagree. Most injury lawyers work on contingency, so there generally isn't an issue with people not being able to afford someone to represent them in those cases. And yes, you can sue your insurer if you feel they're not providing the care you should receive.
But the thing is, if someone is negligent and causes an injury to me, I want to be able to sue them for damages. That makes perfect sense. Sure, the treatments and such are covered, and that's all well and good. But what about all of the other issues that come with that? I can go get the treatment regularly and that's "free", but all of the accompanying issues with that are for me to deal with, when the cause was someone else's negligence.
But the thing is, if someone is negligent and causes an injury to me, I want to be able to sue them for damages. That makes perfect sense. Sure, the treatments and such are covered, and that's all well and good. But what about all of the other issues that come with that? I can go get the treatment regularly and that's "free", but all of the accompanying issues with that are for me to deal with, when the cause was someone else's negligence.
I haven't followed this, and I should.
But with No Fault in Alberta will the accident benefits be increased. Time they are accessible and amounts covered.
I have a dim recollection that the SGI benefits are very good.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Average payout of 1700$ per claim. Okay, who here is paying 1700$ or less for their car insurance? How many people are making claims? ...
I'm really not here to argue or defend the insurance companies, but it's hard to discuss if you're not got to read (or comprehend the content of) the article.
Quote:
Total payouts per policy increased 74 per cent from 2020 (which also happened to see a major hailstorm strike northeast Calgary) to $1,707 last year.
Unless I'm mistaken and this is some-sort of insurance industry jargon meant to intentionally obfuscate the statistic, "payout per policy" sounds like total payouts divided by total policies... meaning $1700 from every policy, including claimless ones like mine (and yours?), are paid out to cover claims made by others...
The Following User Says Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
