guyser

Well I'm done with this. You're not doing your research. You haven't reasearched how many immigrants/refugees join our workforce. Only 2/3rds of Canadians pay income tax at all. Do your research, spend some time looking through stats and learning about our country and then come back and say that immigrant families work and spend into the system enough to cover their costs in services. You want to make up facts in your mind, but not research real numbers. Ahh....I see how you work. make claim Dont back it up Get challenged on facts tell us to do the research Good job. Further, you make a claim in that only 2/3 of people pay income tax. Well , I can see there being around 8-9M kids in this country , and lets add on a rough guesstimate of 3M retired people. Add in maybe 1M of unemployed and stay at home parents..... s'alright I will do the math for you..... Lets see that adds up to a little over 13 million people. So out of a country of 33M , hmmm.....one third of that would be 11M. So you are pretty darn close to perfect on that stat. ! Congrats.....oops.....you were trying to make a counter point and tripped on your own numbers. Don't you just hate when you do that? I am sorry , who was to do some research? Oh and just for you and my numbers ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

It's obvious you don't understand our immigration system and enternace requirements. You basically claim you are in good health and 'swear' you are telling the truth. You also need a letter from a doctor saying that you don't suffer from any health concerns. These letters are VERY common in these countries with some doctors doing nohting but these letters. You have not researched this issues well enough so it's not worth debating. You are letting your emotions overtake logic and research. You're hearing what you only want to beleive, not the truth. And again, where are your stats to back you up? Thats right there are none. You just want to blame the mostly good immigrants who come here for a better life. Admit, you hate these people and they are the reason for your vitriol. Sir I know this much, I understand the immigration far more than you. I do not make wild claims without basis. As if Imm Canada does not know about "these Doctors" , and they just believe everyone. My emotions are not the issue here.They do NOT in fact cloud my thinking. Your diatribes against immigrants whoever do . And yes, this country is in dire need of immigrants.

mikedavid Pretty much denying it all. Some of it plausible, but when your name is attached to it well then Yes I deny it. Back it up. (organs...yes) You go from one untruth post to another. Stop and refute. Otherwise you risk the ignore rule . Your call

That is a heck of a lot of money.You are right. But , that said , there are more than 120 auto ins co's in Ontario alone. So add up all the P&C, Auto, Life etc companies in Canada and divide that into $4.2B and that number seems more reasonable. On the good side, these companies have to be solvent , investing wisely in order to pay cat claims that come. Not all of cat6 claims can be covered by Re-insurance carriers. But some of this goes back to my post explaining why some people are not making claims when in fact they are ok to do so. The prfits this generates cannot be accounted for.

mikedavid, you have been asked and asked to back up your assertions and yet nothing seems to materialize. Why is that? Perhaps there are no facts to back you up? Anecdotal empiracal data please...not just some guy I know. Lets get this off the table right now. Under immigration rules, one can "try " to sponsor an elderly relative but they must present themselves for an interview. So if this "Pakistani mother" is deemed unhealthy enough to live in Canada instead of moving for health convenience, then the sponsor is denied. Another one of yours...."20 years paid into the health service before you get treatment". Why do you believe that? I know you are unaware that Insurance Companies, like the one that insures your car, pays into OHIP. So, in fact if an "immigrant" (you know those horrible people you dont like) gets a car policy, he has paid. Has your child been told no health care coverage because he is 19 ? Would you like that? The "sole" reason health care is in crisis is because of immigrants. You said that...?....but you cannot possibly believe it. Show me where that has been investigated. The US has immigration problems, and they are creating an undue hardship on the health care system there. I said this before, stop reading american news on immigration, it does not relate to us. You must love FOX! As for those that want US style care. Here you go, for some (the ones I know-major urban settings) they pay in excess of $700 per month for the family. Junior gets ill . Mom cales their HMO and gets a ruling IF they want to pay for it, or rather if it is covered. Mom is told nope, we do not cover that. Now what? Do you really want to call a provider and have them answer if you are covered? Not me. Here is another way the US system works. Let me give it to you this way. At my cottage we have a number of US cottagers. So one day, and I will call her Sarah, had to take her son to the hospital as he was developing a sore ear. (swimmers ear is what we thought) Anyhow, she goes in registers and takes a seat. She will be paying all costs upfront. They call her and her son in and the Doc looks at his ear and goes for a large syringe to flush the ear using hot water. The child is released immediately. Sarah was surprised that the doc did all the work. Here is what would have happened in NY state where she lives. Call HMO, get approval, go to hospital and get in line. Doc comes in, has a nurse bring on hand too. Then another nurse is summoned to bring in a needle filled with warm saline, and the nurse is then allowed to flush the lads ear. So now Sarah will get an itemized bill showing the Docs time, the nurse(s) time, the needle cost , the saline cost. What is fine with that is it lets one know the costs. But the problem there is that the bill is artificially high due to all the extra people the Doc needs to justify the expense. Getting an itemized bill is good and I wish we did that in this country. Might make us think before wasting. She pays $700 a month, her portion of the childs ear infection at the hospital is $350. Yup, much better. The circle will continue in Canada if we follow the US plan. An OB/GYN pays $80,000 per year for E&O Ins. In canada he might pay $3000. So who makes up the diff? We are not as litiginous here in Canada. But that will change if we amend to the US plan. And if people were "dying" as much as some are saying, well we sure would have heard about it by now. The fact is everyone wants it NOW, instead of when it is right. Improve , but dont throw the baby out with the bath water

You are welcome Sir. As to the whys and hows of this crisis I have some ideas. Such things as entitlements pepole feel they "deserve". Look at how everyone wants their 15 minutes. When anyone walks into a clinic/hospital , they want their 15 mins. People use the system as a maintenance program. Moms and dads did not take Jr to the hospital when he had a fever or threw up. My mom didnt , nor did any of my friends. But now? They sure do! That puts a strain on these hospitals. Corps want to push this on us in order to save money. What we do not realize is that it will cost us a lot more money once it is instituted. Americans pay huge dollars to have health care. We do not want that.There will be no pcketing the diff. You will be dipping in that pocket and paying through the nose in no time. My american friends that come up are thrilled with our system They like it, it works and they are amazed at the speed that they get taken care. As for the bill they get....not one complaint. I will follow this discussion closely and report more. But right now I am off to see the Neurological Surgeon and get the news. Flame suit on

[ Well firstly when you have an abundance of people entering the country and using a system that have not paid into it, eventually it will catch up and now it has. Those mentioned European countries on the top of the list do not have mass immigration. It's a win/win for everyone at this point if we open up private hospitals. I think actually 30% of all Canadians would leave the public system within 10 years thus reducing the waiting lines and improving healthcare for those that need to use the public system. I used to be extremely against 2 tier systems because it meant that a person with more money gets better treatment that everyone else. Now being older and matured, I realize the destruction that needless, mass immigration has done to our country. As long as Canadians want to plug their ears up when the topic of immigrations comes up, non of our problems will ever get fixed. Mr mikedavid......... yikes ! Older and matured ?? I am not the one to normally flame posters, but Sir you leave yourself open to such abuse when you post that tripe. This country would be doomed without immigration. We NEED those folks. As for not paying in , well employers tax pays for health care , so when they get a job, then they ARE paying. Maybe the welfare bums, you know the ones born and bred here, need to be shunted off? Mass immigration IS ocurring in Europe. Quit thinly veiling your myopic views , "Canadians want to plug their ears when the topic of immigrations.." , and just come out and say you have no tolerance or need for immigrants. Perhaps your neck of the woods is not aware that Alberta would open the floodgates to get people in. They are closing stores, reducing operating hours , offering $11 an hour for 7-11 clerks beacuse there is not enough people. Yup, blame the problems on the immigrants. Those people, sheesh.....what need do we have when better than 50% of all immigrants come here with university degrees. Quit reading american newspapers , they DO HAVE a problem with immigration. What we need to do is get the thickheaded people who control CMA to relax the rules to allow Doctors to come to this country. Test them, get a scope of their competency, and put them to work. Heck, allow them to practice, but with stipends that they must operate for four years in rural Canada, and that way we solve one problem for Canadians. Rural health care is a problem. But no, the CMA and the Physicians and Surgeons group would rather these new people drive cabs and buses. And for the poster who said Wal-Mart and large companies like them offer US Health Care.....please check your facts. Wal -Mart employees are the second biggest drain on US healthcare .

I honestly wonder what country you people are living in. Do any of you have first hand knowledge of the health care system? Can you honestly say it is bad? Do I have first hand knowledge?......pretty much as I have spent the past few years, pretty much since Sept 11, 2001 in hospitals , had a break in Dec 2003 and have been in and out of hospitals and clinics for the past six months. I see plenty of great things happening in our hospitals and with our doctors , and in conjunction with the rest of the medical community I see it works and works well. I wont dwell on the details but for a summary. My dad was diagnosed with an aneurysm. His operation was 9-11 (yes..that day) Double bypass, kidney failure , stroke , heart attacks...you name it he had, and he was 74 yrs old. When they diagnosed a need for a double bypass ...gee it was done in a matter of 4 days.Everyday for 2.5 years I was in a hospital seeing him and meeting Docs and nurses. As for myself, I am going thru Cancer treatment right now. I have been very pleased with the actions of all involved. I was diagnosed in August after feeling lousy all July. So, yes I can say with some "first hand knowledge" that our system is one to be damn proud of because it works and works well. To suggest , even remotely , that the US system is better is ludicrous and misguided. (40M uninsured, expected to rise to 100M in 10 years...hospitals closing in Cali due to strain from illegals) They do have amazing docs in the US, most of the best of the best are there. Good for them , wopuldn't want their E&O expenses, but hey, that is the US ' problem. Do we need to look at our system and make it better? Of course we do, everything can be improved and our system is no different. Name me a country with better health care......AND has the geographic expanse we have. We are unique in so many regards with respect to our health care. People want to live in small towns all over this great country and yet they want the best health care provided next door. It cannot work that way. Of the people that I know personally that whine about the health care system, most of them can be dismissed as pure and simple whiners. Thats right whiners. So people have to wait for an operation. Get used to it. It would seem obvious to me that the Doctors have consulted and realize that there "may" be others that are in dire need to have something done now, so those that have the luxury of their illness not being acute, must wait. Perhaps, and it pains me to write, we need to look at what we are doing with respect to our ever growing legions of elderly. I am of the opinion that my dad should NOT have had a double bypass at his age. I did not think he had much time left anyway,unfortunately I was right. Maybe the Docs should have made that call. So lets look at what we are spending money on and improve that . But for god sakes, the Health Care in this country is amazing. It could certainly be better, but I am damn proud of our docs and nurses. Especially the nurses. Nurse, what an amazing group of caring individuals. Not one complaint from me. Improve it , assist it , put a $20 co-pay......but do not denigrate it.

The homosexual issue though is very different and involves SEXUAL MORALITY in which homosexuals originally discarded the normal morals (RULES) associated with society concerning homosexuality being morally right or wrong. Up to now the government has never bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove, as to produce a STANDARD (since morals are a value of society) via some sort of referendum or similar. IMO homosexuality should never have been made legal as it is not a LEGAL issue, it is a MORAL one concerning what SOCIETY thinks is good or bad not government. Canadians have been duped into believing by fraudulent government involvement that perverted homosexuality and SSM is no different than heterosexual relationships and marriage. So who is the arbitor of "morals?". You..?...Me...?..the Church..?... I certainly do not want someone as uptight as you deciding the morals of this country, and I would bet you dont want my morals setting your standard. Thats the thing, morals are a personal issue and should be left that way. Governments are not in the business of deciding morals and thats a good thing. The govt has not "bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove " anything. That is not the job of govt to try and fight homosexuality because there is no documentation to prove one way or another. Frankly you need to either grow up or open your eyes to the real world. Your diatribes on this issue are full of ignorance and disinformation. I cannot help but think you are either 12 years old or some religious zealot from the Phelps camp in Kansas . Please, enough of this "homosexuality is wrong..I know it" crap. You do not know squat. Or perhaps you are a closet gay man who knows what the gay lifestyle is all about, in which case you should admit so that you are arguing from a position of strength. I seriously doubt the latter. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man. Animals are known to be gay , well at least some of them, the Romans were well known to be gay. Just what do you think went on in society where the woman were not? Here is a hint....what happens in prisons?

Now that would fuel your fantasy wouldn't it? Stephane was born in Quebec City, went to Laval and recd a Doctorate in Sociology from a Paris University. Perhaps that is what has confused you.

This is part of the whole small town culture, im willing to bet the farm that there was a crack grow op going on in there, its very hard to get away with anything like that in a small town without anyone knowing about it. Someone got first hand knowledge and spread it all over town, in a town where everyone knows everyone, and that this was a long time coming, they won't be making a mistake like that. For townspeople to be mad enough to resort to burning down the house and impeding justice means there was a huge problem that the police couldn't do anything about due to their hands being tied because of proper procedure. So because it is a small town it is okay? And if you "bet the farm" then perhaps the cops knew about it and were amassing their evidence to get a conviction. In this country there is due process. But I guess in small towns that is suspended. And small town people wonder why they are called hicks.

Will you be that happy when someone mistakes your house for the "other " one? Nope didn't think so. Go ahead, crack open your bubbly. We won't do the same when your house burns down.

Banning Wal-Mart is be a bit much. Town councils can certainly not approve the licence for them to operate but that is removed from banning. I have never set foot in a Wal-Mart in my life. Hopefully, and I plan on it, I never do set foot inside. I have heard enough stories from suppliers to make an informed decision. I have first hand knowledge from a supplier to WM that they will soon be telling WM to go stuff it. WM keeps hammering this company to produce cheaper and cheaper , and frankly they are sick of the time demands, very miniscule margins to be made, and general attitude of WM. And of course they are aware when they do this, WM will line someone up to replace them in a matter of minutes. It is cool for them to lose this business. I do not like WM for many reasons. Did you know that WM has the most employees of any company in the US that using Medicare (or is it medicaid ?) Either way , they pay so low and offer no benefits, they are a tax drain on the American taxpayer. I do however sympathize with many low income families that rely on the goods that WM provide. For many of them there is no other choice. For many others...me included I will pay extra to go to the local store, peruse the local shop owner, you know , my neighbours and friends. But a ban? Hardly democratic, unless decided at a local or municipal level.

The only problem is they want elevated or special rights "as well impose one view of sexual morality (sexual relativism) on all peoples and then enforce this code of morality on constituents of other groups holding other beliefs and legislation's." http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06053102.html You quote the Vatican talking to the UN as your premise for what Gays want? Oh come on. We all know what the Vatican wants, the standard quo as they have their head so far in the sand its not funny. I am surprised you didnt want to quote NAMBLA too ! Gays want access to the same things heterosexuals have. If one is gay and in a long term relationship , they STILL dont have rights should the spouse become ill and decisions must be made. The hospital can claim no standing on the spouses part. A man and woman co-habitating beyond 3 years has that access. A man and woman having a child are granted that status. Business' have decreed it okay as benefits can go to the gay spouse. It is the govt that wont do it. Thus we need to grant them equal rights not special rights. A marriage is a marriage. Be it two men, two women or one of each. It is laughably absurd that we are in 2006 and people still want to deny them equal access. Get over it....Gays are no threat to you. They wont harm your kids (anymore than a Hetero will) they wont wreck society.

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other? As with any contract in law, insurance, employment whatever.....if it is not specifically excluded then it is included. There can be no other conclusion. But dont let that stop you. OR Show me where it says Homosexuals are excluded as being allowed to marry each other? Let them marry....they deserve to be as miserable as anyone else.

Hey Leafless... count me in as one that is for it too ! Good job South Africa. Hopefully the rest of the troglodytes running countries follow suit.

Guns are really lousy workers, hard to motivate , go off on tangents too much. The people , highly educated might I remind you , that emigrate to our fine shores are hard working, dutiful tax paying people trying to make a better life for themselves and their kids. Yes, some bad apples come along. Nothing is perfect and the Immigration people try to get the right people. Funny, never seen the comparison of guns to people before.

or... http://www.autonet.ca/Insurance/story.cfm?...493226-sun.html And thank you for that theloniousfleabag. But what is your point? Does any of those limks change what I said? I do not think so.

So you think public insurance in other provinces is more expensive and poorer in coverage than provinces with private insurance? That is a hard question for me to answer. I am certainly biased. I never like having the option of another company taken from me. ICBC....that it. Sask General ( not sure of name) is the same. If you are wronged, how can you correct it? Everyone you will talk to has a vested interest in the status quo. I dont like that I HAVE TO pay Rogers for my cable. My best friend is a VP there, and I hassle him all the time that this sucks. And the only reason I do not get irate is that I am lucky enough to know him and thus I can get things done that someone else will pull their hair out over. It is the same if your uncle is the best surgeon in the land. You will get in first and be well taken care of, but perhaps I will have a month or two wait. Back to insurance. There is no one working as an advocate for you in govt run ins. As a broker I can get things straitened out pretty quick. Sometime mistakes are as simple as the underwriter hit the wrong button.Sometimes I have to jump in the help solve a claim dispute. I am on your side in thiese cases. I will go to bat for you if justified. With Govt ins.....that is not the case. Even in BC where the broker is alive, he only has one market to wriet auto, so how good is he really for advocating your point? He wants to know he will still have that contract. So I guess.....no, I do think it is more expensive and poore run.

Things may settle down in the Maritimes but I don't think the public there will take any more let downs, if you know what I mean. And I agree. But it will be political suicide should any party decide to implement Govt run. What happens when the results are even worse for the Govt Auto Ins Co? They wont do it as they know they will b killed should they not get a handle on the rates. Also , since the Govt dictates the Accident Benefits and other SABS rates, this would result in the left hand yelling at the right. I will never understand the truth why things that work elsewhere dont work in the Maritimes. But then again, I live in Toronto .

jdobbin, you do bring up a good point about the Maritimes. I have read about the problems that continue down east. I cannot really tell you why they are having problems there. From what I can gather it seems to be too much meddling by the govt of the day. Too many changes to implement, not allowing enough premium increases to offset losses etc. If they would allow the companies to actually raise the rates, like they did in Ontario, then the populace would soon find out who is competitve and hungry for business. In the short term, well it sucks for the drivers. In the long term the companies who are budget conscious will thrive, growing larger customer bases, and seeing the return of stable rates . Too many in a mraketplace directly controlled by an appeasement govt will lead to problems. I recall reading of the acute problems down east and some of that also had to do with pop density. It is a large area with a small pop base. This comes at a price. Should ING have an adjuster in every town? A broker in every town or comapny rep. Hard to do without the base to supply the funds to do just that. Your post did remind me of another very important post from earlier. In the post in question, someone wrote, and I am paraphrasing here, that Ins Co's had record profits while sticking it to the common man. How can they do that? This one was easy to figure out....although it took us a longtime to do so. What happened is that in 2001 onward, auto rates went thru the roof. So people keeled over when they got the renewal. No surprise there. Well the same person has a minor fender bender with total damage of $1500. They had a feeling if they reported this "at fault" accident then the rates for the next 5 years go up. So they paid it themselves. The same thing happened with glass claims. People would not report that they had a busted windshield. So the Actuaries had the right numbers but NO ONE could forsee the public not reporting these claims. Thus no claim...no payout....no payout so the money stays in the profit line of the yearend report. And with that, Ins Co's reported record profits. And frankly that sucked for the consumer but was not entirely wrong on either end. What was wrong was that reporting a "not at fault" claim, which many of these were, would not have resulted in any increase. Again, the Ins Cos and brokers let the consumer down.

The growing anger at private car insurance has reached an explosive level. Is it all misplaced? There is not in my estimation any "growing anger" in Ontario with respect to insurance. Now if you asked me 4-5 years ago I would most certainly agree. Pissed.....?...more than that. But for now with three years of stable rates and in fact lower rates than back in 2002-2003 I do not see any anger. But what really is at the root of the problem is Ins Co and brokers not advising the public in an informative way. I saw that the Ins Cos tried, but the public seemed unwilling to listen. That still remains our fault though. We can and are our own worst enemy. People saw rising rates in auto ins and never stopped to ask why. Those that did may not have liked it much but they at least had reasoning as to why the rates went through the roof. Let me try and explain succinctly. This can be boring stuff ya know .....this pertains to post 9-11 rates. Every auto Ins Co buys what is called "Re-Insurance" . (referred to as Re ) Now Re is used to underwrite the full exposure of a companies risks...ie all the cars on auto policies, the drivers, the kids etc. They do this so that, lets say ING, doesn't go broke in the case of a catastrophe. So in the event of a catastrophe this Re gets invoked and used to pay the claims of policy holders. Now Re is a world market. A very huge market. 9-11 cost the Re's billions and billions. The main Ins Co who held the policy for the WTC towers and the planes could only underwrite if they bought from the Re market. But the Re market includes small and large auto insurance co's ( and property ones too) So when it came time to renew the Re policy, the rates skyrocketted as they had taken such a hit. Thus the average, well pretty much everyones , rates to rise.

I will concur that it seems that ICBC is well run. I recall when I lived there it sure wasn't. Inconvenient beyond belief. But if the BC'ers want it, then fine. Your "bottom line" is noted. But please remember that it could work better if given to the private sector. But you and your provine like it so fine. "You are just demonstrating your naivety and lack of experience. The people relating those anecdotes have no reason to lie or exaggerate. In some cases, the anecdotes were reported by people would would oppose gov't run corporations in any other situation" (your quote -I should learn how to do this) Well, sorry about my lack of experience or naivety. I will commence walking around my office and taking down all my accreditations from being an Insurance Broker for the last 20 years. But you did not know that, and I didnt tell . Shame on me , I should have been upfront. I thought it obvious. People do lie. All the time when they call for a quote on Home/Auto/Commercial/Life. And when they lie and I do not find out until the Ins Co runs a better check , thus resulting in an increased premium, they tend to yell long and loud how they were ripped off. They weren't, they got what was coming to them. People do have "reason to lie or exaggerate" because they think they will get away with it. If you feel you were treated improperly, then vote with your feet and move your business! Complain to the Ombud of the company. Call the President. I am not in denial of the anecdotes listed earlier. If there are ten given me, I can guarentee you nine of them can easily be dismissed . Yes, plain and simple. It is not hubris nor anything else that makes me say that, but instead many years dealing with the same thing. There is almost ALWAYS something left out. I can only recall a couple of times where the company had the wrong info on someone and the wrong premium was being charged. And trust me, if I am in your court and can prove to an Ins Co that they are wrong, I am the proverbial dog on a bone until satisfied. "It is not about reigning in rates - it is about ensuring that everyone has reasonable access to insurance. It is about giving people predictability so that they know exactly what price they will have to pay when they do have accidents" Perhaps you need a course studying Actuarial science. I know I do, but I understand how it works. No one can predict what will the future hold. So Actuaries come up with their reasonings based on math and probablities and this corresponds to the rate you are charged. Rates went up when 9-11 hit . Who could have foreseen that? Everyone has access to insurance. Every single person in my province. Most provinces have the same basic law. There is not a person I have talked to in 20 years that cannot get insurance. NOT A SINGLE ONE. So your arguement about access is merely a cover for reigning in the rates. Tell me who does not have access? If you have 5 speeding tickets , 3 at fault accidents in the past 2 years, you ran over a little kid and you also have 3 DUI's......I can get you insurance in 5 minutes. So anything you come back with cannot be as bad as my hypothetical above. So who doesnt have access?

Seems that ICBC does run pretty well. But nowhere does that mean that private could not run better. What incentive do the managers et al have to improve the system ? Where is the fiscal responsibility? Some people have had problems with Ins Co's, as a business it is not virtuous , but to suggest that people have been screwed for nothing, well that is a bit over the top isn't it? As for the anecdotes listed earlier in this thread , sorry bub....not one of them I recall being plausible. Someone left something out. Yes it is that simple. I did not ignore them, I almost laughed but was concerned enough to chime in. As for increases , everyone got them in 2000-2003 , thats the nature of the beast back then . Some of them went way up. But eight times...?.....nope sorry , didnt happen. As for essential service, I still maintain , as others do, that it is not an essential service. So "Our cities are designed in a way that prevent most people from earning a living without access to a car". One does not beget the other Sir. Important ? Perhaps...but not a right nor a neccesity by any stretch. Face it , you want it cheaper so you can drive more. Fine, but to suggest that the Ins Co's need to reign in rates is ridiculous. And for you, if you want lower rates, lobby the INS Bureau of Canada and your Provincial Govt to stop mandating the ever generous Accident Benefits. Ins Cos sell you what the Gov mandates

I just had to enrol at this site as I cannot believe the erronious assumptions and frankly the plain old nonsense that is being spewed on this subject. Double or triple your rates next month, next week...etc etc. Calling in for a "hypothetical" and rates go up. $1000 is too much for insurance in Manitoba 1/5th of premiums pays for physical damage on cars All of the above is false. Patently false . Here is another complete falsehood......I beleive it is Riverwind but he is not alone >The private auto insurance industry wastes a lot of money arguing with other insurance companies about who is at fault for any given accident. Publicly run insurance companies don't have this expense and can offer lower premiums as a result. Insurance companies are also notorious for collusion where they will use the fact that someone has been turned down by another insurance company as an excuse to deny insurance. This means that many people will find themselves denied access to an essential service even if competition theoretically exists Public auto insurance is more efficient than private auto insurance because it spreads risk across a larger number of people and is not allowed to arbitrarily deny insurance to any but the most extreme cases. This might lead to higher premiums for a minority of lucky drivers but does provide a system where all drivers benefit from a predictable rate structure. In BC, this predictable rate structure is a huge benefit because anyone who has an accident can quickly calculate whether they would be better off settling without making a claim. In provinces with private insurance having even a minor accident that you don't even claim can lead to huge and unpredictable premium increases. This unpredictability is a huge cost that most people don't take into account until after they have been burned.< First let me say that Ins Co's have to file their rates and the rules with the govt. They CANNOT deviate from them as the penalties are severe. If your rates doubled or worse...what are you NOT telling us. Simply put....BS ! Calling in for a hypothetical is bogus too. Now if you call in an at fault claim and then decide to pull it from the Ins Co , well that may hold true and likely. $1000 is too much for Man, wow...less than $3 a day for a $1m liability , Accident Benefits physical damage etc etc. Sorry dude, suck it up as that is low 1/5th goes to physical damage on cars. You know what..?...you might be right. The insurance co's pay far MORE than that on Accident Benefits. Dont forget that the car is a static payoff. The Ins Co knows exactly what it is worth in the worse case scenario. Now what they dont know is how will you be? Yes yes...they could be paying a million bucks before you are settled. Arguing with other ins cos wastes the money? Really...and you would know this how? Frankly they all have what is called a fault chart , and your accident falls somewhere on that chart. So if you are car A , and car B hits you , then "fault" is determined from the chart. So no, they do not argue on MOST cases As for collusion, Pepsi doesnt talk to Coke yet the prices are close. Neither do the Ins Cos. They do not reveal rates until after being filed. Any advantage is used for their benefit. Public run ins co's? Wow....the govt has never run anything ,well maybe the LCBO, efficiently and insurance is the same. Why would the ONt Govt want to run insurance when they collect plenty of millions in fees payable to OHIP? It is the old cow / milk analogy. And lastly....someone wrote about insurance being "essential" as in a "right" . Come on now, you are not serious. No one has a right to drive, nor does insurance fall into that either. The only essential the Gov asks is that you carry $200,000 liability. No more no less. You would be a fool to go that low, but hey whatever floats your boat. Please. do some research on the subject instead of espousing this junk. Flame suit on.....and I will answer any and all queries.