EU Bans gender-base insurances

[Topaz]

The EU has banned gender-base insurances, both auto and life and my question to this forum, should provinces here in Canada have the same. What is wrong with every driver start out at the same basic premium and insurance should be ONLY on the driving record and not on ANYTHING else. The insurance company penalizes drivers on where they live, sex, age and I say throw that and let it be on driving record. Thoughts? As far life insurance, it should be the same premiums. http://www.calgarysun.com/money/2011/03/02/17464711.html

[guyser]

The problem with starting out at the same rate is it will mean a rise in premiums for older drivers to compensate for the lack of premium for the new kid driving.

Actuaries can show that young drivers (new drivers too) are a risk that exceeds the older ones.

Take in the fact that the Accident Benefits for an injured young driver wil be paid far longer than an older driver and there are problems.

Should someone living in Toronto pay the same as someone living 50 miles outside of Huntsville? One sees 5000 cars or more go by in an hour, the other might see 5000 cars in a month.

Take into account that some areas are notorious for claims , for example Brampton (even tho its the richest community in Canada) notorious for scams and should you live there you pay.No insurance company wants to insure drivers based in Brampton. Although you will never know since these things are not written down but they do verbally tell you they dont want any from there.

Life insurance has other problems we need to keep aware of. The ever growing knowledge of babies being born with 'probable' later life defects ......clue into the pre-existing conditions clause.

Lost we could change, but somehow I doubt that things will.

On the good side, credit based rating has pretty much gone away.

[Locutus]

Probably would be a better idea to just create a regulation to limit maximum speeds to vehicles. I guess the problem would be that the government would lose revenue from speeding tickets, and insurance companies would lose out also.

[Jack Weber]

Probably would be a better idea to just create a regulation to limit maximum speeds to vehicles. I guess the problem would be that the government would lose revenue from speeding tickets, and insurance companies would lose out also.

Resistance is futile???

[Bryan]

The problem with starting out at the same rate is it will mean a rise in premiums for older drivers to compensate for the lack of premium for the new kid driving.

Actuaries can show that young drivers (new drivers too) are a risk that exceeds the older ones.

Actuaries lie. Seniors SHOULD have the highest rates. There is nothing more frightening than a 70 year old behind the wheel.

[M.Dancer]

Actuaries lie.

Cite a study please.

[madmax]

Take into account that some areas are notorious for claims , for example Brampton (even tho its the richest community in Canada) notorious for scams and should you live there you pay. No insurance company wants to insure drivers based in Brampton. Although you will never know since these things are not written down but they do verbally tell you they dont want any from there.

Erm, dealing with Insurance Fraud is the problem of the Insurance companies and should NEVER have any bearing on rates to the individuals. There is a % of the Insurance Industry that committs fraud as well, do we get our rates reduced because of that? Absolutely not, we eat it or even have our rates increased more. There is a % of people who scam, regardless of location or background, age or vehicle. Overall I have yet to see the Protected Insurance Industry close up shop because it loses money. Infact, its such a horrible business, Banks had to get a piece of the action.

Insurance Industry is great at making their case and protecting their interests.

But overall, its a free lunch. The Gravy Train starts here.

[madmax]

Probably would be a better idea to just create a regulation to limit maximum speeds to vehicles. I guess the problem would be that the government would lose revenue from speeding tickets, and insurance companies would lose out also.

The government would lose revenues and the Insurance industry would boom. Congestion and lost initiative creates more accidents.

Intersections is where the accidents are. Slow speed, congested intersections.

[madmax]

Cite a study please.

Bravo lmao.

[madmax]

Actuaries lie. Seniors SHOULD have the highest rates. There is nothing more frightening than a 70 year old behind the wheel.

I dunno. I know many good driving seniors who have never had an accident. And the day they do have one, someone will point to their age.

I have seen many middleaged people, engaged in multiple accidents over a 15 years span. Dare we say its their age?

Fact is, people drive, accidents happen and some are going to have more accidents then others.

Insurance companies do very well and if they could get away with paying nothing they would.

I only have to look at the US medical insurance when I think of risk and fairness....

[guyser]

Actuaries lie. Seniors SHOULD have the highest rates. There is nothing more frightening than a 70 year old behind the wheel.

Here the gltich tho.

A 70 yr old will not be around (on avg) long enough to put a dent into the payout pool. Serious accidents with 70 yr olds means they die. And dieing is the cheapest way insurance co's make money.

The cars of 70 yr olds are the same as 23 yr olds. Its a static issue, the bodily injury and AB payouts are what causes the premium to rise.

[guyser]

Erm, dealing with Insurance Fraud is the problem of the Insurance companies and should NEVER have any bearing on rates to the individuals.

Which would be different from say VISA, AMEX , Sears, Loblaws ,CdDN Tire.....why would that be fair? I do know they employ a ton of assets to try and catch fraud, but in many cases spending $1000 to cathc a ten cent fraud is kind of silly.

There is a % of the Insurance Industry that committs fraud as well, do we get our rates reduced because of that? Absolutely not, we eat it or even have our rates increased more. There is a % of people who scam, regardless of location or background, age or vehicle.

See above comment. I have no idea what you are attempting to convey.

Overall I have yet to see the Protected Insurance Industry close up shop because it loses money. Infact, its such a horrible business, Banks had to get a piece of the action.

Then pay more attention. They are healthy for the most part no doubt due to the FSCO (Fin Services commish) and the regulatory boards. They dictate holdings and assests to be covered for the risks they have on the books. One of the reasons they are mostly healthy.

32 insurance companies have either failed or been wound up by FSCO since 1979. Thems the facts.

Insurance Industry is great at making their case and protecting their interests.

But overall, its a free lunch. The Gravy Train starts here.

Heavily heavily regulated does not allow for making their case

Edited March 7, 2011 by guyser

[guyser]

Intersections is where the accidents are. Slow speed, congested intersections.

Most people have no idea what the costs are for a single accident, a minor one in that.

I do agree that fraud is a huge issue and drives the avg claim cost way up.

An avg claim cost in Ontario is $53,000. So the next time you see an intersection accident , or hell even one in your neighbourhood think of that amount.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I only have to look at the US medical insurance when I think of risk and fairness....

That's fine....Americans look at Canada for whacked out car insurance risk and fairness. You guys sure do get hosed on car insurance, particularly in Ontario and BC. Yikes!

Edited March 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[guyser]

That's fine....Americans look at Canada for whacked out car insurance risk and fairness. You guys sure do get hosed on car insurance, particularly in Ontario and BC. Yikes!

They "may look" but they would be making an incorrect assumption.

About on par when minimums are brought up to our higher standards.

[bush_cheney2004]

They "may look" but they would be making an incorrect assumption.

About on par when minimums are brought up to our higher standards.

LOL....about on par, except when they are not. Got it!

Enjoy those "higher standards", which I assume includes higher prices for cars to begin with.

[guyser]

LOL....about on par, except when they are not. Got it!

About on par means almost the same when factoring in diffences in limits and coverage.

It means we are not hosed.

Enjoy those "higher standards", which I assume includes higher prices for cars to begin with.

You assume wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

About on par means almost the same when factoring in diffences in limits and coverage.

It means we are not hosed.

OK..but I think you are hosed but just don't realize it.

You assume wrong.

I assume wrong that vehicles cost more in Canada? OK...if you say so...it must be true.

[guyser]

OK..but I think you are hosed but just don't realize it.

You are out of your league on this one.

I assume wrong that vehicles cost more in Canada? OK...if you say so...it must be true.

I did not say that now did I ?

[bush_cheney2004]

You are out of your league on this one.

I sure hope so....rates in Ontario are obscene.

I did not say that now did I ?

Awwww...now you are just playing hard to get.

[guyser]

I sure hope so....rates in Ontario are obscene.

Your point is?

Awwww...now you are just playing hard to get.

No one likes words ascribed that were not uttered.

[Bonam]

BC is totally right on this. My insurance here in Seattle is 1/3 of what I paid in Vancouver. Screw "higher standards", how often do you actually get a payout from the insurance company? The only reason most people buy car insurance is because it is required by law, and the only real consideration is how cheaply you can get it, not what it supposedly covers.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Bonam

[guyser]

BC is totally right on this.

No he wasnt.

Minimum limits in Washington are $25,000 In Br Col $200,000. (Que is only $50G) Big difference

My insurance here in Seattle is 1/3 of what I paid in Vancouver.

And you have a different policy , and if you bring one up or lower the limits on the other,you may just be on par. Do recall I stated on average.

Screw "higher standards", how often do you actually get a payout from the insurance company?

Oh I dont know, 99.8% of the time a legitimate claim is presented.

The only reason most people buy car insurance is because it is required by law, and the only real consideration is how cheaply you can get it, not what it supposedly covers.

Yes well in your opinion, however that is not the case . Most people are responsible.

[Bonam]

No he wasnt.

Minimum limits in Washington are $25,000 In Br Col $200,000. (Que is only $50G) Big difference

And you have a different policy , and if you bring one up or lower the limits on the other,you may just be on par. Do recall I stated on average.

Not true. When I first got my insurance policy here I had to keep all the coverages up to BC standards because my car was a lease from a Canadian dealership. The cost of insurance was still only about 1/2 as much as it was in BC. I was paying ~$2400 per year in BC, about $1300 per year when I moved here and re-insured with an American company, and about $850/year after I bought out the car and downgraded the coverages.

Anyone who thinks car insurance in BC is somehow a good deal is in denial, period.

Oh I dont know, 99.8% of the time a legitimate claim is presented.

Which is how often? I've paid insurance for about 7 years, totaling somewhere around $14,000 (almost as much as my car cost) and have yet to ever make a claim. Yes, yes, only anecdotal blah blah blah.

Yes well in your opinion, however that is not the case . Most people are responsible.

So your view of "responsibility" is throwing money away to an insurance company? I don't see anything irresponsible about saving money by having a higher deductible.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Bonam

[madmax]

Here the gltich tho.

A 70 yr old will not be around (on avg) long enough to put a dent into the payout pool. Serious accidents with 70 yr olds means they die. And dieing is the cheapest way insurance co's make money.

The cars of 70 yr olds are the same as 23 yr olds. Its a static issue, the bodily injury and AB payouts are what causes the premium to rise.

Dang you're gruesome.. I am not done my OJ yet