[SprCForr]

How long does the N stay on for? Is it age dependant or time? In any group of 17-20 year olds there wouldn't be a single holder of a full license?

[Sapio]

ICBC does sucks. We need to open up the industry. If you were given more chooses it would be much better. We are just getting away from purely public insurance and purely public liquor stories.

[Robair]

Sapio wrote:

ICBC does sucks. We need to open up the industry. If you were given more chooses it would be much better. We are just getting away from purely public insurance and purely public liquor stories.

Purely public insurance can work quite well. Look at Saskatchewan. Wide open works, look at Alberta. The problem with BC is it's halfway in between and has taken the worst of both systems. You've given a monopoly (like pure public systems) to a private company that is allowed to turn a profit (like in wide open systems).

It's insane.

[Sapio]

Robair wrote:

Sapio wrote:

ICBC does sucks. We need to open up the industry. If you were given more chooses it would be much better. We are just getting away from purely public insurance and purely public liquor stories.

Purely public insurance can work quite well. Look at Saskatchewan. Wide open works, look at Alberta. The problem with BC is it's halfway in between and has taken the worst of both systems. You've given a monopoly (like pure public systems) to a private company that is allowed to turn a profit (like in wide open systems).

It's insane.

Its true that ICBC has a monopoly ( on basic insurance) and any government enforced monopoly is a bad thing.

[Robair]

Sapio wrote:

Its true that ICBC has a monopoly ( on basic insurance) and any government enforced monopoly is a bad thing.

Blanket statements like that don't work.

SK no fault insurance works great. The only losers there are ambulance chasing lawyers.

The easiest fix in BC is to just let in competition. Going after what SK has got would take a lot of work.

[Sapio]

Robair wrote:

Sapio wrote:

Its true that ICBC has a monopoly ( on basic insurance) and any government enforced monopoly is a bad thing.

Blanket statements like that don't work.

SK no fault insurance works great. The only losers there are ambulance chasing lawyers.

The easiest fix in BC is to just let in competition. Going after what SK has got would take a lot of work.

Yes!!! let in competition. That is what I was saying. There should be no monopoly enforced by law, but if a group comes in that creates a nature monopoly, because they have the best product, it should not be stopped by law.

[QBall]

Robair wrote:

Sapio wrote:

ICBC does sucks. We need to open up the industry. If you were given more chooses it would be much better. We are just getting away from purely public insurance and purely public liquor stories.

Purely public insurance can work quite well. Look at Saskatchewan. Wide open works, look at Alberta. The problem with BC is it's halfway in between and has taken the worst of both systems. You've given a monopoly (like pure public systems) to a private company that is allowed to turn a profit (like in wide open systems).

It's insane.

Wow, you mean I wrote that long response on the previous page and you didn't bother to read it, because you seem to be spreading the same misinformation AGAIN. SGI, MPI and ICBC all work the same. ICBC is a crown corporation that was created by the Insurance Corporation Act and is regulated by the BC Utilities Comission. This means that, unlike BC Ferries, they cannot set rates independently. Rates must be approved by the BC Utilities Commission. ICBC has a monopoly over basic coverages, just as SGI does in Saskatchewan and MPI does in Manitoba. However MPI and SGI requires you to purchase own damage coverage from them, ICBC does not. People in B.C. are free to insure higher liability limits and own damage coverage from ICBC or from private insurers. So, in truth, B.C.'s system has more choice for consumers than Saskatchewan's or Manitoba's.

[QBall]

Sapio wrote:

Robair wrote:

Sapio wrote:

Its true that ICBC has a monopoly ( on basic insurance) and any government enforced monopoly is a bad thing.

Blanket statements like that don't work.

SK no fault insurance works great. The only losers there are ambulance chasing lawyers.

The easiest fix in BC is to just let in competition. Going after what SK has got would take a lot of work.

Yes!!! let in competition. That is what I was saying. There should be no monopoly enforced by law, but if a group comes in that creates a nature monopoly, because they have the best product, it should not be stopped by law.

Be careful what you wish for...

[Brenda]

Way to go lily!

[Sapio]

QBall wrote:

Robair wrote:

Sapio wrote:

ICBC does sucks. We need to open up the industry. If you were given more chooses it would be much better. We are just getting away from purely public insurance and purely public liquor stories.

Purely public insurance can work quite well. Look at Saskatchewan. Wide open works, look at Alberta. The problem with BC is it's halfway in between and has taken the worst of both systems. You've given a monopoly (like pure public systems) to a private company that is allowed to turn a profit (like in wide open systems).

It's insane.

Wow, you mean I wrote that long response on the previous page and you didn't bother to read it, because you seem to be spreading the same misinformation AGAIN. SGI, MPI and ICBC all work the same. ICBC is a crown corporation that was created by the Insurance Corporation Act and is regulated by the BC Utilities Comission. This means that, unlike BC Ferries, they cannot set rates independently. Rates must be approved by the BC Utilities Commission. ICBC has a monopoly over basic coverages, just as SGI does in Saskatchewan and MPI does in Manitoba. However MPI and SGI requires you to purchase own damage coverage from them, ICBC does not. People in B.C. are free to insure higher liability limits and own damage coverage from ICBC or from private insurers. So, in truth, B.C.'s system has more choice for consumers than Saskatchewan's or Manitoba's.

The question I have is why do we have Crown Corporations at all? Get ride of all government involvement including the BC Utilities Comission.

[Robair]

QBall wrote:

Wow, you mean I wrote that long response on the previous page and you didn't bother to read it, because you seem to be spreading the same misinformation AGAIN.

Ah, sorry Q, you must have posted after I left the thread, then when I found the online petition I came back and posted it, and didn't read back on the thread at all.

The rates here are more than just a little higher than the ones I had to pay in SK. I suppose that can be attributed to the 'no fault' policy in SK then? As I had less driving experience back in SK... I turned 16 there and left when I was 19. Didn't move to BC until I was 30.

My experience here has been unpleasant to say the least. Would rather insure a car ANYWHERE else that I've lived (SK, AB or Kentucky). You move here, you're guilty until proven innocent. I've never had to deal with that anywhere else. I'm not sure I'd have this kind of trouble if I could cross the street to a compeditor.

[QBall]

Sapio wrote:

The question I have is why do we have Crown Corporations at all? Get ride of all government involvement including the BC Utilities Comission.

We have crown corporations because the government decided it and it alone can provide a certain type of service, or wants to more closely regulate a type of industry, or it believes it can better provide a service than the private sector.
I used to live in Ontario, which is a private run system. If you want to experience the first level of hell try spending a day or two trying to get quotes from several dozen auto insurers to try and find the best deal, then go to a MOT vehicle licensing office and wait in line to get a new plate for a vehicle you're purchasing. At least in BC you can go to one of several hundred Autoplan offices and do both at the same time.

[Yogi]

QBall wrote:

Sapio wrote:

The question I have is why do we have Crown Corporations at all? Get ride of all government involvement including the BC Utilities Comission.

We have crown corporations because the government decided it and it alone can provide a certain type of service, or wants to more closely regulate a type of industry, or it believes it can better provide a service than the private sector.
I used to live in Ontario, which is a private run system. If you want to experience the first level of hell try spending a day or two trying to get quotes from several dozen auto insurers to try and find the best deal, then go to a MOT vehicle licensing office and wait in line to get a new plate for a vehicle you're purchasing. At least in BC you can go to one of several hundred Autoplan offices and do both at the same time.

I haven't been to my insurance providers office in 3 years! Everything is done either phone, email or snail-mail. The money that I save using private insurance more than compensates me for the 15-20 mins that I have had to stand in line waiting to renew registrations.

[QBall]

Robair wrote:

The rates here are more than just a little higher than the ones I had to pay in SK. I suppose that can be attributed to the 'no fault' policy in SK then? As I had less driving experience back in SK... I turned 16 there and left when I was 19. Didn't move to BC until I was 30.

Quote:

'No fault' can usually allow insurers to realize some savings, however as I have not analyzed the injury benefits afforded by SGI's plan I cannot say for sure. Ontario went from a straight tort system to a no-fault system in the early 90's, and the insurers did see quite a bit of savings because they weren't paying out as much for injury benefits. Then Bob Rae and the NDP were elected in Ontario. The thing about a no-fault scheme is the amount an insurer pays compensation for lost wages, rehab, etc is set in legislation. This way each insurer and each insured knows what is owed and for how long, thereby avoiding tieing up the courts with endless lawsuits. The thing is this legislation can be changed. This is what Bob Rae and the dippers did, they decided that the benefits being paid weren't enough and increased them. Unfortunately they increased them to the point where it became more lucrative for people to stay on accident benefits than to work. People in Ontario were setting up schemes where they would sell a seat in their vehicle, go out and get involved in a minor accident (say change lanes right in front of someone and then slam on their brakes to get the other party to rear end them) and then everyone in the car would claim they were injured (usually complain of neck pain as it was soft tissue injury and hard to prove whether it was really injured or not). Then these people would stay on accident benefits until it was exhausted (since it was more lucrative than working) and then do it all over again. This was a well known scam amongst the Vietnamese community in Toronto. I remember reading a story where a group of Vietnamese tried pulling this scam, unfortunately they decided to slam their brakes in front of a fully loaded semi. The semi, obiously, couldn't stop no where near in time, hit the back of the vehicle and then proceeded to drive over it killing everyone inside. So it may be possible that Saskatchewan's 'No-Fault' system is the reason for the lower rates. However it's just as possible that the 'No-Fault' system is keeping rates artificially higher than they should be and some other factor is causing the rates to be lower.

Quote:

My experience here has been unpleasant to say the least. Would rather insure a car ANYWHERE else that I've lived (SK, AB or Kentucky). You move here, you're guilty until proven innocent. I've never had to deal with that anywhere else. I'm not sure I'd have this kind of trouble if I could cross the street to a compeditor.

In you were to walk into a broker's office in Ontario after moving there and asked to insure a vehicle there any insurer there would need proof of being claims free, mostly commonly by providing an experience letter from your out-of-province insurer. BC is no different, however BC has more stringent requirements regarding how the letter gets to them. This is done in order to prvent people from using fake, forged or altered letters of experience (a couple of years ago a guy was arrested for selling fake experience letters on Craigslist). However because of this ICBC also recognizes experience from out-of-country (other than US, UK, Australia), where many private insurers will not.

[Brenda]

I moved here from Holland. Accident free for 18 years. I had to ask my former insurance company 4 freakin times for a letter. They are telling you you're not eligible for a discount over a spelling error and a ",". It is rediculous.