The end of sexual discrimination in Europe!

[Kuciwalker]

You're both saying the same thing: companies have an incentive to discriminate on everything they can that works, for the reasons Kuci posts, which leads to the prescription that Asher mentions - letting them discriminate on anything they want.

Dude, that's what I have advocated from the start. I'm arguing against the idea "if they won't discriminate base don race, they shouldn't based on sex either".

[Kuciwalker]

Do you think there is something wrong with pursuing one's interest?

Yes, if "pursuing one's interest" means "lobbying for destructive regulations to benefit my particular group at the expense of the whole".

[notyoueither]

You've just explained why and how even in the Texas of the North (Alberta) the government was forced by the population to ***** slap the insurance industry and mandate what they could charge for auto insurance.

yes, you are all so much better off with price controls

Thank you for demonstrating another example of dumb policy being the will of the voters

Actually, we are quite a bit better off. Maybe you can give us concrete examples of how Albertans are worse off due to the auto insurance industry being more tightly regulated than before those extra regulations were forced on the industry and the government by the population being outraged at how people were being abused.

[Asher]

I echo nye's sentiments. Alberta's car insurance is far, far more reasonable than other provinces with fewer controls. Ontario is slowly following Alberta's lead as a result.

As I've said before, my car insurance is a third of the cost it was in Toronto. Exact same coverage.

[notyoueither]

The entire concept of insurance is based on assessing what might happen, not what has happened.

I get that, but I also get that the industry can be doing it wrong.

The industry does take what has happened into account to a large extent though. My rate is extremely low based on their experience with me as an individual.

[Asher]

Here's Alberta's 2004 industry reforms: http://www.kanetix.ca/ic_auto_info_auto_articles_40

Ontario does not have these. Ontario's car insurance goes up every year, Alberta's has been going down. Industry has been profitable still.

Don't see a downside.

(Alberta also has additional restrictions on max payouts for injuries, etc...which certainly helps)

[Kuciwalker]

(Alberta also has additional restrictions on max payouts for injuries, etc...which certainly helps)

Yes, of course if you change the law to limit the actual liability insured then prices will fall. Why do you think the actual price controls have kept costs down?

Obviously, I have no actual data on the evolution of the Albertan auto insurance industry. But we have an enormous amount of prior evidence that price controls in general are harmful, not helpful. You need to provide a very strong justification to establish that they are good in this case.

[Asher]

Proof is in the pudding, Kuci. Instead of paying $300 a month, I'm paying $95. Due to government regulation changes.

Price controls have kept costs down because that's exactly what they did, by law and definition. It is no longer cost prohibitive for 16 year old males to get insured, and therefore get driving experience. Everyone's insurance as a whole has gone down, but the insurance for young males is substantially lower. I'm sure the insurance for older males/females would've gone down even more had the price controls not forced it to be lower for younger males, but they're so low as it is and continuing to drop society as a whole is incredibly happy with the government regulations and price controls.

[Kuciwalker]

A government regulation change that included limiting the liability you insured. There is no particularly good reason to believe any of the other provisions caused the lower rate.

[Asher]

A government regulation change that included limiting the liability you insured.

You're making an assumption. Nowhere did I say the government regulation change coincided with the limits to liability. They did not, in fact, occur together. I'm just pointing out one reason Alberta is cheaper than Ontario is reasonable liability limits, which is not the same thing as saying we recently introduced them.

The liability reform was in 2007, IIRC. Rate controls were in 2004. Prices dropped between 2004 and 2007.

There is no particularly good reason to believe any of the other provisions caused the lower rate.

Considering they did not coincide, this is an amusing assertion. What else would cause them to fall while provinces without the rate controls increased in the same timeframe?

[notyoueither]

It was a process that arrived at the regulations, Kuci.

Parents (voters) started calling BS on the rates their sons were being charged.

The government told the insurance industry there had to be a change.

The industry said that rates had to be high so they could pay claims.

The government said fine, limit certain types of injury claims and charge people rates that are affordable.

That is what we ended up with. The industry escaped the ambulance chasers who wanted a million dollars for every strained shoulder and young men can afford to drive to get to the jobs that we really need them to work at.

[Kuciwalker]

You're making an assumption. Nowhere did I say the government regulation change coincided with the limits to liability. They did not, in fact, occur together. I'm just pointing out one reason Alberta is cheaper than Ontario is reasonable liability limits, which is not the same thing as saying we recently introduced them.

It was a totally reasonable inference from your post

It was a process that arrived at the regulations, Kuci.

Parents (voters) started calling BS on the rates their sons were being charged.

The government told the insurance industry there had to be a change.

The industry said that rates had to be high so they could pay claims.

The government said fine, limit certain types of injury claims and charge people rates that are affordable.

That is what we ended up with. The industry escaped the ambulance chasers who wanted a million dollars for every strained shoulder and young men can afford to drive to get to the jobs that we really need them to work at.

In this process, why do you think any step besides limiting the injury claims would be necessary?

[notyoueither]

You're making an assumption. Nowhere did I say the government regulation change coincided with the limits to liability. They did not, in fact, occur together. I'm just pointing out one reason Alberta is cheaper than Ontario is reasonable liability limits, which is not the same thing as saying we recently introduced them.

The liability reform was in 2007, IIRC. Rate controls were in 2004. Prices dropped between 2004 and 2007.


Considering they did not coincide, this is an amusing assertion. What else would cause them to fall while provinces without the rate controls increased in the same timeframe?

I thought they were linked.

[Asher]

I thought they were linked.

Were they? I've found articles online referencing liability reforms in 2007, but they may be specific to leased vehicles...

[Asher]

In this process, why do you think any step besides limiting the injury claims would be necessary?

The point is rate controls isn't to reduce the overall insurance rate for the whole of the population, that's the goal of liability reforms.

The point of rate controls were to make it no longer cost prohibitive for young men to drive. It's a redistribution of premiums. There are negative impacts to prohibiting young males to drive -- they can't afford to pay 6-10 thousand dollars a year to get insured to drive to minimum wage jobs. It's unreasonable.