How about a referendum on ICBC?

[crookedmember]

The HST is nickel and dime stuff. Allowing private insurance companies to compete with ICBC could save us some serious coin.

Sure, the private companies would only want to cover low risk drivers, but we would also get low risk rates.

ICBC would keep the dregs. Would their rates go up? Yes. Would I care? No. Am I sick of subsidizing those drivers? Yes.

Where is the Zalm when you need him

[Bsuds]

They compete already! We use Cdn Direct Insurance for collision coverage, Save lots.

[crookedmember]

But you still must buy your mandatory coverage from ICBC; my comprehensive and collision are a small part of my annual bill.

More important, you are at the mercy of ICBC when it comes to determining fault. It makes a lot of financial sense for them to work harder for the guilty party and try to shift some of the blame to the innocent party.

If I'm paying thousands of dollars per year for insurance, I'd like the company to work for me, rather than for the other guy.

[WhatThe]

I have to write this inbetwen chuckles. You actually think private insurance companies work for you?
They work for profit, bottom line.

[crookedmember]

Perhaps you're chuckling because you didn't think things through. To say insurance companies work for the bottom like is true but terribly trite; all enterprises work for the bottom line.

If you're involved in an accident, your private insurance company will work for you, rather than for the other driver because it will save them money.

ICBC, on the other hand, has a conflict of interest and saves money by spreading blame around.

I'm no fan of the insurance racket, but I'm even less a fan of monopolies.

[Phoenix Within]

I have to write this inbetwen chuckles. You actually think private insurance companies work for you?
They work for profit, bottom line.

Having lived in AB and experienced private companies, I have to agree. n some ways they're almost worse than ICBC when it comes to claims. Sure rates were lower and safe driving was rewarded, but they sure stick to the fine print when it's to their advantage (which is every time).

[twobits]

Perhaps you're chuckling because you didn't think things through. To say insurance companies work for the bottom like is true but terribly trite; all enterprises work for the bottom line.

If you're involved in an accident, your private insurance company will work for you, rather than for the other driver because it will save them money.

ICBC, on the other hand, has a conflict of interest and saves money by spreading blame around.

I'm no fan of the insurance racket, but I'm even less a fan of monopolies.

I agree with the notion of conflict of interest. To me it is the same as hiring a lawyer to sue someone and the person you are suing also has the same lawyer. How can the lawyer possibly argue each parties interest? Suppose they could be bi-polar.

[WhatThe]

It's not conflict of interest, if you really think about it, it's more fair and impartial. It's not pitting two parties whose vested interest is profit against eachother. now that's conflict of interest. More important it falls in line with what insurance should be, even protection for everyone.
Any surplus collected by ICBC is reinvested into the province (yes I know theres some bonuses to management and sometimes unsavoury conduct, no system is perfect) not shareholders pockets.

It's a corporation owned by us, not private enterprise.

Level the field, fund safe driver programs, education, protection for everyone.

Or

Make as much money as possible so shareholders Etc. get rich.


Which one do you want?

[zzontar]

It's not conflict of interest, if you really think about it, it's more fair and impartial. It's not pitting two parties whose vested interest is profit against eachother. now that's conflict of interest. More important it falls in line with what insurance should be, even protection for everyone.
Any surplus collected by ICBC is reinvested into the province (yes I know theres some bonuses to management and sometimes unsavoury conduct, no system is perfect) not shareholders pockets.

It's a corporation owned by us, not private enterprise.

Level the field, fund safe driver programs, education, protection for everyone.

Or

Make as much money as possible so shareholders Etc. get rich.



Which one do you want?

ICBC has slowly been taking away incentives for driver education. Perhaps they realize that jacking up a new driver's insurance 75% for a crash makes them more money.

[twobits]

It's not conflict of interest, if you really think about it, it's more fair and impartial. It's not pitting two parties whose vested interest is profit against eachother. now that's conflict of interest. More important it falls in line with what insurance should be, even protection for everyone.
Any surplus collected by ICBC is reinvested into the province (yes I know theres some bonuses to management and sometimes unsavoury conduct, no system is perfect) not shareholders pockets.

It's a corporation owned by us, not private enterprise.

Level the field, fund safe driver programs, education, protection for everyone.

Or

Make as much money as possible so shareholders Etc. get rich.



Which one do you want?

I doubt very much that you have had the pleasure of dealing with ICBC adjusters while being the innocent victim of a MV accident. Every attempt is made to marginalize your injuries, ability to return to gainful employment, and market value of your vehicle. It is their vested interest and mandate to minimize claim payouts......not return you to a position that you were in prior to the accident.
Several years ago I purchased a very nice used vehicle for 13,500. Thirteen months later it was deemed a write off and not due to our fault. ICBC would only pay 8000 for it as their research found three vehicles with similar mileage and options advertized in the lower mainland as average comparatives. Do you seriously think my vehicle depreciated 5500 in 13 months? How was I supposed to go to the lower mainland to kick the actual tires and see if they were in fact in similar condition to mine without great personal inconvienience and expense? Their compromise after 2 weeks of argument? I was allowed to remove the brand new tires as long as I reinstalled tires that were at least 50% tread left and I was allowed to remove the trailer hitch I had installed as those items would not greatly effect the salvage value they could obtain for the vehicle selling it to a wrecker. As a further insult I had to pay the wrecking yard it was stored in to do the work because of insurance liabilities should I become injured while doing it myself. Yup, I really came out even.

[my5cents]

There is a lot of rhetoric in this forum.

Before making a decision based on, a friend's friend, who knew a guy that.... Do some research on the costs of auto insurance in similar markets in other parts of Canada that have private insurance.

Make sure you compare apples to apples.

How many know that with ICBC coverage you have $600,000 of coverage under no fault coverage for medical and wage loss ?

So, for example you are stupid and hurt yourself while driving your vehicle you don't become a drain on the welfare system. It's an auto accident the auto insurance pays.

I think that amount in Alberta is $25,000 max.

You are walking (YES WALKING) on the sidewalk in Spokane and you are hit by an uninsured, stolen vehicle and injured, you still have ICBC coverage, as long as you live in a household that has an ICBC insured driver (so that means your 15 year old has coverage under a similar situation).

Yes, as we get older, we can save a bundle on insurance, and screw the 17 year old kid. That's what happened to me, when I was 17.

Private insurance bases it's rates on age, sex, marital status etc. as well as driving history.

ICBC coverage, when anyone first starts to drive they are at base rate, if you are 16 or 60. Every year they don't have a liable claim their rate goes down.

Yes, it's not perfect, especially when the government takes money from ICBC. That has to stop.

If you are not happy with the evaluation of your vehicles total loss, there is an arbitration procedure, you pick an expert to evaluate your vehicle for you and ICBC picks someone and it is reviewed by an independent body. If you don't like that outcome there is also court.

If you do the research you'll find that there is more to like than hate about ICBC.

But you have to compare the coverage you are getting as well as the rates.

You don't compare a 30 year old 1200 square foot house in Kelowna on a 33 foot lot, to a new 3500 square foot house in Moose Jaw on 10 acres and say house prices in Kelowna are less than in Moose Jaw, do you ?

[delSol97]

ICBC rates aren't actually too bad.

The only real change that would benefit me would be multi-car discounts. Most places that have private insurance have that benefit.

It's a real killer for me personally.

[my5cents]

ICBC rates aren't actually too bad.

The only real change that would benefit me would be multi-car discounts. Most places that have private insurance have that benefit.

It's a real killer for me personally.

Agree 100%.

[Oxl3y]

I believe this is a clear case of "the grass is always greener". I am moving to Alberta permanently in January so I as of yet don't know what the insurance situation is like but I doubt that I'll find privatization saves me that much money. If anything because I am a lazy shopper I'll be annoyed by there being multiple options so I'll have to shop around. ICBC is not perfect but I don't think it's nearly as bad as people think it is, its just easier to get upset when you have no other option.

[my5cents]

I believe this is a clear case of "the grass is always greener". I am moving to Alberta permanently in January so I as of yet don't know what the insurance situation is like but I doubt that I'll find privatization saves me that much money. If anything because I am a lazy shopper I'll be annoyed by there being multiple options so I'll have to shop around. ICBC is not perfect but I don't think it's nearly as bad as people think it is, its just easier to get upset when you have no other option.

Actually with the exception of the basic $200,000 Public Liability coverage (which includes your No Fault coverage), the rest is wide open to purchase privately in BC.

Depending on your age, it may cost you more for the same coverage in Alberta.

On the basic coverage, the one classification of vehicle where the insured gets hosed by ICBC is motorcycle coverage.

For the basic coverage, ($200,000 Public Liability) same driver, same discount (full) my Harley costs $838 and my Sante Fe costs $514. How much damage could I cause on a vehicle that weighs that much less ???

I think you'll find, for example, your comprehensive coverage, that in BC includes, theft, fire, vandalism, animal collision, and glass, won't be the same. In Alberta I think most insurance companies charge extra for glass, and as a result many driver's don't carry it.

Also it would be interesting to hear what the limits are on your "no fault" coverage. That's the coverage that you have access to for medical and wage loss no matter if an accident is your fault or someone else’s.

It has nothing to do with tort (pain and suffering or liability), just medical, including rehab, and wage loss (it's a portion of your wages up to a weekly limit)

In BC it covers anyone who has a BC driver's license or lives in the household of the holder of a BC DL. I believe the limit in BC is $600,000 per person per incident.