ICBC rates could go up 30%

[my5cents]

^^^ biggest risk to ICBC claims is the Governments of BC (all ruling Provincial governments) stealing the premiums paid by BC residents to ICBC for vehicle insurance. Not to make Provincial general revenue look that much better.

Of course by doing that it forces ICBC to increase premiums

It's a "p" off, but in the big picture of a billion dollar insurance company it's not the biggie.

Tort claims for borderline value (damage) claims is the real culprit.

[GordonH]

biggest risk to ICBC claims is the Governments of BC (all ruling Provincial governments) stealing the premiums paid by BC residents to ICBC for vehicle insurance. Not to make Provincial general revenue look that much better.

Of course by doing that it forces ICBC to increase premiums

It's a "p" off, but in the big picture of a billion dollar insurance company it's not the biggie.

Tort claims for borderline value (damage) claims is the real culprit.

1.2 billion taken in last 7 years, wonder how much in 35+ years before 2010

[mr.bandaid]

I have a totally clean record with regard to an accidents, I've never been in an accident or caused one (40+ years of driving).
Why should I be punished for a bunch of idiots.

Because tomorrow you might be joining those idiots. Just because it's a lower risk for you than some doesn't mean it's no risk

Yes but as of today I have 0 accidents. When I have an accident that is my fault than I will expect that I will have to pay.

[Symbonite]

Well if the government actually listen to the people they would open up insurance competition but none of them wont. Because the NDP made this ICBC as a cash cow for any government. They will never get rid of it. If the NDP wants to do something right. Get rid of what they started.

[jimmy4321]

I think the idea of ICBC is not necessarily a bad one. They could be more competitive with private insurance, they could be cheaper but they're not, it doesn't work.
Even if they increased premiums by 50 or 60% , in 2 or 3 years there would be another increase.
Government in it's very nature will spend every penny, not to mention the suggestion of them dipping to balance budgets.
It's like expecting a dog never to bark.

[GordonH]

I think the idea of ICBC is not necessarily a bad one. They could be more competitive with private insurance, they could be cheaper but they're not, it doesn't work.
Even if they increased premiums by 50 or 60% , in 2 or 3 years there would be another increase.
Government in it's very nature will spend every penny, not to mention the suggestion of them dipping to balance budgets.
It's like expecting a dog never to bark.

If the government of the day (meaning.. Social Credit, NDP & BC Liberals) had not removed billions from ICBC. I would say they could have been very competitive if not lower.

[my5cents]

If the government of the day (meaning.. Social Credit, NDP & BC Liberals) had not removed billions from ICBC. I would say they could have been very competitive if not lower.

? competitive with who ? Are you assuming because some people find that they pay less for "own damage" coverage from private insurance, that private insurance would somehow not have the claims experience ICBC is having with the tort side of the business ?

Own damage coverage is pretty simple compared to liability insurance. The value of a vehicle can be determined at the time a policy is sold, an insurance company knows the quantum of a loss if something happens.

Liability coverage,, is our insured going to get involved in a $200,000 loss with the insurance our insured paid $500 for ? OK, we double his premiums FOREVER, it would only take us 200 years recoup the loss.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this but none of what you say makes sense.

From 2011 - 2015, on average ICBC paid out $3,306,000,000 a year in claims ($3.3 Billion)
Using your figure of 1.2 billion over 7 years that averages to $171,500,000 a year taken by the government

That's about 5%. But that doesn't matter because the two aren't related.

The majority of the increases are coming from bodily injury claims, that comes from the tort side of the business. The increase in repair costs affect, the mandatory and the optional coverage sides of the business, but the bulk of the increase is from bodily injury claims.

The bulk of the losses are paid from the premiums we pay for the mandatory coverage. (that $200,000.00 minimum coverage, that we all MUST buy from ICBC)

The money the government takes from ICBC comes from the profits made on the optional coverage.

Solution, (I do it) don't buy optional coverage from ICBC, thus none of your money is going to the government.

The 30% increase that is being talked about, lets say, simplistically ICBC isn't split and all the premiums are in one big pot (they aren't).

Out of that pot, ICBC has had to pay the government the 1.2 Billion over the last 7 years (I'm using your figures), that's still only 5% of the cost of claims.

So we put that money back and the increase is "only" 25%, are you happy with that ?

[Smurf]

my5cents wrote:

The money the government takes from ICBC comes from the profits made on the optional coverage.

Solution, (I do it) don't buy optional coverage from ICBC, thus none of your money is going to the government.

I hate the government(s) stealing from ICBC and BC Hydro as much as anyone could but cannot agree with your theory. If my premium money has to go to somebody other that ICBC I would sooner it be the government for hopefully the needs of the province than to some private company profits. One way or anther the government is going to get it's money, I would just like them to be up front about it.

[my5cents]

I hate the government(s) stealing from ICBC and BC Hydro as much as anyone could but cannot agree with your theory. If my premium money has to go to somebody other that ICBC I would sooner it be the government for hopefully the needs of the province than to some private company profits. One way or anther the government is going to get it's money, I would just like them to be up front about it.

Ya, I have to agree with you on that.

I just didn't like it that it was Christies pockets. Having said that, I doubt (but we'll see) the NDP will continue the practice.

Same reason I purchase all my liquor at government stores. Not to mention the employees are paid well and can also fully support their community.

As an aside, I would LOVE for the NDP to do a full investigation on all the Hydro stuff. Including the contracts given out for "run of the river".

[jimmy4321]

If it happened before it will happen again.
I buy my liquor where the price is right, even from overpaid government workers if need be.

[seewood]

Same reason I purchase all my liquor at government stores. Not to mention the employees are paid well and can also fully support their community

Ditto. Can't figure why there is a cup at the private liquor with "tips" on it. I suppose it might be charity as they are not ensuring promptness.
As for ICBC, although no fan of NDG, I do hope they keep their hands out of the crown corporations to balance the books.
They didn't used to but back then they had BC Rail to pillage.

[jimmy4321]

For what??
All they do is stock shelves with government approved liqour. If not for fear of underage purchases the'd have self checkouts, that would be fine with me also.
Hey there's an idea , a door person to check for +19 at the door and just have self checkouts

[flamingfingers]

If it happened before it will happen again.
I buy my liquor where the price is right, even from overpaid government workers if need be.

The more a worker gets paid, the more taxes they pay and the more money they spend to support small business, spending discretionary income to keep the economy chugging along.

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars on more welfare, see longer lines at the food banks and etc with people unable to pay MSP, car insurance, Hydro (which means the costs to YOU increase to make up for it)???

[jimmy4321]

So basically work for the gov or fall into the abyss?, we can do better than that.

[flamingfingers]

Not at all. Private companies can pay workers decently and a lot of them do - and provide fringe benefits as well. Why should you want to keep beating down workers' pay to erode the income tax they pay, the extra funds they have to spend in the community to keep the economy healthy.

"If there are no consumers, there is no business."