ICBC a mess....

[Dangler]

I feel sorry for those who don't know what car insurance is like outside of BC, or who weren't driving in BC before ICBC arrived in 1973.

If you want privatization, good luck with that. Be careful what you wish for ... because you just might get it.

[jimmy4321]

Your confusing BC for Cuba or N Korea
Probably most are from elsewhere, you don't think people know the benefits of private insurance?

[lasnomadas]

@Dangler:
Yes, I was one of those drivers prior to 1973, and I think we all breathed a sigh of relief when Barrett created ICBC, an affordable insurance corporation for British Columbians. It worked very well, too until the Socreds got their greedy little paws on it, and later, Campbell got his sticky little fingers in it. By the time Christy was finished with it, it was virtually bankrupt. Now the NDP have been tasked to fix it somehow.

I think it would be a mistake to scrap it and let the private insurance companies take the reins again. Just look at what they've been doing to their clients in other jurisdictions. And just wait until you get your premium adjustment for your homeowner's insurance next year. These BC forest fires will drive everyone's premiums sky-high, and not only in B.C. People in Nova Scotia, Florida, California-----all over North America will be paying for our wildfire losses.

No, ICBC needs to be fixed; somehow find a way to return it to its roots. Where to start, though? Get rid of all the 'cream' a the top, executives that are paid huge salaries for doing nothing and knowing less. Fire all the slackers on the front lines and replace them with people who have been trained to know how to do their jobs. Stop taking all the revenue and dumping it into some free enterprise black hole. Make drivers' exams a lot tougher, and print them in our two official languages only. And make the bad drivers pay.......big time.

[Dangler]

No, they don't. Most people don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of insurance, period, public or private.

And nobody who has lived in BC most of his life has a clue.

[my5cents]

Many good points and some not so.

We still have to remember we are talking about A LOT of money. While it's, perhaps not easy to swallow, some high paid upper management are needed. Cutting all the "fat cats" sill wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

For example if we have a VP responsible for the investments that ICBC makes, that reduce our premiums. If we don't pay him or her well they will go elsewhere. If they are earning ICBC hundreds of millions, the $200,000 salary (I have no idea what they make) is nothing.

When the government (any) dictates who is going to run ICBC without the knowledge of how government auto insurance works there can be very serious implications.

It was an interesting news item that Gordon_as posted.

Ironically it was the Social Credit (former name of the BC Liberal) that ended provincial testing stations.

And,,, no Veovis, it's no insurance fraud. If an applicant for insurance isn't asked a question (ie, is this vehicle roadworthy), you can't later put an onus on them to divulge.

Yes, perhaps the condition of vehicles, maybe, the requirement that they have a valid vehicle inspection sticker, should be addressed at the time a vehicle is insured.

Also perhaps it's time that some of the costs that have been foisted onto ICBC should at least be made public knowledge.

All costs for licensing drivers is conducted by ICBC for free to the government, but the fees go to the government.

All monies that are collected by ICBC Collections are obtained without cost to the government, but the money gained goes to the government.

[kgcayenne]

If the government could siphon billions out of ICBC, doesn't that mean it was capable of making money to begin with? So, why not just stop and leave the money made through optional coverage in ICBC? What? Is the new one going to keep transferring? I have to admit, I'd rather my money be redistributed among government services than go towards YoY increases of bonuses and dividends to CEOs in the private sector.

[hobbyguy]

@Dangler:
Yes, I was one of those drivers prior to 1973, and I think we all breathed a sigh of relief when Barrett created ICBC, an affordable insurance corporation for British Columbians. It worked very well, too until the Socreds got their greedy little paws on it, and later, Campbell got his sticky little fingers in it. By the time Christy was finished with it, it was virtually bankrupt. Now the NDP have been tasked to fix it somehow.

I think it would be a mistake to scrap it and let the private insurance companies take the reins again. Just look at what they've been doing to their clients in other jurisdictions. And just wait until you get your premium adjustment for your homeowner's insurance next year. These BC forest fires will drive everyone's premiums sky-high, and not only in B.C. People in Nova Scotia, Florida, California-----all over North America will be paying for our wildfire losses.

No, ICBC needs to be fixed; somehow find a way to return it to its roots. Where to start, though? Get rid of all the 'cream' a the top, executives that are paid huge salaries for doing nothing and knowing less. Fire all the slackers on the front lines and replace them with people who have been trained to know how to do their jobs. Stop taking all the revenue and dumping it into some free enterprise black hole. Make drivers' exams a lot tougher, and print them in our two official languages only. And make the bad drivers pay.......big time.

Lol - ICBC has already slashed managerial expenses by 46% - read the information fer cryin' out loud.

If you actually stopped to do that, the total that Liberals took out of ICBC coffers would have actually delayed the "day of reckoning" by 2, maybe 3 years.

The rest of the problem the Liberals created was by artificially holding down ICBC insurance rates for political purposes. We know why they did that, because they knew the NDP peanut chuckers would mislead the public away from the fact that there is a structural problem in what ICBC charges for what it offers. It was wrong, but on the flip side what did the NDP promise to do during the election? Freeze ICBC rates - in other words interfere politically in an even worse way!

1. It offers too much and the tort section has to change to cap payouts. Politically toxic when you have the NDP chucking peanuts as they would have said "unfair, foul, nasty" - when it is just facing up to reality.
2. Young drivers get a huge subsidy in rates from the rest of drivers. Newer generation young drivers are the group that are fueling the distracted driving accidents that are driving up the number and severity of claims. Lower, not eliminate, that subsidy - and the rest of the drivers see little increase. I can hear the likes of Adrian howling away about doing that as "mean, unfair to young people, and for students ya-de-da"

And IF you want to go way back, why wasn't ICBC set up like SGI? It works waay better.

I happen to be someone who believes that ICBC is a good thing, and a decent operation, but the politicians ought to get their sorry butts ought of it and let the professionals do their jobs!

[my5cents]

Lol - ICBC has already slashed managerial expenses by 46% - read the information fer cryin' out loud.

If you actually stopped to do that, the total that Liberals took out of ICBC coffers would have actually delayed the "day of reckoning" by 2, maybe 3 years.

The rest of the problem the Liberals created was by artificially holding down ICBC insurance rates for political purposes. We know why they did that, because they knew the NDP peanut chuckers would mislead the public away from the fact that there is a structural problem in what ICBC charges for what it offers. It was wrong, but on the flip side what did the NDP promise to do during the election? Freeze ICBC rates - in other words interfere politically in an even worse way!

1. It offers too much and the tort section has to change to cap payouts. Politically toxic when you have the NDP chucking peanuts as they would have said "unfair, foul, nasty" - when it is just facing up to reality.
2. Young drivers get a huge subsidy in rates from the rest of drivers. Newer generation young drivers are the group that are fueling the distracted driving accidents that are driving up the number and severity of claims. Lower, not eliminate, that subsidy - and the rest of the drivers see little increase. I can hear the likes of Adrian howling away about doing that as "mean, unfair to young people, and for students ya-de-da"

And IF you want to go way back, why wasn't ICBC set up like SGI? It works waay better.

I happen to be someone who believes that ICBC is a good thing, and a decent operation, but the politicians ought to get their sorry butts ought of it and let the professionals do their jobs!

I agree, although I don't even think the 1.2 Billion would have delayed the day of reckoning that long.

The only thing I have to add is the government shouldn't be picking the head of ICBC. They have a history or "We've picked, <so and so> and he was in charge of <large US insurance company> and has an extremely good reputation in the insurance business.

The trouble is private insurance is completely different from government insurance.

Consider this, in the private world, a private insurance company has a problem insured, high claims, complete negative. The private insurance company just refuses to sell any more insurance to this person. Next year (or whatever) that person is "victimizing" a different private insurance company, which ironically helps the first company in competing with the new company (they both have equal losses). In the government world ICBC must sell coverage to this looser forever.

[lasnomadas]

Why do we have to go 'all the way back' to set up ICBC like SGI? It's one of the things the NDP could implement right away. I've noticed that the system of insuring the driver instead of the vehicle works very well in Mexico too. I must dash off an e-mail to Horgan and McPhail about this.

[dontrump]

lets look at it another way;IF the government quits taking money out that should help; lets lay off a large amount of staff; everytime I go into a ICBC structures theres too many not doing anything constructive;; lets charge more to bad drivers;; lets not pay such huge compensation to the over numbered CEO CFO CCO etc ; lets get out of the property ownership business and lease like most other crown corporations do and should
ICBC is a insurance company they should not be in the road law enforcement;; schools or any other program ;;that's up to the police systems;; citys and the provincial government to look after
They need a better police system on insurance usage;; too many people run around doing business on pleasure only insurance or misuse of collector plates etc etc ; Crack down on frivolous phoney lawsuits
start paying out less in compensations; settle more out of court to cut legal fees;; use more Private estimators and get rid of in house estimations;; makes the salvage part of ICBC a outsource by contract
saving hundreds of millions right there

[my5cents]

.............. Young drivers get a huge subsidy in rates from the rest of drivers. Newer generation young drivers are the group that are fueling the distracted driving accidents that are driving up the number and severity of claims. Lower, not eliminate, that subsidy - and the rest of the drivers see little increase. I can hear the likes of Adrian howling away about doing that as "mean, unfair to young people, and for students ya-de-da"

Now, I haven't seen any stats on the percentage of young drivers verses middle aged drivers, verses mature drivers who have caused accidents by inattention but.....

Also, you are saying "young drivers", not "new driver's", so we have to say then, that you are OK with charging more for insurance by reason of age. Now, what about sex ? While we're at it, racial origin ? Marital status ?

You are saying that the rate ICBC charges "young drivers" amounts to a subsidy. A new driver at present (young, older, old, but new) pays "base" rate, which is a rate not reduced by any discount.

So if ICBC raised the base rate would that work for you ? However, since you've indicated that you feel "young driver's" need to pay more, what would we do with a mature "new driver", give them an age discount ?

Now as you likely know, insurance and ironically, governments, collect money, be that by insurance premiums or by taxes and then distribute the money. Now in theory government auto insurance should be not for profit, making government auto insurance much like other government programs. The only difference being that in relation to government auto insurance, people partaking in the program (drivers owners of vehicles) pay, those that don't, don't pay. Unlike many things that taxes (on many levels) pay for that have no benefit for the tax payer.

Private insurance takes a fair percentage of their collected premiums to satisfy, owners, stock holders etc, so run properly one would conclude that government auto insurance should have no problem costing less than private coverage.

So we can perhaps agree that government auto insurance is a form of redistributing funds. I smash my car up, I could never afford to just go out and buy a new one, obtaining a second auto loan, so thousands of other auto insurance policy holders that didn't smash up their cars help buy me a new car (over simplification, I know)

So since we are not going to "subsidise", the high risk behaviour of the young driver,, fair is fair. The young person needs little or no medical attention, but pays MSP like the rest of us.

Now if we are basing premiums for government auto insurance on risk, as you have outlined, how much do we then charge our elderly for medical coverage ? We all know what a drain they are on the health care system.

And IF you want to go way back, why wasn't ICBC set up like SGI? It works waay better.

I happen to be someone who believes that ICBC is a good thing, and a decent operation, but the politicians ought to get their sorry butts ought of it and let the professionals do their jobs!

OK, you want a system like SGI, I'm OK with that. It's a two tier system. You can either purchase "no fault" coverage, meaning if you are hit by a liable vehicle, you can't sue, you just get medical, wage loss and reimbursement for any financial loss (ie, fix your smashed car), or you pay more, you get less no fault coverage, but you have the opportunity to sue the pants off a libel driver.

ICBC rate structure is based on driving experience and claims history. Nothing else. ICBC does gain revenue from driver penalty points but those points are directly assessed to a driver and do not attach to a vehicle's insurance

Private insurance rate structure is based on risk, driving experience, claims history and violations.

[jimmy4321]

I am all for profiling when it comes to determining insurance rates.
Sex , age , marital status, driving history, criminal history, Place of residence etc, whatever is valid in determining risk

[dontrump]

I am all for profiling when it comes to determining insurance rates.
Sex , age , marital status, driving history, criminal history, Place of residence etc, whatever is valid in determining risk

as a old german buddy use to say "I degree wit you""
whomever is the most responsible for claims should be paying higher rates You know if you think our rates suck now just imagine if you don't get the 43% discount what you pay !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[my5cents]

lets look at it another way;IF the government quits taking money out that should help; lets lay off a large amount of staff; everytime I go into a ICBC structures theres too many not doing anything constructive;; lets charge more to bad drivers;; lets not pay such huge compensation to the over numbered CEO CFO CCO etc ; lets get out of the property ownership business and lease like most other crown corporations do and should
ICBC is a insurance company they should not be in the road law enforcement;; schools or any other program ;;that's up to the police systems;; citys and the provincial government to look after
They need a better police system on insurance usage;; too many people run around doing business on pleasure only insurance or misuse of collector plates etc etc ; Crack down on frivolous phoney lawsuits
start paying out less in compensations; settle more out of court to cut legal fees;; use more Private estimators and get rid of in house estimations;; makes the salvage part of ICBC a outsource by contract
saving hundreds of millions right there

Most of the areas you mentioned that you felt would save ICBC money are not areas that would save enough to change anything. I agree paying police to "do their job" is distasteful.

As for premium fraud, I don't know the percentage lost in premiums, but I can see the phenomenal difficulty in investigating, this type of circumstance pre-loss.

What ICBC does is called "Post Loss Underwriting". ICBC will sell you a policy on good faith. They accept the details you provide. If you have a claim they check the aspects of the policy you purchased. If ICBC was loosing lots on this type of situation I would expect news releases outlining cases investigated and illustrating how insured lost out on claims because of such action.

If ICBC receives a claim on a pleasure rated vehicle, where it was being driven to work that one day it's allowed they check thoroughly.

"Start paying out less in compensation" - If you're talking about general line employees, like estimators adjusters, you have to remember ICBC is a union shop.

"Settle more out of court" - That would be like organizing a meeting with the Vancouver Canucks, and breaking it to them they need to score more goals. The last thing ICBC wants is to drag out a claim, they know the results, but sometimes if the plaintiff and coucil don't cooperate the last resort is the court, sometimes that works sometimes not.

"Get rid of estimators" - The vast majority of pricing the value of vehicle material damages is sourced from accredited body shops, estimators are more like auditors that check and approve repairs.

"Get rid of ICBC Salvages Operations" - Actually ICBC makes money on their salvage department. Their function is multifaceted in they restrict salvage being misused with illegal rebuilds, poor back yard rebuilds, VIN swings (serial numbers from totalled vehicles showing up on renumbered stolen vehicles). Not controlling salvage can really cost down the road.

It's sometimes difficult to understand how and why certain things are done. At one time ICBC owed a mall in Surrey. There was a great hue and cry, "why is ICBC in the real estate business ?". ICBC is in the investment business an opportunity came up to buy an under valued property, they bought it sold it not long after and made a bundle, saving premium dollars. All part of investing wisely. Selling off ICBC owned real estate, in my opinion would be very sort sighted.

[dontrump]

My5Cents ; closed minds to ideals leads to no change in any system
I cant go through point by point my opinion but you have seriously misunderstood my opinions and ideals