Castanet

casey60 wrote:Governments should not be in private business. To "give it time" as one poster mentioned, ICBC has been in place sine Dave Barrett put that in place in the early 70'. So plenty of time in my books. Maybe if not all the following governments would not have raided ICBC and ICBC strictly sells insurance, ICBC may not be in the mess they are in are now.

I guess before you can state something, the main subject should be defined. So what is "private business" ?

Is maintaining roadways, a private business ? Supplying water service to an area ? Electricity ? Running hospitals ? Ambulance ? What about prisons ? Mandatory Auto Insurance ?

I personally don't feel comfortable with the privatization of any service or function that involves the welfare, health, or safety of the public.

When governments privatise such services it is then left with the responsibility to police the execution of the service and the costs. In many, in fact most cases, I suspect the consistency of a given service varies depending on the oversite. Some argue that private industry is so efficient that it can do more for less and provide a profit for shareholders.

I always wonder about the hidden costs of government oversite, the costs to the public in safety.

Is there anyone who feels our highways are maintained to the same standard province wide ??

The actual, real, financial problems with ICBC began recently. I define "problem" as being the cost of mandatory insurance being as expensive and more expensive than some private jurisdictions.

Saying the term "give it time" relates to the time from the inception of ICBC to date, is not factual.

Mixing facts, I suggest weakens your argument.

When I made the statement "Give it time" I stated :

The jurisdictions that you compare ICBC rates to, all have forms of Threshold No Fault Tort.

You are demanding action prior to the solution being implemented and having a chance to work.

Also don't forget insurance isn't like selling widgets, an insurance company doesn't buy a wholesale product and sell it retail and realize a profit or a loss. An insurance company sells a policy, it's in effect for a year, any claims against that policy have years to result in a claim being paid, there will be a lead time.

There are no "maybes" about it, the "problem" has been generated by frivolous law suites for questionable injuries brought about by trial lawyers. You know, the ones who advertise every night on TV around the dinner hour. They do so because they have your best interests at heart. (please tell me you don't believe that).

That problem was country wide (just speaking of Canada).

The problem in BC was exacerbated by the government of the day, not implementing a form of threshold no fault, like other provincial governments. The government chose to leave ICBC paying such claims and in fact after commissioning a report into the reason for ICBC's problems, chose to edit from the report the main reason for the problems.

I leave it for readers to make their own decision on why this happened.

As for ICBC ? Give it time.

whats seriously wrong here in my opinion is this has been going on for years why have they waited till they have lost well over 3 billion in 5 years before implementing all these new rules and regulations etc

ALL I CAN SAY IS MISMANAGEMENT

dontrump wrote:whats seriously wrong here in my opinion is this has been going on for years why have they waited till they have lost well over 3 billion in 5 years before implementing all these new rules and regulations etc

ALL I CAN SAY IS MISMANAGEMENT

Yes, you are 100% correct. Mismanagement.

By the Liberal Provincial Government.

ICBC can't write legislation.

ICBC knew the problem, the government knew the problem. The government commissioned a study, the study said there was a problem, the government didn't release the portion of the report that confirmed the need for legislative change.

So if a community needs a fire truck. The city counsel doesn't buy the fire truck. The Fire Chief asks the city for a fire truck. The city commissions a study on buying a new fire truck. The study says the city needs a new fire truck. The city releases the report eliminating the part of the study that confirms the need for a new fire truck and doesn't buy a fire truck.

Solution.... fire the Fire Chief ??????????????

LOL blame the liberals that's always you leftys response it kills me BLAME the idiots that every got us into ICBC in the first place then? NDP how About that
ICBC has never been a correctly run institution I do admit stealing funds from them to run the province was not the wisest moves but at the time it seemed prudent
the problem I see with ICBC and posted this many times on here is there just too involved with police matters ,school matters, civic matters, driver license issues etc there also in salvage, there in land and building ownership and on and on IF the normal street person out there realized how huge and in depth ICBC really is they would be flabbergasted

IF they stuck to the business of INSURANCE and leased buildings instead of owning and got rid of estimate centers ,salvage centers etc got rid of overpaid and under worker mid and upper management this company would not be in the situation its now in

dontrump wrote:LOL blame the liberals that's always you leftys response it kills me BLAME the idiots that every got us into ICBC in the first place then? NDP how About that

Perhaps you a) weren't in BC at the time or b) are too young to have experienced private auto insurance in BC. ICBC was created because there was a need to get rid of private auto insurance. ICBC was, and still is much better than private insurance.

dontrump wrote:ICBC has never been a correctly run institution I do admit stealing funds from them to run the province was not the wisest moves but at the time it seemed prudent

Ironically the skimming of funds from ICBC isn't what has caused the problem. It was wrong but that isn't the reason for the huge deficit ? "not the wisest moves" ? "at the time seemed prudent" ? Interesting way of describing it.

dontrump wrote:the problem I see with ICBC and posted this many times on here is there just too involved with police matters ,school matters, civic matters, driver license issues etc there also in salvage, there in land and building ownership and on and on IF the normal street person out there realized how huge and in depth ICBC really is they would be flabbergasted

"Police matters" - I'd rather see ICBC less involved, but you do realized the funds for police action has to come from somewhere, I hope. If directed enforcement to auto crime, or drinking and driving saves ICBC money, would you rather the expense of those endeavors comes out of tax dollars to save auto insurance dollars ?

If we went private, would you want no enhanced enforcement towards auto crime or drinking driving ? Because if as you want a) private insurance and b) insurance not to be involved in "police matters" Then our tax dollars will be going towards larger profits for private insurance companies. Sounds like a public subsidy of private corporations, to me.

"School Matters" - No idea what you are talking about

"Civic Matters" - No idea what you are talking about.

"Driver's License Issues" - So, we re-fund all the driver's licensing and review back on the province. So general revenue pays. An auto insurance company, where every single client must have a driver's license, sounds to me like a good entity to pay for the licensing and review of same. Again, if we go to the private auto insurance that you so desperately want, once again the provincial coffers will be subsidising private corporations.

"Salvage" - How do you think private companies deal with their salvage, bury them out in the bush ? They sell them, just like ICBC does. Only not as efficiently or cost effectively. The problem is, private industry isn't as interested in the security of salvage and that has created phenomenal problems, in private auto insurance provinces, requiring government oversight to police the disposal of salvage. Something else to come out of General Revenue.

"Land and Building Ownership" - If by that you mean, ownership of ICBC buildings, such as claim centres, head office etc. Yes, you are correct private insurance wouldn't have to own as many because they are administered in Eastern Canada, the US and overseas, because that's where the profits will be going, a long way from BC.

If you are talking about land ownership as an investment. Do you think private insurance companies don't invest in all sorts of revenue generating activities ?? Do you think they bank the premiums waiting to pay some out ????

dontrump wrote:IF they stuck to the business of INSURANCE and leased buildings instead of owning and got rid of estimate centers ,salvage centers etc got rid of overpaid and under worker mid and upper management this company would not be in the situation its now in

Do you think the plan for success is to lease office space ? Every penny an expense, or purchase and retain an asset that is growing. Get rid of "estimate centre" (called Claim Centres), then, what ? pay private adjusters to handle files ? Get rid of the Salvage Yards and farm out the auction of total losses and pay a percentage of the sale to the seller, along with the cost of storage until the sale. Do you have any idea how much it cost to store a total loss vehicle in a private facility ??

I'm interested on the source of your facts on "overpaid and under worker ? (worked) mid and upper management. Please enlighten us. Or is this just a suspicion you have.

sorry 5cents your twisting words here and not facing truths and Facts
the fact of the matter is ICBC should be a insurance company not a total agency used to fund multi sections of governments that are the provincial and federal responsibility's
NO they should not be in the land lord business NO they should not be in the salvage business NO they should not be in the
estimation business all of these should be done privately

I GUARANTEE you our rates would be 25--30% less if they ran a Insurance sales only business the private systems have always proved over time to be the most efficient

dontrump wrote:sorry 5cents your twisting words here and not facing truths and Facts
the fact of the matter is ICBC should be a insurance company not a total agency used to fund multi sections of governments that are the provincial and federal responsibility's
NO they should not be in the land lord business NO they should not be in the salvage business NO they should not be in the
estimation business all of these should be done privately

I GUARANTEE you our rates would be 25--30% less if they ran a Insurance sales only business the private systems have always proved over time to be the most efficient

You left out, "In my opinion", (unless you can sight some reports from professionals).

By "multi sections of government", I'm guessing you mean pay for "enhanced enforcement" ? As I said that is a choice, but realize that every collision, or auto theft that is prevented saves auto insurance money. The governments of the day don't seem to want to a) increase taxes to pay for this, b) want the police to do the "best they can with the funding they already have"

So, we'll cut all police subsidies by ICBC. If some of that funding is made up by the government, that means either more taxes or something else won't be funded. Lets assume, knowing government that extra funding will not be forthcoming. So the increase in claims, will fall on ICBC, thus the auto insuring public. Is that good business ? We "save" money by not subsidising the police and loose money paying for more claims ????

As for licensing of vehicles, drivers and the collection of fines. If ICBC terminated involvement, yes it would reduce ICBC costs. It would mean at lease two huge computer networks to handle those records. Staff, offices for license testing and administration. Paid for by General Revenue, from the pool of all provincial taxes. At this time the motoring public pays for these functions thru auto insurance. Taking money out of a different pocket doesn't mean a savings.

ICBC was created to replace and improve the auto insurance picture in BC. It seems you would like ICBC to become exactly like private insurance, bolstered by your misconception that that would save money.

"They should not be in the landlord business" - Do you mean they should not make investments ? So you'd like ICBC to not run like every other insurance company in the world ???

"NO they should not be in the salvage business" - So, you've done a study on ICBC's Salvage operations ? You are suggesting, what ? That they farm out salvage storage and salvage sales ? Add some more hands out for a piece of the pie ?? If ICBC was a small regional auto insurance company, yes perhaps farming out the small volume of salvage might make sense. I don't think you have a grasp of the size of ICBC and the size of it's Salvage Operations.

"NO they should not be in the estimation business " - An insurance company has to determine the amount of a loss, they either pay independent appraisers or they do it themselves. ICBC currently has a system whereby accredited body shops supply estimates for most repairable losses and submit them electronically to ICBC estimators, who play more of a auditor function in checking and approving estimates. You would ? Farm the entire operation out ? Then pay other ICBC staff to check for accuracy ??? Some more hands out.

"I GUARANTEE you our (your ?) rates would be 25--30% less if they ran a Insurance sales only business the private systems have always proved over time to be the most efficient" - You could "guarantee" (in capitals, no less). You base this on what ? "Insurance Sales", what about insurance claims ???

Now is this with the tort system we have right now ? I'm all for it, if private insurance can come in to BC and cut our insurance premiums by 25 - 30% and still have a full tort system. WOW !

If your insurance company is getting screwed by plaintiff counsel and greedy claimants and over generous courts, efficiency will over come that eh ?

Middle and upper management suck a lot of money out of any bureaucracy because there is nowhere else for them to go after a certain point.
ICBC is no different in this regard, following "The Peter Principle" (yes, I have read it) where employees reach their limit of proficiency and then are promoted beyond that point. Unions are a problem dealing with these kind of issues which might not exist through privatization.

dontrump wrote:sorry 5cents your twisting words here and not facing truths and Facts
the fact of the matter is ICBC should be a insurance company not a total agency used to fund multi sections of governments that are the provincial and federal responsibility's
NO they should not be in the land lord business NO they should not be in the salvage business NO they should not be in the
estimation business all of these should be done privately

I GUARANTEE you our rates would be 25--30% less if they ran a Insurance sales only business the private systems have always proved over time to be the most efficient

They rates could be down 90% if they only did insurance sales.
I would prefer they also do insurance claims as well, but that's just me!

Private Issuance companies are fleeing Alberta and Ontario now as they can make any money due to regulation hell.
Don't kid your self, there is no competition in private auto insurance due to heavy regulation

dontrump wrote: ICBC should be a insurance company not a total agency used to fund multi sections of governments that are the provincial and federal responsibility's

Alternatively, if the Government feels its more cost effective to let ICBC fulfill all those Government functions, then the Government should pay ICBC for performing what are essentially Government responsibilities (and which the Government would have to pay for themselves anyway, if the Province ever reverted to a totally Private system).

Reality is that big "private" companies are a crossover hybrid of sorts. Just look at the influence wielded by many of them in provincial and federal affairs. There is no real competition anyway. Our competition bureau ignores gasoline price fixing and went after what? Chocolate bars. And they lost in court on appeal.

Most of the big corporations will make big customer service promises and fill them with PR, but how many really give a rats about anything but the bottom line?

Plus think about it, state owned enterprises are increasingly big players. Petronas, CNOOC and Statoil come to mind.

Doesn't matter whether it is private or public ownership, the little guy always gets thumped.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... dYaVcd3--H

This article was in last Fridays Vancouver Sun. If you scroll down near the end of the story it states...…….
………..ICBC has Claim Reserves of $13.5 BILLION and an Investment Portfolio of $15.6 BILLION

I know what "claim reserves" are, EVERY insurance company has it.

………….what are we missing with this "dumpster fire" as Eby calls it?

lesliepaul wrote:This article was in last Fridays Vancouver Sun. If you scroll down near the end of the story it states...…….
………..ICBC has Claim Reserves of $13.5 BILLION and an Investment Portfolio of $15.6 BILLION

I know what "claim reserves" are, EVERY insurance company has it.

………….what are we missing with this "dumpster fire" as Eby calls it?

Not sure what your point is.

the commie ndp should disband icbc, and allow in private competetive insurance, they brought it in in 1974 to save us bs residents money, however anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that NO govt run organization can make money the ndp brought us to this and should take it away and become the heros they think they are.

fishertwo wrote:the commie ndp should disband icbc, and allow in private competetive insurance, they brought it in in 1974 to save us bs residents money, however anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that NO govt run organization can make money the ndp brought us to this and should take it away and become the heros they think they are.

Actually you are partly correct "NO govt run organization can make money". That's good, because the purpose of ICBC was to break even, not make money.

Interesting how you denigrate the NDP, who created ICBC and are now trying to fix it, but don't say anything about the Liberals who have caused the problems.

It wasn't that many years ago when AB was wondering if ICBC would sell insurance in their province, because of the increase in premiums. That was before AB enacted a Threshold No Fault System.

Now, again, Alberta is in auto insurance crisis because the Alberta Rate Board, an independent board run by the province of Alberta has capped premium increases. This after the PRIVATE insurance industry in Alberta has realized losses because of increased claims costs.

The result is all out "skimming". That's when insurance companies refuse to sell insurance to many demographics in favor of the obvious "safer" risks. In Alberta it sucks to be a 19 year old male, with a few tickets and a couple of claims. As for me, being a not too old retired guy with no claims, no tickets, it wouldn't be too bad buying insurance there. Living there, maybe not so much.

So, ladies and gentlemen, where are all the savings to be generated by the "free open market", "competition" and "the efficiencies of private business" ?

All this talk about choice and freedom. How'd you like to be a young fellow in Alberta, with no obligations (ah, yes, I think I can still remember a bit of that), you make the "wise" investment of buying a new sports car, what you've always wanted. (ya right, "always" the whole 21 years of your life).

You'll have no problem at all paying for auto insurance. Why ? Because nobody will sell it to you, at any price.

Now as for the "Commie NDP", if things proceed the way they appear to be going, some of those good old free enterprise Provincial Liberals may see the inside of NDP's gulag.