You "lose" money when you lack scale. Being a government organization, they're responsible for keeping rates fair, regardless of vehicle type. Because the same organization insures both, they can afford to do so.
Saskatewan proposed rates
- Thread starter nobbie48
- Start date
You "lose" money when you lack scale. Being a government organization, they're responsible for keeping rates fair, regardless of vehicle type. Because the same organization insures both, they can afford to do so.
Please don't ever run a business
Its called inflation, and alot more young guys crashing on ever more powerfull bikes, and insurance fraud
Last edited:
If your going to rebuttal, please read my posts.
Your car was $3K cheaper based on insurance in a geographic area where claims are not much of a concern. Claims in ON are FAR worse than SK (due to population, greed, etc.). I have done the pricing and if my employer were allowed to offer mandatory coverage for cars in SK, our rate would be cheaper than SGI. If SGI were to price ON risks, their rates would probably be ridiculous.
I think the proposed increase to motorcycles in SK is pure insanity. Even if an increase is warranted, taking it all at once is just stupid. Their rating system, which is based purely on the bike's age, class, and displacement, benefits the high-risk operators who are subsidized by the low-risk operators.
In your scenario, rates would be prohibitively expensive for young riders with a claim, so a rate increase would result in no income to the insurer (even though your claim has already cost them thousands). In this scenario, the older operators who have proven themselves will be subsidizing the younger operators.
You are wrong -- we do charge young people more because they are a higher risk. The regulator doesn't allow us to set rates on a whim. If anything, we're brainstorming ways to REDUCE rates for young operators. This is actually a strategic goal of my employer . . . to find ways of segregating young operators so that we can cherry pick the least risky ones by offering them rates below the competition. I'm working on this right now.
You are correct that once you hit about 65yo, your risk starts to increase. You might not be aware, but rates increase based on age once you hit your more senior years. You are the best risk when you're in you 30's.
looks like drumstyx's assessment is on the money; the decision the Saskatchewan gov't arrived at:
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/n...increase-other-drivers-to-cover-costs-1.91178
Last edited:
Unfortunately not quite so on the money. The ideal conclusion would be that subsidization is not a terrible thing. The issue is as it always is with motorcycles; claims are paying mostly for the rider's injuries, because the province doesn't want to pay for it (nor should they!). The problem is that our private health insurance (through employment etc) relies on the province's healthcare being there, and therefore doesn't provide coverage for things that would be covered by universal care, which in an vehicle accident is covered by insurance.
Now, I'm going to sound a bit American for a minute, but imagine a private healthcare system. I have less taxes to pay, because of no universal healthcare, but that money goes to a better health insurance plan through my employer. Now all of a sudden, that health plan insures me in many more ways than a universal system would, such as a crash. Instead of vehicle insurance paying for it, my health insurance pays for it. Claim costs go down for motorcyclists, rates drop.
You might say "but then the health plan costs go up!" yes, BUT when you have motorcycle and auto insurance paying for medical, you've got 2 clearly divisible groups that lets people say "hey, we're losing on group x", whereas group medical insurance is literally built around a system of subsidizing others that have more medical expenses.
Anyway, that really didn't solve anything, a 15% increase cap just means they'll increase it 15% every year until they get it where they want it...not very long in the grand scheme of things. Also, a $150 hike per year on a policy that's under $1000 is still pretty outrageous.
