The bad old good old days

N

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I'm old enough to remember when Ontario didn't have any sales tax, pre 1960 ish. It came in at 2 percent.

Also at that time you could buy a car and it didn't have to be e-tested or certified. Also you didn't have to buy insurance.

Yup, buy a piece of crap, pay $2.00 to transfer it and just drive the oil belching, gas sucking V-8 into the ground (Or another car).

Then when people complained about losers causing collisions and not having insurance or the ability to pay, the Unsatisfied Judgement Fund (UJF)was created. If you didn't have insurance you paid a low fixed amount ($50? a year) into the fund and if you had an at fault the fund paid the claim but you had to pay the fund back even if it was at a few bucks a month.

Then they made insurance mandatory. Then they modified it, brought in no-fault, cut back payouts etc.

There is talk of further payout cutbacks and eliminating the right to sue. Sorta the potential victim paying the other guys insurance.

Wouldn't this take us back to before the Unsatisfied Judgement Fund with the exception of the $50 a year rate?

Ain't progress wonderful!

Hmmm

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...=4mkDZ-tENLBCD949HL1D2g&bvm=bv.66699033,d.b2U
 
Last edited:
insurance is like legalized Mob protection. kinda

you dont have a choice, you must get it.
if you dont get it, you will pay
if you use it, you will pay
if you dont use it, you still pay
if you complain, you pay more
there is no escape
 
Sativa Quemador said:
insurance is like legalized Mob protection. kinda

you dont have a choice, you must get it.
if you dont get it, you will pay
if you use it, you will pay
if you dont use it, you still pay
if you complain, you pay more
there is no escape
Click to expand...

Very true!
If you think it further the whole government is legalized mob
 
UJF was introduced at $25 / yr. Like everything else, it went up to $40, subsequently raised to $100 - just before 'mandatory ins' became law.
I had a claim back in the early 70's, through UJF. Bumped a car at a stop sign, just hard enough to knock the dust off the rubber bumper protectors, i.e. no damage at all.
I had to pay to get the complete car painted. (no drive thru collision places back then, for a legit appraisal)
I was not allowed to make monthly payments.
I had NO representation while I was getting ****ed over. (A $50 job became over $700 ------ that was a **** load of money back then.)
Cop came to my house one day to confiscate my D/L because of non payment on my behalf.
I had to head to Toronto to the MTO. Pay in full, and in turn, I got my license back.

Bottom line - UJF was fine, if you didn't have to use it.
Insurance is legal theft, but a necessary evil.

It wouldn't be a good thing if UJF gets reinstated. Way too many clueless drivers on the road, compared to 40 yrs ago.
 
"Insurance is a necessary evil" is the best way of putting it. There should be a higher emphasis on catching insurance fraud than there is though, that would be of benefit to consumers as insurance companies wouldn't pay out as much and premiums should come down. Unfortunately as insurance companies have no real motivation to put that much effort into catching fraudsters, as they can just increase premiums to cover costs, we're stuck with what we have. I overheard a conversation on holiday from a perfectly athletic gentleman bragging about how his payout enabled him to buy a place in Costa Rica. Now, he could have been totally legit but for every legit case I'm betting there's more than a few gaming the system. From the "whiplash and physio clinic fraud" all the way up to the famous case of a bus crash in the US where more passengers than could physically fit on the bus claimed for compensation.

So unless we have an anonymous tip line, maybe reward based, how do we keep our premiums from increasing?
 
jc100 said:
So unless we have an anonymous tip line, maybe reward based, how do we keep our premiums from increasing?
Click to expand...

It's out of our hands.
We are at their (non-existing) mercy.
We're also at the (non-existing) mercy of the govt, who wants to see a 15% drop in our premiums.
People everywhere in this province are AFRAID of their insurance companies.
How often do we hear: "I got hit. Other driver's fault. They want to pay for damages OUT OF POCKET".
This is outrageous. Yet it's considered "the norm".
How did it get this out of hand, and so few notice?
Is it too late?

Best we can do as 'insurees', is to call around at renewal time, it's free, or maybe a cheap investment.
I'm with Allstate.
I mindlessly think I've got a good thing going - lower rates than anyone else & a decreasing deductible (which subliminally plays with our heads - it will create more "out of pocketers").
I pay to insure 3 vehicles. No one has explained to me (in common sense) why I need to pay for liability separately.
I do understand paying comprehensive premiums for each and every vehicle, and collision, but not liability.
I'm the only licensed driver in the household.
Reality says I can only drive / ride one at a time.
Another free pass into my wallet. :mad:
 
Gary said:
UJF was introduced at $25 / yr. Like everything else, it went up to $40, subsequently raised to $100 - just before 'mandatory ins' became law.
I had a claim back in the early 70's, through UJF. Bumped a car at a stop sign, just hard enough to knock the dust off the rubber bumper protectors, i.e. no damage at all.
I had to pay to get the complete car painted. (no drive thru collision places back then, for a legit appraisal)
I was not allowed to make monthly payments.
I had NO representation while I was getting ****ed over. (A $50 job became over $700 ------ that was a **** load of money back then.)
Cop came to my house one day to confiscate my D/L because of non payment on my behalf.
I had to head to Toronto to the MTO. Pay in full, and in turn, I got my license back.

Bottom line - UJF was fine, if you didn't have to use it.
Insurance is legal theft, but a necessary evil.

It wouldn't be a good thing if UJF gets reinstated. Way too many clueless drivers on the road, compared to 40 yrs ago.
Click to expand...

That's the exact same thing that's happening right now with accident benefit nonsense, especially for motorcycle policies accident benefits can be like 3/4 of the premium because every $50 whiplash case costs $50,000 or something ridiculous to settle. Easy way to keep premiums down is have insurance approved doctors appraise your injuries the same way cars are appraised to deny any bs'ers and help legit people get their medical treatment. That's the only thing that would work in my opinion
 
I was pricing a small specialty repair for a doctor, about $700.00. He asked if I had an insurance plan because he could give me fake receipts for physio and get the money from my insurance company. I wouldn't get any physio. I was very tempted to try a sting but considering what I know about how they rewarded a victim in our legal system I felt there was little I could do.

Do you think auto insurance is any different?
 
I like that you called a medical treatment a "specialty repair" :D
 
Why not make it simple like in Texas? My cousin pays a paltry $57 dollars a month full cover on a 2012 Audi SUV vehicle, now tell me why can't Ontario be like this?
 
Pegassus said:
Why not make it simple like in Texas? My cousin pays a paltry $57 dollars a month full cover on a 2012 Audi SUV vehicle, now tell me why can't Ontario be like this?
Click to expand...

Because "full coverage" means very different things in Ontario and Texas, pretty sure this has been covered a few times
 
SuperStealthySquid said:
Because "full coverage" means very different things in Ontario and Texas, pretty sure this has been covered a few times
Click to expand...

The Ontario government is going to ban suing and pay outs, okay now drop the rates 75% then. Or what are we going to keep paying astronimical prices with bare bones coverage?
 
Accidents shouldn't feel like winning the lottery.

On the other hand, I would be tempted to get my money's worth if I am involved in an accident.


Sent from the future using my GOLDEN iPhone 30 SS
 
I pretty much agree that its a bit of a racket. We have an office in Burbank and I have a bike there. Its nice going down in the winter as I can still ride.

I also agree that "Full Coverage" means very different things. My "Full Coverage" in the US is much better than in Ontario.

I'm paying $1100 in Ontario for my bike. In California I pay $294

In Ontario my minor injury limit is $3,500. In California its $4,000,000

In Ontario my liability is $1,000,000. In California its $8,000,000

In Ontario I get the current value of my bike (Or whatever the insurance deem that is). In California, I get a brand new replacement.

In Ontario in 2009 there were a total of 119,579 accidents with 564 Fatal. In California there were a total of 598,433 with 3,434 fatal. - Considering California have around three times the population of Ontario this means that they have significantly more accidents when you pro rate it so should be paying more.

In California healthcare and treatment costs are completely out of control. I was billed $79 for a single asprin at a hospital

In California everyone is so litigious and sue like crazy

In California the car insurance company becomes the primary payer. In Ontario you have to exhaust your employer's and personal coverage before the insurance company will pay a dime so in may cases they never have to pay out at all.

I have had conversations with people who claim to be actuaries (sp) and they have never been able to explain this. The general response is you don't really understand how it works.

I don't think anyone will convince me that there's not something fishy going on behind the covers.
 
^ good post with facts... waiting for a counter argument, other than "you don't get it or it's too complicated"


Sent from the future using my GOLDEN iPhone 30 SS
 
I know exactly how actuarial pricing works.
They come up with a "complicated" formula, complicated only in the sense that there are many variables.
Those values of those variables are the answers to the questions they ask when you get a quote.
Age, license level, accident history, ticket history, make/model, postal code, alarm, garage, etc.
So imagine a formula that has all those variables, but it's linear. See I already lost you because most people but engineers and math majors don't know what it means.
Here's what it means: it's the simplest type of mathematical approximation you can possibly make, it's math nerd code for stupid simple.
So you create this formula with all sorts of past data. Statistically this is valid because you have thousands of data points. The rest you borrow. There actually an Actuarial Society, like the professional engineers, that have the probabilities of things occurring for each variable that matters.
Now of course the government and regulators have some input as to what variables matter and how much weight they are given, so you lose a bit of purity.
After plugging all that into your "approximation" you get an expected $ per incident, casualty and severity.
[behind the scenes some junior math whiz figured out that if they charge $x they can fairly insure, he sent a memo up the corporate ladder, it gets hashed by marketing, compared to the competition, the bean counters look at where they need to be to be profitable, etc.].
You realize that is not profitable under the regulators specification, so you just jack it to where you need it to be. The actuarial value is their minimum bound for profit. The rest is just fluff to make sure the government/lawsuits etc doesn't screw them and they come out with 10% profit to pay a 4% dividend and keep the world moving.
Complicated!!!! You'd never understand.
Actuaries are gonna kill me now...
 
Insurance is a complete scam.... highest rates in Ontario. Much cheaper in the US. Literally giving the government money to throw away.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
 
eljay said:
The actuarial value is their minimum bound for profit. The rest is just fluff to make sure the government/lawsuits etc doesn't screw them and they come out with 10% profit to pay a 4% dividend and keep the world moving.
Complicated!!!! You'd never understand.
Actuaries are gonna kill me now...
Click to expand...

Oke but given what Delboy posted, where is his $1100 going? Even if the canadian ins companies wanted to make 50% more than the cali ones do his rate should be $441.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom