Charles LeBlanc
Oldmaison blog
RE: A new topic, NB auto insurance costs.
Charles-
I trust all is well with you since being liberated. You hit every major alternative news site in the U.S. Congratulations.
I've brought you a new topic.
As I live in Limestone, Maine, but three miles from NB, I keep hearing about how New Brunswickers are getting screwed by the auto insurance companies.
This past summer, I spent some time in Portsmouth, NH, and much to my surprise, NH does not require auto insurance to register a vehicle. This makes sense for NB.
The reason NB auto insurance rates are so expensive, aside from the political corruption and the cozying up to the insurance companies by politicians, is this: A guy with a $500 car is paying a high insurance rate to insure the $100,000 Mercedes that some jerk is driving around NB in the winter. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Get ahold of Shawn Graham via a post on your blog blasting this practice, and explaining why it is so ridiculous to REQUIRE with MANDATORY auto insurance statutes, the poor to insure the cars of the rich.
If some jerk wants to drive around NB in a new Mercedes, let him insure it!
Give Shawn Graham a challenge to fix it. New Brunswickers ARE getting screwed by the insurance companies.
Best!
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
8 comments:
"The American Philosopher" doesn't know what he's talking about. Mandatory auto insurance has nothing to do with how valuable a car is, because insurance to repair one's own car is not mandatory. The insurance we a re legally required to buy is "third party liability" insurance: we are insured so that if we cause an accident, we can compensate the victim, whether or not we have the money to do it. In this way, rich and poor victims (and the vast majority, which is neither rich nor poor) can get compensation for their lost wages (and, yes, the loss of their car), rather than just hope that the jerk that ran into them has the money in the bank to do it.
It was also pretty much proven that rate increases had nothing to do with 'politicians', in fact it was the absence of legislation with teeth that let insurance companies increase rates even though accidents had fallen. The insurance companies admitted flat out that the increases were due to bad returns on company investments. New Brunswick didn't see any higher claims or costs from accidents in the two years that saw New Brunswick rates increase 50%, while in Manitoba they increased 1%. Manitoba has public insurance, so all those monthly insurance bills people pay go into their government, not into insurance companies from ontario and europe.
but here's the thing: the average rate in NB now is less than $800. the Weir report said public insurance would cost an average of $1100...
it MAY cost that, but it depends on the type of coverage. For example, it doesn't take into account that places with public insurance have lower health care and social costs. That's because private insurance relies on the courts and lawsuits to settle grievances.
However, there is no such thing as 'average costs' in insurance because every claimant is different. So generally what happens, and what most wealthy people dont like, is that those with more money and nicer cars will tend to pay more.
Also, right now you pay $800 dollars a month, that's almost ten thousand dollars a year. Now multiply that by all drivers, lets say 400,000. That's 4 BILLION dollars. The vast majority of that goes to insurance companies in the US, europe, and southern ontario. Some stays, but only a very small fraction.
So with public insurance you have, say, 3 BILLION more dollars that stays in the province. With a public insurance you would then have the different parties campaigning on differences in how its set up. That money COULD simply be returned to taxpayers in the form of lower premiums.
Or it could be used for services. Those billions could be used like Manitoba does for massive educational and judicial programs combating hazardous driving. It could go to making highways safer and all the other things that decrease the stress on other social systems like courts and health care, which once again saves even more money.
What is not being discussed here is the incrtease in food stamps due to mandatory insurance laws.
There was a poorly conducted survey of food stamp applicants in Billings, MT that indicated 12 of 96 applicants listed auto insurance as a reason for needing food stamps.
There are tens of millions of U>S> citizens who are eligible for food stamps that can get food stamps to replace the hundreds of dollars lost to auto insurance purchase.
No one is watching this but me.
Everyone in this world should have priorities. In my life food is more important that auto insurance.
There are 20 milli9on americans on food stamps. If they can't afford food, how can they afford auto insurance. (I collected 3,000$ of food stamps starting in 1987 due to the auto insurance law. )
Then I did an exhaustive study of food stamp skyrockets and located a bunch of states with food stamp skyrockets linked to auto insurance laws. New Mexico began its law on January one of 1984. Guess what happened in January and February of 1985? A food stamp skyrocket. What happened in January and February of 1985?????????????? That when New Mexico renewed its plates. Happened asgain in 1986.
If driving a vehicle on public roads is not a right, food stamps is a right and the proponents of mandatory auto insurance are refusing to look at the damage the law does by increasing the mrs on food stamps.
If you want, get ahold of New Mexico's food stamp nrs for the period of 1981-1987. Draw up the chart of Bernallilo's nrs and Santa Fe's nrs (need the nrs for the counties). The charts need to be in the format of %change from a certain date. Then place Bernallilo's chart on Santa Fe's chart and you will see the January and February skyrocket of 1985, which was caused by the January 1, 1984 mandatory insurance law of New Mexico.
Other states (offhand) which had skyrockets linked to mandatory insurance laws are Minnesota (I think the law started January 1, 1975), South Dakota, Montana (start of fines, October 1, 1981), Oregon (1978?), Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc. The study was done 10 years ago, when a lot of states did not have the law, and a lot of states had laws in 1974, and the food stamp nrs are not available (Kansas, Colo).
How much of an increase in expenses is necessary to cause anindigent to go on food stamps??
No one knows, but an indigent household, making 700$ a month (75% for rent and food, doesn't have very much he can use for extras.)
THATS WHY WE HAVE A MOTOR VEHICLE ACT Because the Government had to fool us into thinking we need their blessing to get in our cars and travel! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRAVELL UPON THE HIGHWAY and to do it free and unmolested by the law (a Driver is a different thing altogether they drive for profit Taxi Transport etc)! If a person is so worried about his 100.000$ benz let him insure it from loss,your home insurance dosent cover your neighbours house if it burns because of some fault with thier home! If we are worried about our property and life it should be up to us to decide to get insurance based upon our needs! Try collecting for lost wages 6-10 years down the road when your accident sneeks up on you and takes you out of the workforce!?? Insurance on most part is nothing more than a scam especially in todays world!
Post a Comment