Full Coverage Government

[Neally]

That 'profit margin' comes ATOP spending that would not occur in a non-profit model.

Such as what, advertising? Government still does adverting. Unless you outlaw other insurance companies it will still have to compete, thus advertise, but what else?

In the study linked a page or two back, proposed that there was an almost 50% reduction in private vs public models in Canada.

Efficiencies can be gained by standardizing paperwork, policies, etc. The point is that profit isn't what's the problem.

Driving records are great indicators as to likely claims makers. That is why the insurance sector uses them. That they want MORE criteria in which to further discriminate isn't surprising either.

Of course not, since using other criteria produces a better predictive model, thus effectively sorts, or discriminates who is likely to have higher and lower claims.

My argument is that my driving record is 'directly' related to my ability to avoid or cause an accident.

It's all a matter of statistically probability. Your past driving record is no guarantee of your future record. Good drivers can get sloppy. Bad drivers can learn to be more careful. Or not. Your age is the same. If there is a statistical correlation, it is worthwhile to consider including in the model, to have better predictive ability, to thus more accurately price the premium.

Using one to indirectly correlate to the other is NOT using individual merit to decide an outcome, but rather a group's attributes.

Already debunked. Past driving record does not perfectly predict future claims. You take the averages of people with 1 fender bender, for example. You then see how that group's claims add up in the next 12 months. You can then determine what the premium should be for new policies. Do the same for age, credit score, etc. In all cases you are using GROUP attributes and applying the statistically relevant factors to the individual. The principle is exactly the same.

 

[King of the Americas]

Neally,

My argument is that driving skill is 'directly related' to what it should cost to insure you as a 'driver'. That I could draw a correlation between blondes and redheads, as to which is likely to make a claim is pointless, as it is 'unrelated' to actual driving skill.

Holding people accountable for the 'at fault' claims they make is in my opinion, the best way to insure there are direct consequences for actions, and thus the best way to assign penalty premium rates, as a +1 or +2 rating.

The problem with the current for-profit models are that they spend 'more' than government on advertising & executive salaries, ATOP making a profit, by lobbying to constantly broaden the criteria on which they can potentially judge candidates.

My model would be less about predicting future outcomes, and based more on personal accountability.

It isn't your fault how old you are or what sex you are, but both are criteria in which you can be judged by, with the current system.

 

[Neally]

Neally,

My argument is that driving skill is 'directly related' to what it should cost to insure you as a 'driver'. That I could draw a correlation between blondes and redheads, as to which is likely to make a claim is pointless, as it is 'unrelated' to actual driving skill.

It's not pointless to include a factor into the underwriting process that has been statistically validated to correlate with claims. Whether you want to call it "directly related" or "indirectly related" is irrelevant as long as there is correlation.

Holding people accountable for the 'at fault' claims they make is in my opinion, the best way to insure there are direct consequences for actions, and thus the best way to assign penalty premium rates, as a +1 or +2 rating.

It's one way, maybe even the best single way, but not the only way, nor is there any rational reason to limit the underwriting model to a single variable when multiple factors have better predictive value.

The problem with the current for-profit models are that they spend 'more' than government on advertising & executive salaries, ATOP making a profit, by lobbying to constantly broaden the criteria on which they can potentially judge candidates.

That argument could be made for any and all industries with the result being no private enterprise. If that's what you want, see how well that worked out where its been tried.

My model would be less about predicting future outcomes, and based more on personal accountability.

Then you are naively trying to come up with a better model in a field that you clearly have no clue on how it operates and what it takes to run. Personal accountability is already used in setting premiums. You make a claim, your rates go up. That's the easy part. The hard part is setting a rate without knowing what will happen in the next 12 months. Thus you need to predict using all available data that has proven to have predictive value including AGE and CREDIT SCORE.

It isn't your fault how old you are or what sex you are, but both are criteria in which you can be judged by, with the current system.

It isn't your fault if you didn't learn to drive defensively, that your father drove like a maniac and you just copied him... All these "not your fault" arguments are irrelevant. All that matters is if there is a verified statistical correlation that has predictive value.

 

[Ziggurat]

My model would be less about predicting future outcomes, and based more on personal accountability.

And why do you want it that way? Because you think it's somehow more "fair". But "fair" is subjective. Your definition of fair doesn't match my definition of fair, and neither of ours needs to match anyone else's. So at the end of the day, you want to socialize auto insurance because it offends your sense of fairness, and you think socializing it will prevent that offense.

But that's got nothing to do with cost savings. And the government auto insurance programs you point to in Canada still discriminate in ways you object to. The only cost savings justifications you have come up with apply universally to private business, yet we know that socialization of the economy is invariably a complete train wreck. So if there are any cost savings to be had from socializing auto insurance, they must come from something you haven't identified.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

It isn't your fault if you didn't learn to drive defensively, that your father drove like a maniac and you just copied him... All these "not your fault" arguments are irrelevant. All that matters is if there is a verified statistical correlation that has predictive value.

It isn't MY fault for how 'I' drive...?

You're kidding right?

I understand that CURRENT insurance models are designed to predict future claimers. MINE would not be, because there is no need to financially punish 'potential' claimers. INSTEAD, my system would punish ACTUAL claimers, and assign premiums ONLY to cover last year's losses.

I just saw an insurance company advertisement offering "accident forgiveness"...? They can ONLY do this because they are over-discriminating in other areas.

For the life of me I don't understand why I NEED to argue that government take over other sectors, because I am arguing they take over the 'insurance' sector. The insurance sector doesn't 'produce' anything. You DON'T get a better product by allowing profit seeking companies to compete for your business.

 

[Neally]

I understand that CURRENT insurance models are designed to predict future claimers. MINE would not be, because there is no need to financially punish 'potential' claimers. INSTEAD, my system would punish ACTUAL claimers, and assign premiums ONLY to cover last year's losses.

So the first year is free, and every year thereafter is free, until you file a claim, then your rate is based on the amount of your claim. Kind of sounds like someone with no insurance. Again, you have no clue how the industry operates.

It isn't MY fault for how 'I' drive...?

You're kidding right?

Is it your fault if you had a bad driving instructor? Is following the bad driving habits of your father your fault? Is your crappy credit score your fault? Again this is all irrelevant. All that matters is if a factor correlates with claims.

For the life of me I don't understand why I NEED to argue that government take over other sectors, because I am arguing they take over the 'insurance' sector.

Because your rationale for government takeover is that private industry has profit, advertising, and high executive salaries which would presumably be eliminated if it is government run, which would be true of every other industry. So do explain why your "fix" should only apply to insurance and tell me how well that has worked out for all other industries.

The insurance sector doesn't 'produce' anything. You DON'T get a better product by allowing profit seeking companies to compete for your business.

Once again you are showing that you don't understand the fundamental purpose of insurance. That purpose is to mitigate unacceptable risk. You might want talk to some adults and try to learn about free enterprise in general and the insurance industry specifically.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand that CURRENT insurance models are designed to predict future claimers. MINE would not be, because there is no need to financially punish 'potential' claimers. INSTEAD, my system would punish ACTUAL claimers, and assign premiums ONLY to cover last year's losses.

So if you get a drunk driving conviction, but didn't actually get into an accident... no rate increase, right? I mean, there's no claim made in that scenario.

For the life of me I don't understand why I NEED to argue that government take over other sectors, because I am arguing they take over the 'insurance' sector.

In truth, you are correct: there is no need for you to have any consistency whatsoever.

We're merely pointing out that you don't.

The insurance sector doesn't 'produce' anything.

By that measure, no service industry does.

You DON'T get a better product by allowing profit seeking companies to compete for your business.

No, just better service. Which is what you would expect... from a service industry.

 

[King of the Americas]

So the first year is free, and every year thereafter is free, until you file a claim, then your rate is based on the amount of your claim. Kind of sounds like someone with no insurance. Again, you have no clue how the industry operates.
Is it your fault if you had a bad driving instructor? Is following the bad driving habits of your father your fault? Is your crappy credit score your fault? Again this is all irrelevant. All that matters is if a factor correlates with claims.

Because your rationale for government takeover is that private industry has profit, advertising, and high executive salaries which would presumably be eliminated if it is government run, which would be true of every other industry. So do explain why your "fix" should only apply to insurance and tell me how well that has worked out for all other industries.


Once again you are showing that you don't understand the fundamental purpose of insurance. That purpose is to mitigate unacceptable risk. You might want talk to some adults and try to learn about free enterprise in general and the insurance industry specifically.

The first year, your fee would be set by an 'average' sector standard for someone with your driving record. Thereafter, everyone would pay the same basic rate, with a +1 or more premium based on their actual driving ability/record...based on last year's losses ONLY.

No my 'rational' for government taking over the insurance sector is based on what government does 'well'.

I understand that there is NO NEED to pay high priced salaries, national ad campaigns, or make a profit from us pooling our money together, so that if ever fit hits the shan, we'll be covered.

We do NOT get 'better' or more claims covered, by paying profit seekers.

We get FEWER claims, the 'better' the insurance sector does.

There is no reason why we can't and shouldn't eliminate legal discrimination, and get much more bang for our buck.

 

[King of the Americas]

So if you get a drunk driving conviction, but didn't actually get into an accident... no rate increase, right? I mean, there's no claim made in that scenario.

...


By that measure, no service industry does.



No, just better service. Which is what you would expect... from a service industry.

I would indeed hold 'traffic citations' against a driver...

What 'service' to I get from insurance companies besides denials in claims?

They don't bring me anything, they don't help me get an 'equal' trade of money for service. They take my money, and give me much less back in claims for their profit...

WHY would we pay someone to give us back MUCH LESS of our own money???

What is the point of that???

 

[Neally]

What 'service' to I get from insurance companies besides denials in claims?

They don't bring me anything, they don't help me get an 'equal' trade of money for service. They take my money, and give me much less back in claims for their profit...

WHY would we pay someone to give us back MUCH LESS of our own money???

What is the point of that???

I already explained the purpose of insurance, but since you either ignore, don't understand, or reject it, sounds like you completely reject the concept of insurance completely, so rather than trying to fix it, why wouldn't you simply propose to outlaw it completely?

The first year, your fee would be set by an 'average' sector standard for someone with your driving record. Thereafter, everyone would pay the same basic rate, with a +1 or more premium based on their actual driving ability/record...based on last year's losses ONLY.

Good luck with that inefficient and discriminatory pricing model. See, even you can't come up with something that doesn't discriminate. You lump all people into a GROUP and base their premium on on the AVERAGE--when obviously some will fall above and below the average with their future claims. Oh, and why do you hate statistics?

No my 'rational' for government taking over the insurance sector is based on what government does 'well'.

Evidence that the US government administers insurance "well"?

There is no reason why we can't and shouldn't eliminate legal discrimination, and get much more bang for our buck.

Which so far, you have failed miserably to show.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would indeed hold 'traffic citations' against a driver...

And you don't even realize how this is inconsistent with your claim to only charge people more based on actual past claims? No, of course you don't. Such basic consistency is clearly too much to expect from you.

What 'service' to I get from insurance companies besides denials in claims?

Spoken like a man who's never actually used insurance.

WHY would we pay someone to give us back MUCH LESS of our own money???

What is the point of that???

Yup. You don't get the concept of insurance at all.

 

[King of the Americas]

OMG...(that's a real word now, you know)

You guys are being obtuse. Is it intentional or accidental?

I HAVE, or rather it has been shown (linked), that public entities could and did provide MUCH cheaper insurance than private profit seeking ones.

What do you not understand about NOT expending resources for high paid executives, advertising, and PROFITS...???

Government isn't some far off federal building. Government is us, working together to solve problems, and see to it that 'everyone' gives a little so everyone is covered, when things go south. We don't need to pay people to deny us claims, nor do we need to advertise at the levels that private companies do. Above all, a public model does not have to seek 'profits'.

Your ONLY argument is that "because this is true, then you also advocate government take over the whole economy"...

To which, I have responded by saying, "The Insurance sector is 'different' than actual Producing & Manufacturing industries, as it doesn't 'produce' anything."

We can SAVE money people. There is ZERO reason to pay some CEO to come up with a lizard to make profits, at the hands of denied claims.

Government ran insurance would lower premium rates slightly, whiling offering more back in claims.

At the same time, it would hold drivers responsible for THEIR personal driving record, in assigning premium rates.

(*Have you guys read and reviewed the links within this whole thread?)

 

[Ziggurat]

You guys are being obtuse. Is it intentional or accidental?

I HAVE, or rather it has been shown (linked), that public entities could and did provide MUCH cheaper insurance than private profit seeking ones.

That study showed that a particular sample of quotes came out cheaper for government insurance. Since that sample may not be representative of the actual populations, we do not, in fact, know that public insurance is cheaper for the actual population of insurance holders. But even more fundamentally, this public insurance still operates on the basic model that private insurance works on. Since you want to fundamentally change this model to something completely different, you cannot logically conclude that these cost savings have ANY relevance to the system you're proposing.

What do you not understand about NOT expending resources for high paid executives, advertising, and PROFITS...???

What do you not understand about this applying to every single private industry, including all the service industries?

Government isn't some far off federal building. Government is us, working together to solve problems, and see to it that 'everyone' gives a little so everyone is covered, when things go south.

Why, it's almost as if communism should work!

We don't need to pay people to deny us claims

Oh yes we do. Otherwise there's this little thing called fraud.

Your ONLY argument is that "because this is true, then you also advocate government take over the whole economy"...

To which, I have responded by saying, "The Insurance sector is 'different' than actual Producing & Manufacturing industries, as it doesn't 'produce' anything."

Yet you can neither explain why that makes a difference, nor can you account for all the other service industries which do not "produce" anything.

 

[Neally]

I HAVE, or rather it has been shown (linked), that public entities could and did provide MUCH cheaper insurance than private profit seeking ones.

Care to show how the US government provides lower insurance rates? Trying looking at Medicare fraud, then come back and tell me again how the US government is more efficient at insurance.

Your ONLY argument is that "because this is true, then you also advocate government take over the whole economy"...

To which, I have responded by saying, "The Insurance sector is 'different' than actual Producing & Manufacturing industries, as it doesn't 'produce' anything."

To which it's been pointed out several times what service insurance provides and your response still doesn't make the distinction as to why ALL services as well as products wouldn't be better with your government model.

At the same time, it would hold drivers responsible for THEIR personal driving record, in assigning premium rates.

Still waiting for you to explain why you hypocritically support your discrimination model and why you hate statistics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Still waiting for you to explain why you hypocritically support your discrimination model and why you hate statistics.

We frequently hate what we do not understand.

 

[King of the Americas]

Care to show how the US government provides lower insurance rates? Trying looking at Medicare fraud, then come back and tell me again how the US government is more efficient at insurance.

...


Still waiting for you to explain why you hypocritically support your discrimination model and why you hate statistics.

Private insurance suffers fraud, too.

I don't think it is hypocritical to hold someone accountable for THEIR driving record. Statistics are fine and useful in predicting potential outcomes. That does not mean I think it is okay to use statistics to determine that because I wear leopard underwear, that I might be more likely to make a claim that a tightie whitie wearer. It is the worst kind of discrimination to judge groups of people, rather than individuals by their merit.

 

[Neally]

Private insurance suffers fraud, too.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't think it is hypocritical to hold someone accountable for THEIR driving record.It is the worst kind of discrimination to judge groups of people, rather than individuals by their merit.

As I've clearly shown, your method doesn't just directly hold people accountable for their record. You lump all people into a GROUP and base their premium on on the AVERAGE--when obviously some will fall above and below the average with their future claims. In your own words, " the worst kind of discrimination". Again, why you hypocritically support your discrimination model? The only way your model works without discrimination is to make people pay exactly their cost of the claim AFTER THE FACT and newly insured pay ZERO until/unless they make a claim. Clearly a failing model.

Statistics are fine and useful in predicting potential outcomes.

Which is exactly what underwriters do when they use statistically validated correlations including age and credit score to forecast future claims.

That does not mean I think it is okay to use statistics to determine that because I wear leopard underwear, that I might be more likely to make a claim that a tightie whitie wearer.

Why do you hate some statistics?

 

[Ziggurat]

It is the worst kind of discrimination to judge groups of people, rather than individuals by their merit.

You are wrong about the accepted definition and use of the word "discrimination". It isn't just about choosing one over another..."treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit".

So in summary, discrimination is the worst kind of discrimination. Hard to argue with that.

You're a treasure, KofA.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Why do you hate some statistics?

I hate it when statistics are used to make irrelevant judgements, not directly related to the issue at hand.

 

[Ziggurat]

I hate it when statistics are used to make irrelevant judgements, not directly related to the issue at hand.

The risk of making a claim is an irrelevant judgment not directly related to the issue at hand?

Why, you're just full of gems today!