What the hell has happened to my insurance premium?!?!?

[GimmlyThe3rd]

ahh you used as in pass tense, that makes more sense now

Dunno what you're talking about?

:england:

 

[pikeh]

It's about time a harder line was taken on uninsured drivers too, a handful of points and a tiny fine just isn't enough. I was half watching some cop show last night before Torchwood and they were just driving about picking up chavs without insurance, licences, cars not fit for the road. It was mostly a slap on the wrist and a giggle. Absolute joke.

Must say I agree, the amount of policyholders we see with IN10 offences is a bit a joke considering we still insure them (and we're a bit of a 'privelege' insurance company).

 

[Jiggs]

or drive a classic car =)

£150 fully comp for central london. On the bad side I break down every 5 minutes

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

All I can say is: Emigrate....


Car, house (burglary, natural disasters, fire etc.), personal liability. All together just under €570.
Medical insurance: €115

That's annual.

 

[Access Denied]

Our car insurance is £684 a year. The missus is the policy holder and I'm the named driver. Fully comp. THough it did go up by £130 this year because we were forced to move to a slighty chavvy part of town.

 

[Olgaline]

Thieves the lot of them!

I almost fell off the chair when I Heard what they want from me.

I'm 34, Typical slow going family kinda bloke, havent had any accidents, the car is brand new, and hardly a fast or flashy car....

Dkr. 12.000,- or in pounds roughly £1300
Thats insane legal robbery!

 

[Helme]

free market etc.

 

[Ctuchik]

free market etc.

Cartel more likely.....

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Cartel more likely.....

A truely free market would have no anti-cartel regulation, as that would be "teh evul gov'nment" meddling in the market... So yeah, Helme's right

 

[Killswitch]

A truely free market would have no anti-cartel regulation, as that would be "teh evul gov'nment" meddling in the market... So yeah, Helme's right

To be fair in a totally free market we wouldn't be required to purchase car insurance in order to legally drive a car on public roads. At this point the insurers would be forced to reduce costs.

I could see a plausible scenario where there was a single government-run third-party injury insurance scheme funded from annual motor tax. Then any collisions involving uninsured drivers become a civil litigation matter, with the majority of claims being settled out of court.

 

[Chilly]

Problem with letting the govt run it would be they'd have no incentive to drive down costs as there's no big profit takers to appease. They'd sit there with their slide rules and 80 year old actuarial tables and not invest in cunning modelling to give good value insurance.

 

[ford prefect]

I think the Oz system would be better: slightly higher road tax which includes basic insurance and If you want named drivers and lower excess you pay a third party a bit too. That way no one is uninsured, roads get repaired and the choice to pay more is yours.

 

[Corran]

well all the tax dodging noobs will still be uninsured... and people that are uninsured are almost always the same people that are not taxed so it make no differnce in that

 

[Jeros]

I think the Oz system would be better: slightly higher road tax which includes basic insurance and If you want named drivers and lower excess you pay a third party a bit too. That way no one is uninsured, roads get repaired and the choice to pay more is yours.

Yeah its a great system.

This is amusing, In Australia when you have passed your test you have to drive around with "P" plates for a while to show you have just passed.

Now I was out at work one day and saw some P plates.....on a massive but old 5.0L V8 Ford.....and I thought back to merry ole England and thought of the cost of insurance on just a 1.0L panda for someone who had just passed, probs more than the cost of that old V8.....

God I wanna get back there so bad

 

[Sparx]

i cant wait to move to Australia at the end of the year, mainly so i can drive nice cars without selling a kidney

 

[Killswitch]

Problem with letting the govt run it would be they'd have no incentive to drive down costs as there's no big profit takers to appease. They'd sit there with their slide rules and 80 year old actuarial tables and not invest in cunning modelling to give good value insurance.

I've never really understood privatisation...the government already have a duty to provide value to the taxpayers in the same way companies have a duty to provide value to the shareholders. Government pays no dividends and presumably ploughs any profits back into the country. They also have massive bulk-buying power (potentially).

As far as I can tell privatisation involves;

1) Turning a not-for-profit service into a for-profit service
2) Regulating the provision of that service at vast expense with no return on the investment
3) Allowing (if not encouraging) companies to provide the level of service and support that is the best for their (certainly rich, probably foreign) shareholders and not the recipient of the service
4) Encouraging the formation of price-fixing cartels by having ineffective, powerless bodies overseeing monitoring of the newly-privatised market
5) Supporting/bailing-out failed companies at great expense because they (care homes for example) provide a service that is guaranteed by...the government.

Now I know the whole "benevolent government/bulk purchasing/best interests of the country" thing is a little utopian and probably not accurate, but I don't see how price competition can improve the cost/efficiency of a service compared to being able to sustainably run it at with zero profits or even losses (ie subsidies).

I just don't get it

 

[Wij]

I've never really understood privatisation...the government already have a duty to provide value to the taxpayers in the same way companies have a duty to provide value to the shareholders. Government pays no dividends and presumably ploughs any profits back into the country. They also have massive bulk-buying power (potentially).

As far as I can tell privatisation involves;

1) Turning a not-for-profit service into a for-profit service
2) Regulating the provision of that service at vast expense with no return on the investment
3) Allowing (if not encouraging) companies to provide the level of service and support that is the best for their (certainly rich, probably foreign) shareholders and not the recipient of the service
4) Encouraging the formation of price-fixing cartels by having ineffective, powerless bodies overseeing monitoring of the newly-privatised market
5) Supporting/bailing-out failed companies at great expense because they (care homes for example) provide a service that is guaranteed by...the government.

Now I know the whole "benevolent government/bulk purchasing/best interests of the country" thing is a little utopian and probably not accurate, but I don't see how price competition can improve the cost/efficiency of a service compared to being able to sustainably run it at with zero profits or even losses (ie subsidies).

I just don't get it

You've obviously never had much dealing with councils if you think that public services take getting value for the taxpayer seriously

 

[rynnor]

The best value for money would be privitisation with a suitably muscular and empowered watchdog - its the second part thats often missing in the UK.

 

[Ormorof]

the problem is not with the system but with people in general, the government and departments SHOULD provide it at the lowest possible cost, but due to nepotism, absurd targets, beaurocracy and the fact the employees know that their customers have no other choice means they can basically do what they please and to hell with what people think... leaving us poor tax payers with crappy services run by assholes

to summarise:

Private - for profit : "We have a product, how can we make it better? how can we improve your experience? (to sell more to you and your friends and increase our monies!)
Public - not for profit : "heres the product, if you dont like it, F OFF!"

some "public" organisations run pretty well though, the Crown Estates is one of the most succesful property development and purchasing groups in the country, mostly i suspect because the government doesnt meddle much with it and lets it run itself... (its now worth somewhere near £10 billion i believe)