Risk Equalisation - Maybe Car Insurance

HelterSkelter

cyclopath2001 wrote:

But isn't the problem that the insurance companies have not found a better way to distinguish between high-risk drivers and low risk ones?

I don't buy that. I remember comparing quotes before and a 23 year old with 5 years no claims was getting charged twice what a 40 year old woman with no driving experience was. Driving history should be more important than age statistics but it doesn't seem to be the case.

omahaid

HelterSkelter wrote:

I don't buy that. I remember comparing quotes before and a 23 year old with 5 years no claims was getting charged twice what a 40 year old woman with no driving experience was. Driving history should be more important than age statistics but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I have to agree with this post. When I was 18 I was charged £3000 (thats pounds btw). And now as a 28 year old I pay about €350 a year on insurance. Would it bother me to pay an extra €40-€100 a year on car insurance? Not now. But when I was 18 with a very young family and bringing my pregnant wife to hospital it was an extreme burden.

People may argue that young males are dangerous, and thats fair enough, but I hear lots of cars speeding past with garda cars after them, and how many of them have insurance? And what risk is a 60 year old man versus a 20 year old in health terms?

As a car insurance holder, I would have welcomed car insurance community rating when I was 18 and I do now as a 28 year old with cheap car insurance, rise it by €100 a year, wouldn't bother me.

Its down to voting. If all 18 year olds voted, we'd have car insurance community rating. If most 60 year olds didn't vote, we wouldn't have health insurance community rating.

bonkey

dan nukem wrote:

How is the risk equalisation scheme fair for us younger people?

Last time I checked, younger people get older over time.

Will you continue to maintain its unfair when you're over the average point and someone else is now subsidising you?

The older generation in this country have ALREADY made their money with the property boom while the new generation have taken it in the neck with the impossible house prices (yes, I STILL can't afford to buy!!)

Overgeneralise much?

Some of the older generation have made their money. So have some of the younger generation. So have some of the middle-age generation.

I'm tired of our generation getting it in the neck 24/7, whens it gonna stop?

Isn't it amazing though...

When you were 16, I bet it was 16-year olds who had the system stacked against them.
2 years on, it was probably 18 year-olds who had it the worst.
A few years later, it was the 21-year olds.
Now its the 24-year olds.

And I suppose when you're older, and a new generation of youngsters fight against some "equalised" system, you'll be moaning about how kids these days have it easy and how the system is always stacked against you and how they should be ashamed to be making the very same complaint that you're making today at that age.

Here's a secret. The reason you get it in the neck is either :

1) Your problems aren't new and have been around for a long time (e.g. Problems with the driving exams system are almost as old as you are)

2) Too many young people have too much available money and are in competition with each other. It isn't the middle-aged selling their houses and making their money who caused house-prices to sky-rocket. Its the increasing numbers of young, upwardly-mobile people who could afford a house and were willing to borrow and spend more and more to compete over a scarce resource.

dan nukem

bonkey wrote:

Last time I checked, younger people get older over time.

Will you continue to maintain its unfair when you're over the average point and someone else is now subsidising you?


Overgeneralise much?

Some of the older generation have made their money. So have some of the younger generation. So have some of the middle-age generation.


Isn't it amazing though...

When you were 16, I bet it was 16-year olds who had the system stacked against them.
2 years on, it was probably 18 year-olds who had it the worst.
A few years later, it was the 21-year olds.
Now its the 24-year olds.

And I suppose when you're older, and a new generation of youngsters fight against some "equalised" system, you'll be moaning about how kids these days have it easy and how the system is always stacked against you and how they should be ashamed to be making the very same complaint that you're making today at that age.

Here's a secret. The reason you get it in the neck is either :

1) Your problems aren't new and have been around for a long time (e.g. Problems with the driving exams system are almost as old as you are)

2) Too many young people have too much available money and are in competition with each other. It isn't the middle-aged selling their houses and making their money who caused house-prices to sky-rocket. Its the increasing numbers of young, upwardly-mobile people who could afford a house and were willing to borrow and spend more and more to compete over a scarce resource.

LMAO, your final point contradicts your first.
Also, to be condescending, you must also at least try to be realistic.

Proportionately how many of the younger generation made money on the property boom. Revise your ratios, please.

Perhaps you should go look at the affordable housing figures for Cork & Dublin? I think it was 20 affordable houses built in Cork in 2005.
However, there was a convenient system where affordable houses could be bypassed for a substantially smaller contribution to the '2005 City of Culture Fund'.

Will you continue to maintain its unfair when you're over the average point and someone else is now subsidising you?
Do you even understand the argument?? Reread the thread please;)

Gurgle

dan nukem wrote:

Proportionately how many of the younger generation made money on the property boom. Revise your ratios, please.

Now those statistics would be interesting.

Almost everyone I know who bought cheap & sold dear is under 35.

MrPudding

Gurgle wrote:

Community loading has a loophole whereby a company can come in and undercut an established company in the short term, by targeting younger lower risk people. This is not sustainable in the medium to long term, as people tend to get older.

Is there any evidence that BUPA or indeed Vivas targetted younger lower risk people?

INcidentally, I read elsewhere that the age difference is not that great between BUPA and VHI. 36 versus 44 or something for the average age of subscribers. Interestingly, that would mean BUPA potentially could have higher cost in certain areas as health costs for women tend to lower after 40. Apparently.

MrP

dan nukem

Why don't Quinn Direct have to pay Risk Equalisation Fines to Hibernian?

Anybody seen the ads for Sheila's wheels or Diamond etc.
I'm not sure if they operate in the Republic, however, there is no doubt some similar system in place.

This system is discriminatory on 2 counts; both age and gender.

Before this BUPA mess blew up, I hardly batted an eyelid, now I'm starting to believe we need a radical overhaul of the insurance legislation in this country.