State Senators voted down a bill to streamline the price setting of auto insurance premiums. The bill, which failed by a margin of 21-14 would have banned insurance companies from determining rates based on risky regions, such as urban areas with high vehicle theft.
State Senator Roger Kahn, a Saginaw Township Republican, voted against the bill, saying people living in the Saginaw County area would be forced to pay between 17-24 percent more in their premiums.
“Insurance reforms are ok,” Kahn said. “However it's unfair to force 3 out of 4 Michigan drivers and in particular the people I represent to subsidize the premiums of drivers in high risk areas,” he said.
State Senator John Gleason, Democrat from Flushing, voted against it as well but said reform is still needed.
Meanwhile MidMichigan residents said they want something done to level the playing field. “Right now insurance is outrageous!” said Saginaw Pastor Kennith Simon.
"Some of my members live on the west side, some on the east side and they tell me "Pastor Simon, what I pay over on the east side is much more than what some members pay on the west side."
Sen. Kahn said there are some other bills for consideration that may handle auto insurance reform differently. It is not quite sure when those bills will be released from committee and to the full Senate for a vote.
Source
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Poll shows consumers divided on auto coverage
Pollsters asked some Ontario residents earlier this month whether they think the cost of auto insurance is very important.
Seventy per cent said it is, while 67 per cent also said coverage is very important – a virtual dead heat. The difference came down to 10 individuals in a group of 327 contacted by Harris/Decima.
Costs could rise in importance as more motorists are hit with steep price increases on their auto insurance premiums when they receive their renewal notices. Several major insurers, reacting to the soaring cost of injury claims, have received approval in the past 15 months to raise their premiums by an average of more than 10 per cent.
But the association of therapy clinics that sponsored the recent poll thinks the message to be drawn from the results should be: Don't mess with the health-services coverage.
The provincial government is expected to announce what changes it has in mind for auto insurance benefits and regulations within days. Consumers may be given more choice about how much health coverage to buy, but no details are known.
"Protection is just as important to people as affordability," Nick Gurevich, a clinic owner who speaks for the Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers, insisted in an interview.
But it's clear when speaking with him that he would accept some limits, or a choice of coverage limits for minor sprains, strains and whiplash injuries.
"We are, in fact, not against that proposal, but we part ways on the mechanics of how it should work," he said. ``What happens if a brain injury is diagnosed a year later?"
What he opposes strongly is giving consumers the choice of buying just $25,000 of coverage for minor injuries and for more serious injuries. The poll showed many consumers do not know much, or spend much time, researching their auto-insurance coverage.
The clinics in his association supply such services as physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy, occupational therapy, psychological treatment, acupuncture and speech-language therapy.
Most of these services are not generally paid for by Ontario's government-run health insurance plan, although a sizeable minority of the persons polled thought they were.
It could be argued the association's poll was designed to extract a desired set of results. (What survey that is sponsored by an interest group does not do that?)
Pollsters asked at one point whether it is the government's moral responsibility to ensure "adequate coverage" or ensure that auto insurance is affordable.
Not surprisingly – given the lack of definition of what adequate would be – more were in favour of adequate coverage than more affordable insurance. Nearly twice as many said it would be a bad idea for the government to accept an insurance industry proposal for a "stripped-down version" of auto insurance.
Barbara Sulzenko-Laurie, vice-president of policy at the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said nothing described as "stripped down" is likely to appeal to consumers.
"Everyone knows what a stripped-down car is," she chuckled. "You don't want to drive it."
A more revealing question, she suggested, would be to ask consumers whether their definition of adequate coverage for a sprain or strain would include "17 weeks of housekeeping service," or merely enough therapy treatments to return to their normal activities.
The problem for consumers who are very concerned about price is they are forced by law to pay for somebody else who does want their house cleaned while they recover from a pain in their neck, back or ankle.
Source
Seventy per cent said it is, while 67 per cent also said coverage is very important – a virtual dead heat. The difference came down to 10 individuals in a group of 327 contacted by Harris/Decima.
Costs could rise in importance as more motorists are hit with steep price increases on their auto insurance premiums when they receive their renewal notices. Several major insurers, reacting to the soaring cost of injury claims, have received approval in the past 15 months to raise their premiums by an average of more than 10 per cent.
But the association of therapy clinics that sponsored the recent poll thinks the message to be drawn from the results should be: Don't mess with the health-services coverage.
The provincial government is expected to announce what changes it has in mind for auto insurance benefits and regulations within days. Consumers may be given more choice about how much health coverage to buy, but no details are known.
"Protection is just as important to people as affordability," Nick Gurevich, a clinic owner who speaks for the Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers, insisted in an interview.
But it's clear when speaking with him that he would accept some limits, or a choice of coverage limits for minor sprains, strains and whiplash injuries.
"We are, in fact, not against that proposal, but we part ways on the mechanics of how it should work," he said. ``What happens if a brain injury is diagnosed a year later?"
What he opposes strongly is giving consumers the choice of buying just $25,000 of coverage for minor injuries and for more serious injuries. The poll showed many consumers do not know much, or spend much time, researching their auto-insurance coverage.
The clinics in his association supply such services as physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy, occupational therapy, psychological treatment, acupuncture and speech-language therapy.
Most of these services are not generally paid for by Ontario's government-run health insurance plan, although a sizeable minority of the persons polled thought they were.
It could be argued the association's poll was designed to extract a desired set of results. (What survey that is sponsored by an interest group does not do that?)
Pollsters asked at one point whether it is the government's moral responsibility to ensure "adequate coverage" or ensure that auto insurance is affordable.
Not surprisingly – given the lack of definition of what adequate would be – more were in favour of adequate coverage than more affordable insurance. Nearly twice as many said it would be a bad idea for the government to accept an insurance industry proposal for a "stripped-down version" of auto insurance.
Barbara Sulzenko-Laurie, vice-president of policy at the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said nothing described as "stripped down" is likely to appeal to consumers.
"Everyone knows what a stripped-down car is," she chuckled. "You don't want to drive it."
A more revealing question, she suggested, would be to ask consumers whether their definition of adequate coverage for a sprain or strain would include "17 weeks of housekeeping service," or merely enough therapy treatments to return to their normal activities.
The problem for consumers who are very concerned about price is they are forced by law to pay for somebody else who does want their house cleaned while they recover from a pain in their neck, back or ankle.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)