April 4, 2019 – CHRISD.CA plus commentary
Some of Comments:
“Socialism at it’s best. Governments take money from the people, the more money they control, the worse it is. Government shouldn’t be in ANY business. The thought is that private companies make money, that is bad, but government wastes money and ends up costing you more, and somehow that’s good. My car insurance went UP $500 per car when I moved from Calgary to Rural Manitoba.
…, I don’t see MPI as socialism but I do see it as flawed with how it is being operated against the MPI Act and strict mandate. There is incompetence, bloated bureaucracy, fiscal mismanagement, unethical influence and corruption running rampant. Next to the much higher than average staff to executive and management rations, salaries, benefits and admin costs that are also rising at much higher rate than inflation the diverting of overcharges to police instead of refunding or reducing rates for questionable enforcement, “safety” programs and pilots are the next largest unnecessary costs. They have many senior executives, their supporting staff and managers of departments that do not even need to exist in a legislated monopoly with no competition for the core mandatory part of auto insurance.
Things will improve once MPI forced by our elected and appointed officials in Parliament, the Committee on Crown Corps, the MPI Board and MB PUB to reign in this out of control spending, unethical influence and corruption, stop allowing them to lie or misleading about why they are asking for more rate hikes including several many times rate of inflation and not permitted to divert overcharges to police and “safety programs.
Our officials also need to separate the driver licensing and vehicle insurance parts of MPI, prevent the focus on enforcement and demerit related revenue, restore the priority of improving proper safety. This can be done by restoring focus on proper driver and pedestrian education, enacting legislation like has been done in Ontario and elsewhere that enforces national traffic engineering standards and then enforcement in areas where there is still dangers. Doing it in this way and order has been proven to be the most effective way to improve and maintain safety. The opposite order is done here.
They also need to enforce the conditions of authority for traffic enforcement which is currently being ignored in return for higher traffic ticket volume and “safety revenue but at the cost of due process, charter and other violations of the rights of the accused. It is also resulting in interference in the independence of Crown Prosecutions, bias and undue pressure on JJP’s, Justices and Clerks and in the Courts in general plus a loss of trust, respect and confidence in Police, the Judiciary / Courts and government which all have serous consequences.
Things will improve once MPI forced by our elected and appointed officials in Parliament, MB PUB to reign in this out of control spending, unethical influence and corruption, stop allowing them to lie or misleading about why they are asking for more rate hikes including several many times rate of inflation and not permitted to divert overcharges to police and “safety programs.
As for MPI not being a form of socialism. Here is some examples I found.
If we both buy auto or fire insurance and my car or house is written off or burns down and yours doesn’t, then you’re fortunate and I’m unfortunate. But you’re not necessarily better off than me.
Unlike “socialism” or Nanny-state “safety nets,” insurance, properly managed, does not involve subsidies. Better off members of the risk pool do not subsidize less well-off members. Pool members pay premiums based on the extent of risk* they present. If I have a history of traffic accidents and tickets, and you have a clean driving record, I’ll pay more for auto insurance than you. If you have a $500,000 house and I have a $200,000 house, you’ll pay more for fire insurance than me.
* Risk is the product of the magnitude of a loss X the probability that it will occur.
Similar can be said to some degree about Health Insurance.
In a free, rational market, older persons and persons with pre-existing conditions will pay more for health insurance than younger, healthier people — because, like the bad driver and the owner of the more valuable house, they present greater risks.
As for whether free market insurance can work for health insurance for those that can afford it and those that can’t are covered under national health care.
It probably can if there is proper regulation so greed, incompetence, unethical influence and corruption are not issues that result in out of control costs and poor quality of service especially for those that can’t afford private coverage.