Thursday, October 12, 2006

Public v Private

The CTF has long advocated free market solutions and supported consumer choice. So it is no surprise a recent Fraser Institute study concludes, public insurance programs in BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are inferior to private insurance programs in other provinces.

Time to bring on the free market and consumer choice in the BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba insurance industries.


VanderHum said...

Of course it's no surprise a Fraser Inst. "study" has concluded yet again that private=good, public=bad, nor that the CTF has chimed in in support. What never ceases to surprise, however, is that you expect anyone with half a brain not to see these "studies" for the right-wing propaganda they are. Time to bring on the free market and de-list the Fraser Inst. as a charity and get them off the public teat.

Farmer Joe said...

That's it, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

VanderHum said...

Farmer Joe, the message is a lie, the messenger is a liar. The study is completely bogus. The Fraser Institute is completely bogus. Other than that, I don't have a problem with the issue. In fact, it's a good thing that the Fraser and the CTF so clearly demonstate what a sham their organizations are.

Farmer Joe said...

Methinks thou doust protest to much and back up thy claims to little.

The research is solid, done by people completely independant from government.

You may prefer to believe that services provided by governments are superior. But the evidence shows that they are clearly not.

You may pay less for public insurance but you still don't get what you pay for. Its called cost benefit analysis not cost analysis.

Suck it up and quite your complaining.

VanderHum said...

The methodology employed in this study has been thoroughly discredited. It was done by right-wing ideologues with an agenda.
A farmer advising someone else to quit complaining. That's rich.

Farmer Joe said...

Very well, if that is the extent of your argument vanderhum, we can play in that sandbox.

Your assesement is that of a dogmatic, left wing ideologue and as such is completely divorced from reality and reason.

VanderHum said...

OK, Farmer, read the Star Phoenix editorial of Friday, Oct. 13 entitled "Fraser Report Defies Logic", which says, among other things:
"this study appears designed to validate the Fraser Institute's ideology."
In reaching conclusions that are clearly at odds with the market experience of ordinary Canadians, the institute has twisted around logic and reality to fit it's preconceived notions of what constitutes an ideal market for consumers.
Consider the patently silly reasoning in the study as it sets about concluding that publicly run auto insurance is the worst option, based on "the relative affordability of premium costs" According to this measure, even though SK motorists paid an average of $940 in mandatory govt-provided insurance coverage for the 34 most popular vehicles in 2005, compared to $1,995 paid by Albertans, and $2,900 by Ontarians who rely on private insurers, residents of this province are worse off because it cost them a greater percentage of their aggregate disposable income.
Or Bruce Johnstone in Saurday's Leader Post:
"What it (the study) doesn't do is compare what the same person driving the same vehicle would pay to provide the same amount of insurance coverage in each jurisdiction.
That's exactly what the Consumers Association of Canada does when it compares private and public auto insurance rates, and the CAC's findings are the exact opposite of the Fraser Institute's."

Farmer, this study is willfully dishonest. Get your head out of the sand, the manure out of your ears, and take off those ideological blinkers.
Shame on the Fraser Institute for their blatant propaganda and for taking public money to produce it.
Shame on the CTF for trying to pass this garbage off as credible

Farmer Joe said...

Thank-you for reinforcing my point. It's not about % of disposable income or what it costs. It is about getting what you pay for.

With public insurance you don't get what you pay.

Ask any Manitoban that has been physically debilitated in an automobile accident about the price of thier premiums vs. the pathetic no fault payouts they recieved and you'll start to get the picture.

But I doubt it you'd have to take the blinders off first.

VanderHum said...

Farmer, the Consumers Association of Canada studies compare, as Johnstone stated, the same drivers driving the same vehicles with the same amount of coverage in every jurisdiction and come to the opposite conclusion of the Fraser propaganda. You got any solid information to support your assertions, put it on the table.

Scott Hennig said...

Um, hate to interrupt your conversation, but as Mark Milke pointed out in his column about the Consumers Association "survey", it was based on average internet quotes for insurance rather than actually premiums.

The problem with that method is that if they request say five quotes for insurance in Alberta (free-marketish insurance) and the quotes come back at $200, $300, $400, $500, and $600, the Consumer Association would suggest that Albertans pay $400 for insurance.

The problem with that is that no one in their right mind would go out and get five quotes and then take anything other than the lowest one (all other things equal).

So whereas Albertans might pay $200, the Consumer Association survey would suggest they pay $400. It's false and very mis-leading.

Sorry for the interruption, please resume...

Farmer Joe said...

Thank-you Scott,well said.

You are obviously more well versed in all of the in and outs of this than most people posting here, myself included.

So what's up with the consumers association then? Sounds like they're not really working in the best interest's of consumers?

VanderHum said...

So Scott, are you alright with the Fraser's methodology.?

Scott Hennig said...

Well farmer, I don't know much about the Consumers Association. But I've read a few Milke columns that shred some of their reports for using mis-leading information.

And Mr. Hum, I don't know. For one, I haven't read the report. But I don't think I would discount it based on the fact that they look at a percentage of disposable income. They are attempting to compare not just Canada, but the US and the UK in one study.

In my experience with trying to make inter-jurisdictional comparisons, I've found it to be extremely tough to make fair apple to apple comparisons with some figures.

If you compare just the gross cost of insurance between say Regina and Bristol, it's tough to say based on just the converted numbers that one system is better than the other. The gross cost wouldn't take into account the highway system, the congestion, the claims per 1000 vehicles, the repair costs or any of those other items that normally effect the cost of insurance.

I suppose it would be like trying to compare wages between Vancouver and St. John's. Yes wages might nominally be higher in Vancouver, but if you can purchase a house in St. John's for $50K compared to $600K in Vancouver, your purchasing power is higher in St. John's.

So, I guess this is a long way of saying I don't know if Fraser's methodology is correct or not.

But I'm not sure I could come up with a better one.

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box