  Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7410 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Today's Detroit News: http://detroitnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060517/M ETRO01/605170352/1003/METRO The article lists top 10 crash zones in wayne county and SE Michigan. Detroit has 1 in the top 10 in Wayne and none in the top 10 in SE Michigan. While people will claim that theft drives insurance through the roof in Detroit that simply is not the case. Broadended collision makes up over 60% of my insurance yet Detroit only has one of the top 10 intersections for accidents in Wayne county and none in SE Michigan. When I spoke with multiple insurance companies they cited the number of accidents in Detroit as the reason for my insurance being so high. Westland has 3 of the 9 intersections for accidents in Wayne COunty. So why don't people in Westland pay out of their asses for insurance. Damn crooks. Plain and simple. | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 658 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 194.138.39.55 |
Don't EVEN try to tell me that those bastards in Canton pay close to the same amount I do. My parents live just south of there and their insurance is well under half mine. Car insurance is one of the top 3 reasons I hate living in Michigan. | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 360 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.43.81.191 |
I think in addition to car theft, you have to take into account the number of uninsured drivers living in Westland vs Detroit. Having fewer collisions doesn't mean much if you have way more uninsured drivers. In some areas of Detroit, 40-60% of the vehicles are uninsured (from a 2003 freep article). The state's insured drivers paid $65 million in surcharges just to cover the medical bills of passengers in uninsured cars in 2001. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7411 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Why should the uninsured in Detroit be shouldered by Detroiters exclusively? I still have not heard a valid reason for that. If your neighbor doesn't pay his mortgage do you take a hit? Why is caring for those with no health insurance spread across the hsopitals and insured throughout the State while auto insurance is based upon zip code. I don't give a fuck if non of my neighbors have insurance or not. That does not affect my risk of being in an accident. Stupid insurance structures in this state are killing the city and the law abiding citiznes.
Then spread it across the state. Why are Detroiters covering for the uninsured Detroiters that live at 8 and Mound yet those in Warren have no stake in it. Stupid, stupid, stupid. (Not you, just the structure of insurance laws in this state) I have paid the value of my car in insurance the last 4 years. No claims, no accidents, no issues. My insurance is still through the roof compared to my suburban counterparts. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 142 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.45.70 |
Insurance is high in Detroit because (1) Detroit is an easy target, and (2) nowhere else in the State is insurance high, so when we bitch about it, no one else feels our pain. This is why it is so difficult to get things done legislatively to reduce Detroit insurance rates. All politics is local. Re: the uninsured drivers claims, when an insurance company pays benefits on a uninsured motorist claim, they always bring a subrogation claims against the uninsured driver. Much of this money is recovered one way or the other, but some isn't. The fact is, the insurance companies enjoy tremendous political clout. They have millions to spend on lobbyists to get their "view point" heard in Lansing. When I get elected, I am not trying to run for anything again; I won't give a damn about their lobbyists. If Detroiters are really serious about reducing insurance rates, we need to start a PAC that supports outstate legislators that will work with us to get things done, and actively oppose those who oppose us. Any takers? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7412 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Ron - I would be interested in supporting a PAC. I however have no history, experience or knowledge in PACs. What do we need to do? | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1531 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
"I think in addition to car theft, you have to take into account the number of uninsured drivers living in Westland vs Detroit. Having fewer collisions doesn't mean much if you have way more uninsured drivers. In some areas of Detroit, 40-60% of the vehicles are uninsured (from a 2003 freep article)." While that may be true, when the poorest area in the region is charged the highest insurance rates, what else can we expect? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 596 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 209.69.221.253 |
Llyn, you have a very good point. The problem is perpetuated by the solution. | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 361 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.43.81.191 |
Well, if you live in a neighborhood where most people are driving uninsured, then your chances of getting into an accident with an uninsured driver are pretty high. It's not a case of "passing the buck" to your neighbors with car insurance, but more of a "risk analysis" by the insurance companies. Granted a driver from Warren may do a lot of driving in Detroit and be exposing themselves to a large number of uninsured drivers, but people do the majority of their driving within a short radius of their home. If you live in an area where 50% of the drivers don't have insurance, then the insurance company is taking an increased risk by insuring you. It's similar to how medical and life insurance companies will take your lifestyle and medical history into account when insuring you, you pay higher rates based on risk factors. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 597 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 209.69.221.253 |
It's funny that an industry that originiated to "spread the risk" has now become a business that makes a buck socking it to the most vulnerable. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7416 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Warrior - Have you ever seen the risk or actuarial data. The State does not require it and the insurance companies will not supply it. There is no valid avaialable data that shows the risks based upon insurance company pay outs. I understand your point but with a region like ours that is so commuter driven there are more important factors. Sadly someone that has been convicted of drunk driving and lives in the suburbs is, based upon the insurance companies, less of a risk than I am. until the state requires the actuarial data to be submitted or the insurance companies make their data available I will continue to believe that the risk factors are not in line with the rates. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1533 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
Warriorfan, I'm not disagreeing with you on how the insurance companies arrive at their conclusions. I'm saying the philosophy is flawed. IMHO, there's a host of reasons as to why this is the case. Just a few of them: (1) When it comes to health I'm responsible for my health. When it comes to driving I'm responsible for my driving habits. I'm am not responsible for my neighbor's driving habits. (2) Under the current system, the poorest people pay the highest rates. There is something distinctly uncharitable about this. Are we one country, or a bunch of little fiefdoms? (Actually the debate at this point boils down to whether people can afford to pay their bills and not even how well they drive. People are penalized for being poor and living in a poor neighborhood.) (3) When the poorest areas pay the highest rates it creates still more uninsured drivers. "The problem is perpetuated by the solution" (with a nod to Detroitnerd). (4) Enough people have pointed out in the past the factors that skew the statistics. I won't belabor the point. Meanwhile statistics like the ones in the article above are conveniently ignored. All of this is against a background of suburbanites and out staters that don't want to pay more insurance - and so they don't care. This is typical of the ways in which problems are created for Detroit... and then when the city has problems the responsibility is laid so conveniently on the city. Granted we are dealing in generalities. Not every suburbanite is an closet racist or a greedy capitalist. Not every Detroiter is an angel. Not everyone in city of Detroit offices is a constructive problem solver. But the current insurance arrangement is part of a larger system that creates and perpetuates problems in the city, and then allows people outside the city to look down on the city for it's problems. I have to say I don't really care what insurance corporations think about it. I've never trusted a corporation to have my best interests at heart. And I believe that changes should be made for everyone's best interest. You don't want uninsured drivers? Make insurance affordable. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 143 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.45.70 |
In theory, the insurance commissioner is supposed to ensure equitable rates. I have not done any research into how effective the commissioner is. Jt, I will look into the process to set up the PAC. That is not the hard part. The hard part is raising the money to be effective against the insurance industry. I think that there is enough money in Detroit to do something about it, but the question is, Will people put their money where their mouth is. That is always the problem. The insurance companies know they have more money than individuals, and thus, do not have any problems spending it. I will research the issue, and report back. Kinda busy right now. Please drop me an e-mail at rcliscombe@gmail.com so we can discuss it a little more. Ron ps: I intend on studying the profit margins of the insurance companies, on a per capita basis, to determine if they are realizing higher profit margins for insuring Detroit drivers over suburban drivers. If so, their rationale for higher rates in Detroit goes out the window. This can be equalized even without capping their profit margins, which I also intend on doing when elected. (But I know this could not be done without a PAC to threaten the non-Detroit legislators with)(sometimes you gotta use a carrot, sometimes you gotta use a stick) | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 362 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.43.81.191 |
I agree with you Jt1, it's an unfair system, but then again life isn't fair. Detroiters can't afford car insurance so they go without, insurace rates go up as a result and then MORE Detroiters can't afford car insurance, and so on and so on in one vicious circle. It's like the chicken and the egg, which came first, impoverished citizens or high insurance rates? But ultimatley, isn't it up to the city and state to so something about this issue if so many people feel so strongly about it? Didn't Granholm promise to get a 20% drop in insurance rates last year? Didn't Kwame promise to address this issue during the mayoral election? Wasn't Sharon McPhail supposed to do something about this very issue? | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1633 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Good point - aren't we paying here a six figure income to tackle this issue? Any updates for her first few months on the job? During the mayoral election, people knew her every move. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 144 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.45.70 |
Warrior, It is very difficult to do something legislatively because, again, only Detroit suffers from inordinately high insurance rates. If no one else feels the pain, there is no incentive for them to do something about it. I believe that there is a lawsuit planned against the insurance companies for the practice of redlining, but who knows how effective it will be. I believe this is the action Kilpatrick and McPhail were supposed to be taking. This is truly one of those issues where, if Detroiters want something done about it, we will have to do it, hence my idea for a PAC. We can target legislators who are not friendly to us, who are vulnerable in a particular election cycle, as I would guess that our funds would be limited (compared to the insurance companies). We would have to use it wisely. Ron www.liscombe4staterep.blogspot .com | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 111 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 209.114.251.65 |
The rates in Detroit seem incredibly high, but are you all assuming that there is some conspiracy? Last I checked there were dozens (if not hundreds) of companies selling auto insurance in the state of Michigan. Are you telling me that they are all colluding to keep rates artificially high in the city? Instead of forming a PAC, might I suggest forming an auto insurance company. It sounds like you are convinced that you could slash the premiums of residents in half and still make a fortune. As for releasing risk and actuarial data, isn't this proprietary? Why would an insurance company want to release it to the general public (and their competitors)? The high insurance rates are like a tax on the city. If I was Mayor I would do everything I could to attack some of the factors involved in the increasing rates (I think we can all agree that theft and rampant uninsured motorists have at least some impact on rates). I think this is an important issue, it just seems like some of you may be barking up the wrong tree. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7417 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 4.229.102.20 |
Warrior/Spartacus - I agree that this needs to be addressed in Lansing at a state level. The issue is more how Michigan allows insurance companies to operate in the State. Spartacus - Your comment about actuarial data is correct and incorrect. Insurance is not governed the same as normal business, that is why we have the Office of Financial and Insurance services. It is supposed to oversee the insurance companies in a manner similar to how Public Works oversees the utility companies that do business in the State. That office has failed and continues to fail but the people that it fails are also the people with the least amount of voice and are typically the poorest. According to the State the information is supposed to be available when the companies are approved to sell insurance in the State. That is neither enforced or checked into. When I contact the OFIS I was told to request the info from the companies. When I contacted 6 insurance companies I was told by 5 that I could not have any information. 2 even went so far as to say that they have never seen the information themselves and just charge what they are told by the parent company. The only one that even said they would check into is my current company. The simple fact is that there may not be collusion but the insurance companies know that there is no enforcement from OFIS and Detroiters have little voice in Lansing. With enough data points the actuarial data would probably be similar for large companies. Why then did State Farm and All State quote me over $10,000/year (no points, no claims, garaged vehicle) while my current carried quoted me at about $2,200/year. Prices are too high across the board but the spread is so large I question the method and the data used to forumlate the pricing. Insurance is a pretty captive market and it is best to reap profits from those with the least voice and the least time to fight this. The shit would not fly in the wealthier areas due to political influence and the fact that people would have time to fight this. Pick on the weak, show no data and submit as little as possible to the State. The OFIS is very ineffective as far as political offices go. | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 363 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.43.81.191 |
Ron, With a Democrat in the Governor's mansion and facing a tough re-election bid, I would think that the concerns of Detroit voters would resonate very much in Lansing right now. If anything, Kwame or one of Detroit's state reps or state senators could be making an election-year issue out of this, or Granholm could be playing it up trying to score points with Detroit voters, but I haven't read anything in the news about it. Granted, Granholm wins Detroit no matter what she does, but she absolutely NEEDS a high voter turnout in the city. A promise of insurance relief might get people to go to the polls, otherwise it's just another midterm election that might see lackluster voter turnout in the city of Detroit. | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 112 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 209.114.251.65 |
Insurance companies are highly regulated. I do not, however, have any reason to believe that the state directly regulates rates like they do with utilities. If a utility wants to increase their rates they must get permission, this is not true with insurance companies. It is unclear to me why they need to justify their rate structure to your or anyone else. Admittedly, I'm not an expert, so I could certainly stand to be corrected. From the OFIS website: http://www.michigan.gov/cis/0, 1607,7-154-10555_13222_13224-6 6774--,00.html#rates "Michigan’s auto insurance is regulated by state law on a competitive basis. This means that rates cannot be considered excessively high so long as there is competition among companies. Currently, approximately 65 insurance companies are listed in our buyers’ guide that compete with one another for customers by offering a variety of rates and services. Insurers are prohibited from communicating with other insurers about the rates they are setting.... "State law sets forth the factors that companies use when setting their auto rates. More rating factors are allowed for group policies than for non-group policies. Some of the factors that companies can use in setting rates include the type of vehicle you own, your driving record, your age or length of driving experience, where you live, and having multiple policies with the insurer (for example, both homeowners and automobile policies)." According to this, the state can determine the factors used in determining rates, but not the rates themselves. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 151 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.21.223 |
Warrior, It does not matter what Granholm says she would or would not do in order for a Detroit elected offical to support her. The problem has not been the Governor's office (for the last 4 years at least); the problem is with the Legislature who would actually have to pass the law and present it to the Gov for her John Hancock. Any increased regulation of the insurance company industry will never occur while we have elected officials who always aspire to higher office (Democrat or Republican), or Republicans, who are opposed to regulation of business, generally, across the board. The insurance lobby simply has too much money to spend. | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1002 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.142.86.133 |
You pay more in detroit for uninsureds because you're more likely to run into them. Are we really gonna get into insurance AGAIN? | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 187 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.246.27.152 |
What is the impact of suburban car owners who sell cars on the black market and declare them stolen in Detroit? I would like to see the numbers of thefts reported by Detroit citizens vs Detroit *alleged) visitors. Where is our big time crime fightin’ State AG on car theft rings that are really insurance fraud. Detroit pays for this crime and suburban felons reap the reward. Any felons should be prosecuted not just internet porn and sex crime felons. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7418 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Mark - AAA estimates that half of all cars stolen in Detroit are fraud. There is no breakdown of suburban vs. Detroit fraud but I am sure that there are a lot of people that get out of leases/high payments because their car was 'stolen' in Detroit. I thought that having to report in person at the precinct would have a bigger impact than it did. Fraud is very high but so is actual car theft. I know a handful of people that don't live in the city that falsely reported a car stolen here. They also know that if I hear about it and know the details they will promptly be reported to thier insurance companies and police. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 490 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 172.130.122.75 |
This is very true. There is even more incentive in recent years with the increase in low mileage leases. In order to keep lease payments affordable, many lease companies are entering into 9000 mile per year contracts with $.30 per mile for excess miles. Very few lessees put 9000 miles or less on their vehicles. Upon lease expiration, many lessees are faced with $3000 - $5000 excess mileage payments. This creates a powerful incentive to solve this problem with a theft a few months before the lease expires. Also, some of the posts above have mentioned uninsured drivers in Detroit as a possible cause for high insurance rates here. What is it about the level of uninsured drivers in Detroit that should radically affect insurance rates for city residents? As indicated by Detroiters' insurance bills, it is the collision coverage that is inordinately expensive. But under the no-fault system in Michigan, insured owners or operators of motor vehicles (and their insurance companies) are not legally responsible for damage they cause to other vehicles involved in a collision. Whether you are involved in an accident with an insured or uninsured driver, your insurance company always has to fix your car, and it never has to pay to fix the car of the other person. Insurance or no insurance, fault or no fault, it doesn't matter. Your insurance company only has to pay for your car. And if you were stupid enough not to get collision coverage, you are SOL because you legally can't sue the other driver for damages to your car and try to get their insurance company to pay (Note: you can sue the asshole who hit you if he's uninsured, but then so what, he probably doesn't have any money to pay the judgment). So it doesn't seem to make much sense to say that the presence in Detroit of a lot of uninsured drivers would drive up insurance rates that much. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 2621 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.58.162 |
Strange how the insurance companies got mandatory 'no fault' insurance requirements for the entire state, but are not required to put all drivers into one universal statewide risk zone. This is the only fair way. The best way to end red lining is to put the red line around the entire state boundary. This would also be the best program of old inner city renewal. |
