People get an insurance to allocate a known premium for an unknown and highly variable potential loss. One of the insurance that people always make sure to get was auto insurance to make sure that they will get a replacement for a potential loss. Once a policyholder has been paying into a whole life insurance policy for some time, its cash value builds up, making the policy more valuable. Ofcourse when this happens, the policy holders are already sure that they are secured. But there are agent who offer a built up value for their policy, a much better “new and improved policy “ which contains one with more coverage, different features, or a different payment schedule. But dishonest intentionally forget to mention that the insurance that they are holding are enough already to protect them and by enrolling to the bult-up cash value they will begin again from the start in building up cash value in the new policy.
The rates used in auto insurance in Canada are fair because before the insurance industry issues the list of prices for auto insurance. People from the insurance industry have undergone extensive research to study the number and cost of collisions and comprehensive claims for the most popular vehicles used in Canada. They also included reported cases of stolen vehicles together with their respective claims. Owners to pay for any damages that might happen just in case they met an accident in the road allocate car insurances. It is right that they pay for what they have damaged. However, if it was not their fault they should not be paying too much.
The concept of discrimination has typically had negative connotations. It is true that some drivers are negatively impacted by age or genders- based differentiation or in insurance rates. It is much better that they remove these differentiations, any it will not affect pricing. They should have a standard pricing. As long as they are of legal age and they are qualified to drive they should be given equal treatment and pricing like any other regular . Furthermore, the concept of actuarial equity can be argued to be ethical using theoretical approaches grounded in utilitarianism, equality and egalitarianism. Most Canadians now view the ability to drive as a social “right”. Insurance requirements that are prohibitive to the exercise of that “right” are, as a result, viewed as unethical. However, a thorough exploration of the issue suggests that there is a strong ethical argument for requiring vehicle insurance. Further, governments should not be ethically obliged to assist individuals when the requirement of insurance proves too prohibitive for an individual to be able to drive. There must be a limit on “rights” claims that can be made to challenge every negative impact. Governments should not assume they are ethically obliged to intervene. Although they may choose to, and have done so in certain jurisdictions, there is not any overriding ethical imperative to do so. This is not to say that ethical arguments could not be provided for making such a decision. However, those who choose not to are not without a moral foundation either. (OHRC, 2005)
Brown, Charters, Gunz and Haddow. (2004) Age as an Rate Class Variable. University of Waterloo. Retrieved on November 23, 2006. http://www.lcc.gc.ca/research_project/pr/gen/resources/brown_2004-en.asp
Insurance Bureau of Canada. How Car is Measure Up? Retrieved on November 23, 2006. http://www.ibc.ca/en/Car_Insurance/Buying_a_New_Car/HCMU.asp
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2005) Where do we go from here? Retrieved on November 22, 2006. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/consultations/insurance-consultation-report_3.shtml