Insurance WTF



  • Just added the wife:


    Her car (corolla, compact 4door): 595/6Mo
    My car (accord, compact 4door): 376/6Mo

    See something wrong with that?

    Let see: The premium on the corolla, (her car) was "influenced by information from consumer (credit) reports" Whose credit? Mine. I lost my job a couple years ago, and now, due to *my* credit, *her* car costs nearly double what it should. Their excuse: "Well, studies have shown that people with low credit scores are more likely to be in a wreck"

    WTF??!

    Mind you my driving record doesn't even have as much as a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk, let alone speeding, accidents, etc... Her driving record is just as clean.

    The insurance company is State Farm, By the way. Bastards.



  • If someone has a tendency to take silly risks, they're more likely to
    get bad credit and more likely to crash their car, I suppose. We're
    talking about statistics here, so they're really interested in
    correlation rather than causality.



  • Speaking of which, insurance can be cheaper with one's spouse as a
    second driver, because the statistics suggest married people are safer
    drivers.



  • @Ben Hutchings said:

    If someone has a tendency to take silly risks, they're more likely to
    get bad credit and more likely to crash their car, I suppose. We're
    talking about statistics here, so they're really interested in
    correlation rather than causality.




    Except in this case, the only risk I took was getting laid off. Whups,
    silly me, guess I shouldn't have gotten myself laid off. I could have
    prevented that, you know.



    Yeah, right.



    And yeah-- generally, married couples see a discount, but not in my
    case, becuase I'm a very high risk (you see, I get laid off, so that
    makes me a very baaaaad driver). Its nothing more than a way for the
    insurance companies to have an excuse to fleece consumers.



    (Not that I'm bitter about this or anything)



  • "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."



  • Insurance companies suck.  This one generally sucks somewhat less: http://www.geico.com/



  • @Mike R said:

    Except in this case, the only risk I took was getting laid off. Whups,
    silly me, guess I shouldn't have gotten myself laid off. I could have
    prevented that, you know.


    As I said, correlation, not causality.



  • What was it that actually gave you the bad credit score?  I'm pretty sure losing your job won't do that by itself...

     

    By the way, save 15% on your car insurance today!



  • I can't remember who we use as our provider, but...

    I'm 19 and I drive a '95 Camry.  My dad drives an '02 Corvette.

    Somehow, it is cheaper for me to be listed as the driver of the Corvette and him to be listed as the primary driver of the Camry... Must have been based on one of those "statistical models" of theirs.

    I cannot say that I have had much success in convincing my dad that that means I need to be the one driving the Corvette.  [:D]



  • Do you want to lower your insurance bill?  Buy an old beater pickup truck!



    I didn't do exactly that, but... I was paying $150/month on a '97 Dodge
    Neon.  Later, I added a '92 Plymouth Sundance Duster (as a
    cheapo-junker-hobby car), and with the multi-car discount, my bill went
    down to $134/month for both
    Granted, I got the "liability only" option on the junker, but the car
    paid for itself in a year.  Of course, I gave up my 25 year old
    discount - when I turned 25 my rates went down by $2/mo, and when I
    asked my agent he said that the multicar discount made up for it.



    Pickup trucks are cheaper to insure, depending on the kind you get; I
    have an $18/month "utility car" discount on my 1994 Dakota.  If
    you get an older smaller truck as your beater, say an early '90s S10 or
    Dakota, you'll have cheaper insurance and a means with which to haul stuff around.






  • My wife is an insurance broker, I asked her about this.  It's not that a person with bad credit is more likely to get in an accident but that someone with lower credit rating is more likely to make a claim.  Someone with a good credit rating may cover off a $1000 repair themselves instead of making a claim, whereas someone with bad credit most likely won't have the $$$ to do so.  I know, 'that's what insurance is for'  Those days are gone, we need to adjust our thinking that insurance is for the really bad stuff.  You or your wife runs over that person who insists on riding their bike like a moron and your insurance is there to pay the 1.5 million in lawsuits.

     

    later,



  • @osp70 said:

    My wife is an insurance broker, I asked her about this.  It's not that a person with bad credit is more likely to get in an accident but that someone with lower credit rating is more likely to make a claim.  Someone with a good credit rating may cover off a $1000 repair themselves instead of making a claim, whereas someone with bad credit most likely won't have the $$$ to do so.  I know, 'that's what insurance is for'  Those days are gone, we need to adjust our thinking that insurance is for the really bad stuff.  You or your wife runs over that person who insists on riding their bike like a moron and your insurance is there to pay the 1.5 million in lawsuits.

     

    later,

    Sorry, but this sounds really oddball to me. Why do I pay extra for all-risk ensurance if I'm gonna pay for $1000 dollar damages myself. I can save the money on taking an all-risk insurance and just take regular insurance (which means I pay for any damages to my car if the damage is my own fault, and my insurance pays for the other guys car). I'm not planning to have an accident through my own error every 2 years or so, so why would I ever take out all-risk if you assume I'll not claim and pay for any damage myself?

    Drak



  • You're right.  But at least in Ontario, Canada that is the direction the insurance companies go.  I didn't say it was a good policy I just wanted to explain why the rates are so 'screwy'.



  • Sounds like it's time to get a new insurance agency.  I'll
    reccomend anyone but Geico.  I'd recommend mine, but they have
    rather strict membership requirements.



  • @Mike R said:

    @Ben Hutchings said:
    If someone has a tendency to take silly risks, they're more likely to get bad credit and more likely to crash their car, I suppose. We're talking about statistics here, so they're really interested in correlation rather than causality.


    Except in this case, the only risk I took was getting laid off. Whups, silly me, guess I shouldn't have gotten myself laid off. I could have prevented that, you know.

    What does getting laid off have to do with any of it?

    They didn't charge a higher rate because you got laid off, they charged a higher rate because you have bad credit. 

    You don't have bad credit because you got laid off, loss of job is not included as a factor in credit grading systems.

    Why is your credit a problem?  There are several possible reasons, and virtually all of them would imply that you are a greater risk to insure.

    Bad credit doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make it highly likely that you are a greater risk.  To not take this information into account in the pricing decision would be irresponsibile of the insurance companies. 



  • @mooney said:

    What does getting laid off have to do with any of it?

    They didn't charge a higher rate because you got laid off, they charged a higher rate because you have bad credit. 

    You don't have bad credit because you got laid off, loss of job is not included as a factor in credit grading systems.

    Why is your credit a problem?  There are several possible reasons, and virtually all of them would imply that you are a greater risk to insure.

    Bad credit doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make it highly likely that you are a greater risk.  To not take this information into account in the pricing decision would be irresponsibile of the insurance companies. 



    Bullshit. My credit rating has absolutely nothing to do with my driving record or claim history. In 7 years I have not had 1 at-fault accident, and in my entire history with the ins. company, I have not filed a single claim, nor is there any reason for me to file a claim now.

    My credit rating is very much related to being out of a job for 9 months, but assholes like you and insurance companies don't generally take that into account.


  • @Mike R said:

    @mooney said:

    What does getting laid off have to do with any of it?

    They didn't charge a higher rate because you got laid off, they charged a higher rate because you have bad credit. 

    You don't have bad credit because you got laid off, loss of job is not included as a factor in credit grading systems.

    Why is your credit a problem?  There are several possible reasons, and virtually all of them would imply that you are a greater risk to insure.

    Bad credit doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make it highly likely that you are a greater risk.  To not take this information into account in the pricing decision would be irresponsibile of the insurance companies. 



    Bullshit. My credit rating has absolutely nothing to do with my driving record or claim history. In 7 years I have not had 1 at-fault accident, and in my entire history with the ins. company, I have not filed a single claim, nor is there any reason for me to file a claim now.

    My credit rating is very much related to being out of a job for 9 months, but assholes like you and insurance companies don't generally take that into account.


    Maybe you were out of a job for 9 months because you fly off the handle and talk like a street thug over the tiniest slight.


  • @Richard Nixon said:



    Maybe you were out of a job for 9 months because you fly off the handle and talk like a street thug over the tiniest slight.




    Actually not. I was out of a job becuase I was the least senior person
    in the group. The company I worked for had a massive layoff during the
    peak season of layoffs.



    Of course, you wouldn't know that, would you?




  • @Mike R said:

    @mooney said:

    What does getting laid off have to do with any of it?

    They didn't charge a higher rate because you got laid off, they charged a higher rate because you have bad credit. 

    You don't have bad credit because you got laid off, loss of job is not included as a factor in credit grading systems.

    Why is your credit a problem?  There are several possible reasons, and virtually all of them would imply that you are a greater risk to insure.

    Bad credit doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make it highly likely that you are a greater risk.  To not take this information into account in the pricing decision would be irresponsibile of the insurance companies. 



    Bullshit. My credit rating has absolutely nothing to do with my driving record or claim history. In 7 years I have not had 1 at-fault accident, and in my entire history with the ins. company, I have not filed a single claim, nor is there any reason for me to file a claim now.

    Um, what's bullshit? I never or implied that your driving record or claim history influences your credit rating. 


    My credit rating is very much related to being out of a job for 9 months, but assholes like you and insurance companies don't generally take that into account.

    Again, your employment does not affect your credit rating.  Whether you pay your bills does. 

    Yes, an asshole like me would take being out of work for 9 months into account.  I would view it negatively: the inability to fine a job, any job, in 9 months, and allowing that unemployment to mess up your credit.

    Keep shifting that blame, though.  I'm sure it will work out great for you.



  • @mooney said:

    @Mike R said:
    @mooney said:

    What does getting laid off have to do with any of it?

    They didn't charge a higher rate because you got laid off, they charged a higher rate because you have bad credit. 

    You don't have bad credit because you got laid off, loss of job is not included as a factor in credit grading systems.

    Why is your credit a problem?  There are several possible reasons, and virtually all of them would imply that you are a greater risk to insure.

    Bad credit doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make it highly likely that you are a greater risk.  To not take this information into account in the pricing decision would be irresponsibile of the insurance companies. 



    Bullshit. My credit rating has absolutely nothing to do with my driving record or claim history. In 7 years I have not had 1 at-fault accident, and in my entire history with the ins. company, I have not filed a single claim, nor is there any reason for me to file a claim now.

    Um, what's bullshit? I never or implied that your driving record or claim history influences your credit rating. 


    My credit rating is very much related to being out of a job for 9 months, but assholes like you and insurance companies don't generally take that into account.

    Again, your employment does not affect your credit rating.  Whether you pay your bills does. 

    Yes, an asshole like me would take being out of work for 9 months into account.  I would view it negatively: the inability to fine a job, any job, in 9 months, and allowing that unemployment to mess up your credit.

    Keep shifting that blame, though.  I'm sure it will work out great for you.



    1) you're truelly an asshole for one reason: you response to an old thread was the first post you
    made. you registered soley to make that post, which isn't relevant to the site.

    2) you need to learn to read:

    my CREDIT RATING has NO BEARING on my ABILITY TO DRIVE

    The things that do have a bearing on my ability to drive:

    MY DRIVING HISTORY (CLEAN FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS)
    MY CLAIMS HISTORY (NEVER FILED A SINGLE CLAIM, NOT EVEN FOR HAIL DAMAGE OR A BROKEN WINDOW)

    3) How dare you say I am passing blame. I was laid off not by my choice, I was not fired, I had a letter of recommedation, I was laid off as part of a massive downsizing. I was the least senior person in the group and had huge raise the past year because of the work I performed. I DID NOT just sit on my ass during the time I was laid off, after a couple months of trying to proper employment, I resorted to delivering pizzas just to pay for food and gas. THAT DOES NOT PAY THE RENT ON ANY KIND OF HOUSE, so I had a foreclosure, and was living off of credit cards. BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS SURROUNDING MY LAYOFF I WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND WORK. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY SKILLS AS A PROGRAMMER OR MY WILLINGNESS TO FIND WORK. I was told dozens of times that people had hundreds of resumes. Maybe I just didn't know the right people,a nd for that you're right, its all my fucking fault and I should be punished for my grevious sin of not knowing the right people.

    you have obviously been fortunate enough NOT to be in the situation I was in. I hope one day you lose your job in a tight job market so you can see how it is.






  • Mooney,



    After rereading your post, I can only conclude you must work in the insurance industry.



    the name of what they are doing is: profiteering.Its anti-consumer, and
    they've done a good job of lobbying the regulators to allow them to do
    it.



    Whats more preposterous is the notion that you can't insure a newly built house because of the number of mold claims in an area.



  • @JThelen said:

    Sounds like it's time to get a new insurance agency.  I'll reccomend anyone but Geico.  I'd recommend mine, but they have rather strict membership requirements.

    USAA?



  • @Mike R said:

    Mooney,



    After rereading your post, I can only conclude you must work in the insurance industry.



    the name of what they are doing is: profiteering.Its anti-consumer, and
    they've done a good job of lobbying the regulators to allow them to do
    it.



    Whats more preposterous is the notion that you can't insure a newly built house because of the number of mold claims in an area.




    You really have some rage-control issues. It seems like you're a real
    loose cannon and can't control yourself. I am proposing that you need
    higher car insurance.



    BTW: Keep crying and cursing about your car insurance on an internet forum. You're effecting change, really!



    Have a nice day!



  • 1) I've posted under IHOC with another account ("moondogg" I think).  I haven't posted in a while and don't remember what my password is, and didn't really care enough to look it up.

    This thread was not that old.  It was still near the top of the forum.  What is this magical time cutoff where the responder becomes an asshole?

    As for this being relevant to the site, uh ... you started the thread.  You might not like the direction it's taken, but who cares?

    2) I can read fine.  I never said that your driving record and credit rating were related in any way.  My point is that there are more considerations in your pricing than just your driving ability.  If you have been unable to pay you bills in the past, and if that failure to pay your bills has gone to the extreme of foreclosure, you are represent a higher risk for not paying your bills (including your insurance premiums) in the future, regardless of whose fault it was.

    3) Whether you mean to or not, you are certainly presenting the impression that you feel like being unemployed for 9 months and going into foreclosure was not at all your fault, regardless of whether you deserved to be laid off.  Maybe you are truly the most unlucky guy in the world, but I don't buy it. 

    The claim that you need to know the right people to get a job, in my opinion, is a crock; I get hundreds of resumes, but the vast majority of them are completely unqualified, people who jumped into to industry during the dot-com boom when anyone could get a programming job.  While I do see hundreds of resumes, I see very few good candidates.

    I was about to ask what were the bizarre conditions from your layoff that prevented you getting another job, but then I realized I really don't care, so nevermind.

    You're right, I am fortunate.  I have never been laid off, I DO know people who could help me get a job, but I also know from the last time few times that I switched jobs that I could have a choice of jobs without pulling any strings.  I have never been foreclosed, but my mortgage is very small in comparison to my income, I have over a year of living expenses saved, and if I couldn't find a job and started to run out of savings we would immediately sell our place and move to a cheap apartment.  But that's just me, and I'm an asshole.



  • @Mike R said:

    Mooney,

    After rereading your post, I can only conclude you must work in the insurance industry.

    the name of what they are doing is: profiteering.Its anti-consumer, and they've done a good job of lobbying the regulators to allow them to do it.

    Nope, just a regular old software developer.  So, I'm not disagreeing with you because you are attacking my industry, I just disagreeing with you because I genuinely think you are wrong.

    Yes it is profiteering.  Profiteering is a good thing, and it makes this country great.  Without it, in my opinion, most of progress of the last hundred years would not have happened. 

    If you don't like their business practices, go to another company.  If the insurance companies are getting together to plan these price hikes, then it's collusion and should be stopped.  But if they are doing it while openly and aggressively competeing with each other, then that's life, and that's business. 



  • @mooney said:

    I DO know people who could help me get a
    job, but I also know from the last time few times that I switched jobs
    that I could have a choice of jobs without pulling any strings.  I
    have never been foreclosed, but my mortgage is very small in comparison
    to my income, I have over a year of living expenses saved, and if I
    couldn't find a job and started to run out of savings we would
    immediately sell our place and move to a cheap apartment.  But
    that's just me, and I'm an asshole.




    Mike R demands that his insurance be cheap and that he should never
    have to put any of his income into savings, in the event of trouble!



    When Mike R is fired [judging by his ability to control his anger and
    his use of vulgarity, I'd say that this events happens fairly often],
    he should not have to pay his bills. Mike R believes that after his
    termination, since no money is coming out, no money should have to go
    out - WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES!



    And, as stated previously, Mike R believes that anyone who disagrees with him is a dirty word.



    [Mike R has a lot to learn.]



  • @Richard Nixon said:

    @Mike R said:
    Mooney,



    After rereading your post, I can only conclude you must work in the insurance industry.



    the name of what they are doing is: profiteering.Its anti-consumer, and
    they've done a good job of lobbying the regulators to allow them to do
    it.



    Whats more preposterous is the notion that you can't insure a newly built house because of the number of mold claims in an area.




    You really have some rage-control issues. It seems like you're a real
    loose cannon and can't control yourself. I am proposing that you need
    higher car insurance.



    BTW: Keep crying and cursing about your car insurance on an internet forum. You're effecting change, really!



    Have a nice day!




    Nah, I just can't deal with self-rightous snots.



    I've already made the proper complaints and secured insurance with a
    company that doesn't base its "credit score" on the worst credit in a
    company, so I really shouldn't care about the issue. The issue being
    that the rate on my spouse's car, when hers was added was nearly double
    what it should have been, but everyone seems to think I deserve a
    higher insurance rate. Or at least thats the impression I have been
    given by some (you, mooney)



    And, I'm rightfully pissed about that. But, that's okay. Because,
    according to you and mooney, I'm the scum of the earth and have been
    "fired" from my job for rage-control-issues based on anargumentative
    and inflamed internet posting. Believe what you will. No mention that
    the manager of my group, the lead (most expensive), me (most expensive
    for my position) were laid off along with a few hundred other people.
    But, of course those circumstances mean nothing, because I am scum of
    the earth. At least, that is how you and mooney have made me feel.



    No, my feelings aren't hurt. Attacking ones character instead of
    discussing the insurance companies unfair practices is all this thread
    is about now.










  • @mooney said:

    1) I've posted under IHOC with another account
    ("moondogg" I think).  I haven't posted in a while and don't
    remember what my password is, and didn't really care enough to look it
    up.

    This thread was not that old.  It was still near the top of the forum.  What is this magical time cutoff where the responder becomes an asshole?

    As for this being relevant to the site, uh ... you started the thread.  You might not like the direction it's taken, but who cares?

    2) I can read fine.  I never said that your driving record and credit rating were related in any way.  My point is that there are more considerations in your pricing than just your driving ability.  If you have been unable to pay you bills in the past, and if that failure to pay your bills has gone to the extreme of foreclosure, you are represent a higher risk for not paying your bills (including your insurance premiums) in the future, regardless of whose fault it was.

    3) Whether you mean to or not, you are certainly presenting the impression that you feel like being unemployed for 9 months and going into foreclosure was not at all your fault, regardless of whether you deserved to be laid off.  Maybe you are truly the most unlucky guy in the world, but I don't buy it. 

    The claim that you need to know the right people to get a job, in my opinion, is a crock; I get hundreds of resumes, but the vast majority of them are completely unqualified, people who jumped into to industry during the dot-com boom when anyone could get a programming job.  While I do see hundreds of resumes, I see very few good candidates.

    I was about to ask what were the bizarre conditions from your layoff that prevented you getting another job, but then I realized I really don't care, so nevermind.

    You're right, I am fortunate.  I have never been laid off, I DO know people who could help me get a job, but I also know from the last time few times that I switched jobs that I could have a choice of jobs without pulling any strings.  I have never been foreclosed, but my mortgage is very small in comparison to my income, I have over a year of living expenses saved, and if I couldn't find a job and started to run out of savings we would immediately sell our place and move to a cheap apartment.  But that's just me, and I'm an asshole.



    1) Its been dormant for a couple weeks. I call that old, but that is my standard, not yours.

    2) Understood, but that wasn't really what this was about. The company hadn't touched my rates until I added my wife. Her credit was perfect, mine had been dinged by my past, circumstances of which have already been discussed to death. It was simply that their choice was the most profitible credit record to use (mine) That was all. I didn't file for bankruptcy like some would (it wouldn't have mattered in this case).

    3) Well, I have managed to hold proper employment for quite some time now, It really was just my circumstances, though. I do blame my circumstances, but I really didn't have many choices: I could have sold the house and the car, but would be without a home and transportation. I had no equity in the house and would have wound up owing anyway. (The house was bought a month before the layoffs, it hit everyone by surprise, even mid-management). There is a lot more to this than what I let on, believe me, it was not all my decision. I never really expected to get out of it unscathed, I was aware of that. I was blindsided by this new practice from the insurers.

    The second paragraph is one thats worthy of my attention. I was in the IT industry well before the dotcom boom, and have encountered many of those types. I had a good resume, it just got lost in the sea of crap.

    I happened to be laid off at a time when the stock market was plunging and there were very few jobs in IT (when the bubble burst). I'm not a great interviewer, which probably hurt tremendously on the few interviews I got.

    I had a decent savings, but there's other circumstances that I don't really want to get into.






  • @Richard Nixon said:

    @mooney said:
    I DO know people who could help me get a
    job, but I also know from the last time few times that I switched jobs
    that I could have a choice of jobs without pulling any strings.  I
    have never been foreclosed, but my mortgage is very small in comparison
    to my income, I have over a year of living expenses saved, and if I
    couldn't find a job and started to run out of savings we would
    immediately sell our place and move to a cheap apartment.  But
    that's just me, and I'm an asshole.




    Mike R demands that his insurance be cheap and that he should never
    have to put any of his income into savings, in the event of trouble!



    When Mike R is fired [judging by his ability to control his anger and
    his use of vulgarity, I'd say that this events happens fairly often],
    he should not have to pay his bills. Mike R believes that after his
    termination, since no money is coming out, no money should have to go
    out - WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES!



    And, as stated previously, Mike R believes that anyone who disagrees with him is a dirty word.



    [Mike R has a lot to learn.]




    And this is the kind of self-righteousness that really pisses me off.



    I don't demand that my insurance be cheap, but I do demand that I not
    be subject to an arbitrary rate hike. (no claims and clean record +
    expected discount for adding a spouse should not be more expensive than
    having 2 separate policies with 2 different companies, theres things
    like a multi-car discount, which only seems to apply if both have
    perfect credit regardless of claims history or driving record. Yes- I
    expect to pay the same rates year after year, barring inflation
    increases, so long as I haven't cost the company any money. Is that so
    much to ask?)



    Yeah, I definitely said I expected no consequences. Hell, I should be
    able to have my entire life subsidised by the government and not have
    to work a single day in my life. (In case you can't detect the sarcasm:
    Yes. I knew there would be consequences. Obviously I have to live on
    cash only with no credit, obviously I don't have the nicest car in the
    world, its 14 years old, but its drivable. Yes, I expected I would lose
    my house, but I was biding my time. Its really hard rent an apartment
    when the average rent is $500/month and your current income is
    $500/month. If I could have made some money selling, I would have sold.
    I had savings. But shortly after losing my job the savings was cleaned
    out (guess there are some people you can't trust) I'm not stupid, you
    know. Well, maybe I am.














  • I for one think Mike R is a decent person who at least is willing to work even if he earns much less than he ought to. If everyone here in the Netherlands thought that way maybe we wouldn't be paying so much for the 'poor' people who 'can't find a job'.

    I'm glad Mike went looking for jobs and found one (at least I think you found one, Mike?).

    Drak



  • Isnt it kindof stupid to raise the price for a guy that had some
    problem paying the bill once (or twice)? I'd say that if you raise the
    price its just making the chances of not getting paid higher.



  • @Drak said:

    I for one think Mike R is a decent person who at
    least is willing to work even if he earns much less than he ought to.
    If everyone here in the Netherlands thought that way maybe we wouldn't
    be paying so much for the 'poor' people who 'can't find a job'.

    I'm glad Mike went looking for jobs and found one (at least I think you found one, Mike?).

    Drak



    Yep found one. I did some "odd jobs" in the meantime, I was actually laid off early 2002, and permanently employed in late 2003 (It was actually 8 months that I was without a job. Toward the end of 2002, I contracted back to the company that laid me off, albeit a different department, but under the same director, whom I worked for directly previously, but due to further restructures, I couldn't get on permanently, and I was simply extra resources for a crunch-time project. I sold cars, and probably would have done well had I not slipped into a depression (long story, will not discuss, has to do with savings being cleaned out.), when the contract was up the market was still very tight. I had all but given up, when I came across one ad. Sent in my resume... and, the rest was history. Yes -- I certainly appreciate this job, and I think it was a lesson I needed to learn.


  • @Ulvhamne said:

    Isnt it kindof stupid to raise the price for a guy that had some
    problem paying the bill once (or twice)? I'd say that if you raise the
    price its just making the chances of not getting paid higher.




    Didn't quite work that way. I didn't miss any premium payments. Part of
    the reason they can get away with some of the things they do is because
    insurance is required in the state I'm in. I ditched Progressive for a
    different arbitrary rate hike.




  • @Mike R said:

    @Richard Nixon said:
    @mooney said:
    I DO know people who could help me get a
    job, but I also know from the last time few times that I switched jobs
    that I could have a choice of jobs without pulling any strings.  I
    have never been foreclosed, but my mortgage is very small in comparison
    to my income, I have over a year of living expenses saved, and if I
    couldn't find a job and started to run out of savings we would
    immediately sell our place and move to a cheap apartment.  But
    that's just me, and I'm an asshole.




    Mike R demands that his insurance be cheap and that he should never
    have to put any of his income into savings, in the event of trouble!



    When Mike R is fired [judging by his ability to control his anger and
    his use of vulgarity, I'd say that this events happens fairly often],
    he should not have to pay his bills. Mike R believes that after his
    termination, since no money is coming out, no money should have to go
    out - WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES!



    And, as stated previously, Mike R believes that anyone who disagrees with him is a dirty word.



    [Mike R has a lot to learn.]




    And this is the kind of self-righteousness that really pisses me off.



    I don't demand that my insurance be cheap, but I do demand that I not
    be subject to an arbitrary rate hike. (no claims and clean record +
    expected discount for adding a spouse should not be more expensive than
    having 2 separate policies with 2 different companies, theres things
    like a multi-car discount, which only seems to apply if both have
    perfect credit regardless of claims history or driving record. Yes- I
    expect to pay the same rates year after year, barring inflation
    increases, so long as I haven't cost the company any money. Is that so
    much to ask?)



    Yeah, I definitely said I expected no consequences. Hell, I should be
    able to have my entire life subsidised by the government and not have
    to work a single day in my life. (In case you can't detect the sarcasm:
    Yes. I knew there would be consequences. Obviously I have to live on
    cash only with no credit, obviously I don't have the nicest car in the
    world, its 14 years old, but its drivable. Yes, I expected I would lose
    my house, but I was biding my time. Its really hard rent an apartment
    when the average rent is $500/month and your current income is
    $500/month. If I could have made some money selling, I would have sold.
    I had savings. But shortly after losing my job the savings was cleaned
    out (guess there are some people you can't trust) I'm not stupid, you
    know. Well, maybe I am.






    How was your savings cleaned out?



  • @Mike R said:

    @Richard Nixon said:
    @Mike R said:
    Mooney,

    After rereading your post, I can only conclude you must work in the insurance industry.

    the name of what they are doing is: profiteering.Its anti-consumer, and they've done a good job of lobbying the regulators to allow them to do it.

    Whats more preposterous is the notion that you can't insure a newly built house because of the number of mold claims in an area.


    You really have some rage-control issues. It seems like you're a real loose cannon and can't control yourself. I am proposing that you need higher car insurance.

    BTW: Keep crying and cursing about your car insurance on an internet forum. You're effecting change, really!

    Have a nice day!


    Nah, I just can't deal with self-rightous snots.

    I've already made the proper complaints and secured insurance with a company that doesn't base its "credit score" on the worst credit in a company, so I really shouldn't care about the issue. The issue being that the rate on my spouse's car, when hers was added was nearly double what it should have been, but everyone seems to think I deserve a higher insurance rate. Or at least thats the impression I have been given by some (you, mooney)

    And, I'm rightfully pissed about that. But, that's okay. Because, according to you and mooney, I'm the scum of the earth and have been "fired" from my job for rage-control-issues based on anargumentative and inflamed internet posting. Believe what you will. No mention that the manager of my group, the lead (most expensive), me (most expensive for my position) were laid off along with a few hundred other people. But, of course those circumstances mean nothing, because I am scum of the earth. At least, that is how you and mooney have made me feel.

    No, my feelings aren't hurt. Attacking ones character instead of discussing the insurance companies unfair practices is all this thread is about now.

    Wow, you're getting pretty out there.  Now you're just making stuff up.

    I never said that your deserve I higher rate.  I was proposing that the insurance company had every right to charge you (and your spouse) more.  It's their decision to charge you whatever they want, and it's your decision whether to use them or one of their competitors.

    I never said you were fired.

    I never mentioned your rage control issues.

    I never said or even implied that you are scum.

    I haven't attacked your character, and I haven't called you names (like "asshole").  I said that I disagreed with your actions and who you chose to blame.  I suggested that you are more responsible for the higher rate than you are admitting to anyone, including yourself.

    You're credit is screwed up.  At least some of that is your fault.  In my opinion, it is pretty silly to get pissed that the insurance company has chosen to take into your consideration your ability and/or willingness to pay your bills. 

    Get off your damn cross, Francis. 



  • @mooney said:

    @Mike R said:

    @Richard Nixon said:
    @Mike R said:
    Mooney,

    After rereading your post, I can only conclude you must work in the insurance industry.

    the
    name of what they are doing is: profiteering.Its anti-consumer, and
    they've done a good job of lobbying the regulators to allow them to do
    it.

    Whats more preposterous is the notion that you can't insure a newly built house because of the number of mold claims in an area.


    You
    really have some rage-control issues. It seems like you're a real loose
    cannon and can't control yourself. I am proposing that you need higher
    car insurance.

    BTW: Keep crying and cursing about your car insurance on an internet forum. You're effecting change, really!

    Have a nice day!


    Nah, I just can't deal with self-rightous snots.

    I've
    already made the proper complaints and secured insurance with a company
    that doesn't base its "credit score" on the worst credit in a company,
    so I really shouldn't care about the issue. The issue being that the
    rate on my spouse's car, when hers was added was nearly double what it
    should have been, but everyone seems to think I deserve a higher
    insurance rate. Or at least thats the impression I have been given by
    some (you, mooney)

    And, I'm rightfully pissed about that. But,
    that's okay. Because, according to you and mooney, I'm the scum of the
    earth and have been "fired" from my job for rage-control-issues based
    on anargumentative and inflamed internet posting. Believe what you
    will. No mention that the manager of my group, the lead (most
    expensive), me (most expensive for my position) were laid off along
    with a few hundred other people. But, of course those circumstances
    mean nothing, because I am scum of the earth. At least, that is how you
    and mooney have made me feel.

    No, my feelings aren't hurt.
    Attacking ones character instead of discussing the insurance companies
    unfair practices is all this thread is about now.

    Wow, you're getting pretty out there.  Now you're just making stuff up.

    I never said that your deserve I higher rate.  I was proposing that the insurance company had every right to charge you (and your spouse) more.  It's their decision to charge you whatever they want, and it's your decision whether to use them or one of their competitors.

    I never said you were fired.

    I never mentioned your rage control issues.

    I never said or even implied that you are scum.

    I haven't attacked your character, and I haven't called you names (like "asshole").  I said that I disagreed with your actions and who you chose to blame.  I suggested that you are more responsible for the higher rate than you are admitting to anyone, including yourself.

    You're credit is screwed up.  At least some of that is your fault.  In my opinion, it is pretty silly to get pissed that the insurance company has chosen to take into your consideration your ability and/or willingness to pay your bills. 

    Get off your damn cross, Francis. 



    Please, read who I was replying to. No. you never said I was fired, no you never said I had rage-control issues, no you never made that implication. Richard Nixon did. and thats who I was replying to in this case.

    I'll never get this accross to you: My point was what the ins. company was doing was somewhat dishonest. I was not notified up front that adding my wife would be affected by credit. When I receieved the bill in the mail I was blindsided. I had no idea they were going to do that. It didn't make sense to me and still doesn't. Usually when adding a spouse to a policy, there's expected to be a break, instead I got a slap in the face.



  • @Mike R said:

    @mooney said:

    @Mike R said:

    @Richard Nixon said:
    @Mike R said:
    Mooney,

    After rereading your post, I can only conclude you must work in the insurance industry.

    the name of what they are doing is: profiteering.Its anti-consumer, and they've done a good job of lobbying the regulators to allow them to do it.

    Whats more preposterous is the notion that you can't insure a newly built house because of the number of mold claims in an area.


    You really have some rage-control issues. It seems like you're a real loose cannon and can't control yourself. I am proposing that you need higher car insurance.

    BTW: Keep crying and cursing about your car insurance on an internet forum. You're effecting change, really!

    Have a nice day!


    Nah, I just can't deal with self-rightous snots.

    I've already made the proper complaints and secured insurance with a company that doesn't base its "credit score" on the worst credit in a company, so I really shouldn't care about the issue. The issue being that the rate on my spouse's car, when hers was added was nearly double what it should have been, but everyone seems to think I deserve a higher insurance rate. Or at least thats the impression I have been given by some (you, mooney)

    And, I'm rightfully pissed about that. But, that's okay. Because, according to you and mooney, I'm the scum of the earth and have been "fired" from my job for rage-control-issues based on anargumentative and inflamed internet posting. Believe what you will. No mention that the manager of my group, the lead (most expensive), me (most expensive for my position) were laid off along with a few hundred other people. But, of course those circumstances mean nothing, because I am scum of the earth. At least, that is how you and mooney have made me feel.

    No, my feelings aren't hurt. Attacking ones character instead of discussing the insurance companies unfair practices is all this thread is about now.

    Wow, you're getting pretty out there.  Now you're just making stuff up.

    I never said that your deserve I higher rate.  I was proposing that the insurance company had every right to charge you (and your spouse) more.  It's their decision to charge you whatever they want, and it's your decision whether to use them or one of their competitors.

    I never said you were fired.

    I never mentioned your rage control issues.

    I never said or even implied that you are scum.

    I haven't attacked your character, and I haven't called you names (like "asshole").  I said that I disagreed with your actions and who you chose to blame.  I suggested that you are more responsible for the higher rate than you are admitting to anyone, including yourself.

    You're credit is screwed up.  At least some of that is your fault.  In my opinion, it is pretty silly to get pissed that the insurance company has chosen to take into your consideration your ability and/or willingness to pay your bills. 

    Get off your damn cross, Francis. 



    Please, read who I was replying to. No. you never said I was fired, no you never said I had rage-control issues, no you never made that implication. Richard Nixon did. and thats who I was replying to in this case.

    You must be joking.  I don't care which post you replied to, you explicitly directed towards me.


    I'll never get this accross to you: My point was what the ins. company was doing was somewhat dishonest. I was not notified up front that adding my wife would be affected by credit. When I receieved the bill in the mail I was blindsided. I had no idea they were going to do that. It didn't make sense to me and still doesn't. Usually when adding a spouse to a policy, there's expected to be a break, instead I got a slap in the face.

    You'll never get anything across if you keep changing your point.  You never mentioned in your original post that you were blindsided by the bill.  You were not complaining about being caught by suprise, you were complaining that they did it and about their reasons. 

    Now that you've changed your point, here's what I don't understand: when you added your wife to the plan, didn't you discuss with your insurance agent what the cost impact was?  Did they actually lie about what the cost difference would be?    Or did you just not ask them and assume that their definition of "fair" was the same as yours? 



  • @mooney said:

    You'll never get anything across if you keep
    changing your point.  You never mentioned in your original post
    that you were blindsided by the bill.  You were not complaining
    about being caught by suprise, you were complaining that they did it
    and about their reasons. 

    Now that you've changed your point, here's what I don't understand: when you added your wife to the plan, didn't you discuss with your insurance agent what the cost impact was?  Did they actually lie about what the cost difference would be?    Or did you just not ask them and assume that their definition of "fair" was the same as yours? 



    Mm. I didn't mention that did I? Fair enough.

    Yes -- According to the system the agent had (w/o running credit) I knew what the impact would be (the newer car was slightly higher, but not by much). The rate changed on the declarations page, which was mailed to me after entering the change (referred to, erroneously, as the bill in a previous post). I wouldn't go so far as saying they outright lied to me. But, to be fair, I'd probably be just as angry if it had happened at renewal (which it never did).

    From what I've read this insurance credit rating is a fairly new practice. I don't necessarily think its consumer-friendly. I understand the purpose of being in business is to make money, but the credit factor in this case was extreme (With the rates I had, and I beleieve the largest change was in liability, I might as well have been a dangerous driver)


  • @Mike R said:

    @mooney said:

    You'll never get anything across if you keep
    changing your point.  You never mentioned in your original post
    that you were blindsided by the bill.  You were not complaining
    about being caught by suprise, you were complaining that they did it
    and about their reasons. 

    Now that you've changed your point, here's what I don't understand: when you added your wife to the plan, didn't you discuss with your insurance agent what the cost impact was?  Did they actually lie about what the cost difference would be?    Or did you just not ask them and assume that their definition of "fair" was the same as yours? 



    Mm. I didn't mention that did I? Fair enough.

    Yes -- According to the system the agent had (w/o running credit) I knew what the impact would be (the newer car was slightly higher, but not by much). The rate changed on the declarations page, which was mailed to me after entering the change (referred to, erroneously, as the bill in a previous post). I wouldn't go so far as saying they outright lied to me. But, to be fair, I'd probably be just as angry if it had happened at renewal (which it never did).

    From what I've read this insurance credit rating is a fairly new practice. I don't necessarily think its consumer-friendly. I understand the purpose of being in business is to make money, but the credit factor in this case was extreme (With the rates I had, and I beleieve the largest change was in liability, I might as well have been a dangerous driver)


    I like how your tone shifts wildly in all of your posts. It's really entertaining. Previously you've treated mooney like a common criminal for daring to question you on anything - spewing vulgarity at him without regard for good taste. Now you're trying to have a thoughtful discussion where you address his points and note erroneous information.

    Pure comedy.

    Anyway: how did your savings get cleaned out?


  • @Richard Nixon said:

    @Mike R said:
    @mooney said:

    You'll never get anything across if you keep
    changing your point.  You never mentioned in your original post
    that you were blindsided by the bill.  You were not complaining
    about being caught by suprise, you were complaining that they did it
    and about their reasons. 

    Now that you've changed your point, here's what I don't understand: when you added your wife to the plan, didn't you discuss with your insurance agent what the cost impact was?  Did they actually lie about what the cost difference would be?    Or did you just not ask them and assume that their definition of "fair" was the same as yours? 



    Mm. I didn't mention that did I? Fair enough.

    Yes -- According to the system the agent had (w/o running credit) I knew what the impact would be (the newer car was slightly higher, but not by much). The rate changed on the declarations page, which was mailed to me after entering the change (referred to, erroneously, as the bill in a previous post). I wouldn't go so far as saying they outright lied to me. But, to be fair, I'd probably be just as angry if it had happened at renewal (which it never did).

    From what I've read this insurance credit rating is a fairly new practice. I don't necessarily think its consumer-friendly. I understand the purpose of being in business is to make money, but the credit factor in this case was extreme (With the rates I had, and I beleieve the largest change was in liability, I might as well have been a dangerous driver)


    I like how your tone shifts wildly in all of your posts. It's really entertaining. Previously you've treated mooney like a common criminal for daring to question you on anything - spewing vulgarity at him without regard for good taste. Now you're trying to have a thoughtful discussion where you address his points and note erroneous information.

    Pure comedy.

    Anyway: how did your savings get cleaned out?


    I never treated anyone like a common criminal. And is it really that bad that I've kind of cooled down? I'm glad I'm entertaining you.

    As for my savings being cleared out. Its really not relavent to the discussion and I don't intend to go any further in that direction. Awefully nosy aren't we?


  • @Mike R said:

    @Richard Nixon said:
    @Mike R said:
    @mooney said:

    You'll never get anything across if you keep
    changing your point.  You never mentioned in your original post
    that you were blindsided by the bill.  You were not complaining
    about being caught by suprise, you were complaining that they did it
    and about their reasons. 

    Now that you've changed your point, here's what I don't understand: when you added your wife to the plan, didn't you discuss with your insurance agent what the cost impact was?  Did they actually lie about what the cost difference would be?    Or did you just not ask them and assume that their definition of "fair" was the same as yours? 



    Mm. I didn't mention that did I? Fair enough.

    Yes -- According to the system the agent had (w/o running credit) I knew what the impact would be (the newer car was slightly higher, but not by much). The rate changed on the declarations page, which was mailed to me after entering the change (referred to, erroneously, as the bill in a previous post). I wouldn't go so far as saying they outright lied to me. But, to be fair, I'd probably be just as angry if it had happened at renewal (which it never did).

    From what I've read this insurance credit rating is a fairly new practice. I don't necessarily think its consumer-friendly. I understand the purpose of being in business is to make money, but the credit factor in this case was extreme (With the rates I had, and I beleieve the largest change was in liability, I might as well have been a dangerous driver)


    I like how your tone shifts wildly in all of your posts. It's really entertaining. Previously you've treated mooney like a common criminal for daring to question you on anything - spewing vulgarity at him without regard for good taste. Now you're trying to have a thoughtful discussion where you address his points and note erroneous information.

    Pure comedy.

    Anyway: how did your savings get cleaned out?


    I never treated anyone like a common criminal. And is it really that bad that I've kind of cooled down? I'm glad I'm entertaining you.

    As for my savings being cleared out. Its really not relavent to the discussion and I don't intend to go any further in that direction. Awefully nosy aren't we?



    You use the type of language you've spouted to law-abiding citizens? That's even more shameful!

    It's not bad that you've calmed down - it is bad that you lost control so badly and were so rude to people. Honestly, if you get that excited and rude over some message board postings, I am concerned for the safety of your wife.

    I'm not familiar with "awefully", did you mean "awfully"?

    Now, how were those savings cleared out? You're expecting people to express sympathy for your predicament but how am I to do that if I don't know the full story behind why you became a credit risk? Write back soon!!


  • @Richard Nixon said:





    You use the type of language you've spouted to law-abiding citizens? That's even more shameful!



    It's not bad that you've calmed down - it is bad that you lost control
    so badly and were so rude to people. Honestly, if you get that excited
    and rude over some message board postings, I am concerned for the
    safety of your wife.



    I'm not familiar with "awefully", did you mean "awfully"?



    Now, how were those savings cleared out? You're expecting people to
    express sympathy for your predicament but how am I to do that if I
    don't know the full story behind why you became a credit risk? Write
    back soon!!




    I think part of that is I made the mistake in posting this to this
    forum anyway. I lashed out because I feel I'm having to defend my
    mistakes.



    Okay, Savings was wiped out by the ex-wife as she left to live with the
    next-door neighbor. Shortly after being laid off. Guess I know now
    where her priorities are.



    ... Are you happy? As I said, its not really a detail I care to give out, but due to your persistence (you asked 3 times...)



    Anyway, that one was totally my fault. I shouldn't have married her in the first place. ;)

    Also part of the reason for some of the credit problems... Like I said there's a lot to this.



    (I realise the humor in this.... I realise how this seems like such the
    likely story and probably lends crdence to the fact that I'm full of
    shit.)








  • @Richard Nixon said:



    You use the type of language you've spouted to law-abiding citizens? That's even more shameful!

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>this sounds like something a libertarian would say.</FONT>

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT>@Richard Nixon said:



    It's not bad that you've calmed down - it is bad that you lost control so badly and were so rude to people. Honestly, if you get that excited and rude over some message board postings, I am concerned for the safety of your wife.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>was that really called for?</FONT>

    @Richard Nixon said:



    I'm not familiar with "awefully", did you mean "awfully"?

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>exhibit b.</FONT>

    @Richard Nixon said:



    Now, how were those savings cleared out? You're expecting people to express sympathy for your predicament but how am I to do that if I don't know the full story behind why you became a credit risk? Write back soon!!

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>sounds like none of your business, and you should leave the guy alone.  he may not fully appreciate the JVM right now :), but that's no reason to prod someone about their personal life.</FONT>



  • @emptyset said:

    @Richard Nixon said:



    You use the type of language you've spouted to law-abiding citizens? That's even more shameful!

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">this sounds like something a libertarian would say.</font>

    <font face="Courier New" size="2"></font>@Richard Nixon said:



    It's not bad that you've calmed down - it is bad that you lost control so badly and were so rude to people. Honestly, if you get that excited and rude over some message board postings, I am concerned for the safety of your wife.

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">was that really called for?</font>

    @Richard Nixon said:



    I'm not familiar with "awefully", did you mean "awfully"?

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">exhibit b.</font>

    @Richard Nixon said:



    Now, how were those savings cleared out? You're expecting people to express sympathy for your predicament but how am I to do that if I don't know the full story behind why you became a credit risk? Write back soon!!

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">sounds like none of your business, and you should leave the guy alone.  he may not fully appreciate the JVM right now :), but that's no reason to prod someone about their personal life.</font>




    Bless your little heart!


  • I actually took the time to register so that I could respond
    to this thread.



    First of all I think that its funny that this thread has been active longer
    than you were unemployed.



    Second, I think that it is strange that no one brought up the most fundamental
    of points which is to explain how insurance works. All rates for any kind of
    insurance are based on the insurance company’s assessment of risk. There is an
    entire industry that provides data on which insurance companies base their
    rates. Actuaries are the individuals at the company that compile this
    information and determine the rate for a policy. As developers I'm sure that we
    all understand that this data is obviously statistical...it’s all based on
    probabilities given a predefined set of factors. There is no way that an
    insurance company can make decisions based on every individual and remain
    profitable. At some point they decided to use credit score as a factor in their
    calculations and it was obviously used in their calculation of your rate.



    Oh well, just my 2 cents.<o:p></o:p>



  • @Beck said:

    I actually took the time to register so that I could respond
    to this thread.

    Good for you. Glad to see you're putting your time to good use!


    First of all I think that its funny that this thread has been active longer than you were unemployed.

    Huh??!



    Second, I think that it is strange that no one brought up the most fundamental of points which is to explain how insurance works. All rates for any kind of insurance are based on the insurance company’s assessment of risk. There is an entire industry that provides data on which insurance companies base their rates. Actuaries are the individuals at the company that compile this information and determine the rate for a policy. As developers I'm sure that we all understand that this data is obviously statistical...it’s all based on probabilities given a predefined set of factors. There is no way that an insurance company can make decisions based on every individual and remain profitable. At some point they decided to use credit score as a factor in their calculations and it was obviously used in their calculation of your rate.


    Yes-- after I added my wife. Whose credit rating is quite different from  mine. Again, let me rehash: My ability to pay debts does not equal my ability to drive. Perhaps you missed that? After all, you thought this thread had been around for more than 8 months. This is automobile insurance, not credit insurance.

    If it were credit insurance, I could certainly understand doubling the rate. But, this was automobile insurance. The rate on my wife's car was doubled because I had bad credit. Does that make sense? Does that make her a worse risk? No. Because It makes no sense. Insurance companies make money hand-over-fist. Why should I allow myself to be subjected to arbitrary rate increases?




  • @Mike R said:

    @Beck said:

    I actually took the time to register so that I could respond
    to this thread.

    Good for you. Glad to see you're putting your time to good use!


    First of all I think that its funny that this thread has been active longer than you were unemployed.

    Huh??!



    Second, I think that it is strange that no one brought up the most fundamental of points which is to explain how insurance works. All rates for any kind of insurance are based on the insurance company’s assessment of risk. There is an entire industry that provides data on which insurance companies base their rates. Actuaries are the individuals at the company that compile this information and determine the rate for a policy. As developers I'm sure that we all understand that this data is obviously statistical...it’s all based on probabilities given a predefined set of factors. There is no way that an insurance company can make decisions based on every individual and remain profitable. At some point they decided to use credit score as a factor in their calculations and it was obviously used in their calculation of your rate.


    Yes-- after I added my wife. Whose credit rating is quite different from  mine. Again, let me rehash: My ability to pay debts does not equal my ability to drive. Perhaps you missed that? After all, you thought this thread had been around for more than 8 months. This is automobile insurance, not credit insurance.

    If it were credit insurance, I could certainly understand doubling the rate. But, this was automobile insurance. The rate on my wife's car was doubled because I had bad credit. Does that make sense? Does that make her a worse risk? No. Because It makes no sense. Insurance companies make money hand-over-fist. Why should I allow myself to be subjected to arbitrary rate increases?





    Don't mismanage your money and get bad credit in the first place.

    It's amazing how entitled you are acting. When you stopped paying your bills, you opened yourself to consequences. Learn a lesson from it and stop whining.


  • Again, like the insurance company I do not care about your
    personal circumstances. We don't care that you got laid off a few years ago,
    that your wife left you or that you favorite color is purple. Its about numbers...statistical
    data. All types of information is used to create this rate. You zip code, your
    age, your marital status, the type of car you drive, crime rates in your
    neighborhood, and yes amongst many other your credit rating. Based on the data
    there is a statistical probability that someone with a lower credit rating
    represents a higher risk to insure. If they were able to collect data that
    people whose favorite color was purple represented a greater risk to insure
    then there would be a favorite color box on the application form. It may seem arbitrary
    to the uneducated casual observer but I assure you it is based on extensive and
    sophisticated data models.



    It's a business, the purpose of business is to make money, hand-over-fist or
    otherwise. Your obligation as the consumer is to find the best value for your
    hard earned dollar. Think about all the money these guys will be shelling out
    down in the gulf coast this year…many of these companies will go out of
    business. But that’s how the industry works. You collect premiums and then pay
    out when you have to. <o:p></o:p>

    BTW: if you want to complain about something in the industry you should research some of the near-criminal claim handling practices of these low cost carriers.

    Sorry about the date reference, I misread the date on your "Joined on" as the date the message was posted.
    <o:p></o:p>



  • @Beck said:

    Again, like the insurance company I do not care about your
    personal circumstances. We don't care that you got laid off a few years ago,
    that your wife left you or that you favorite color is purple. Its about numbers...statistical
    data. All types of information is used to create this rate. You zip code, your
    age, your marital status, the type of car you drive, crime rates in your
    neighborhood, and yes amongst many other your credit rating. Based on the data
    there is a statistical probability that someone with a lower credit rating
    represents a higher risk to insure. If they were able to collect data that
    people whose favorite color was purple represented a greater risk to insure
    then there would be a favorite color box on the application form. It may seem arbitrary
    to the uneducated casual observer but I assure you it is based on extensive and
    sophisticated data models.



    It's a business, the purpose of business is to make money, hand-over-fist or
    otherwise. Your obligation as the consumer is to find the best value for your
    hard earned dollar. Think about all the money these guys will be shelling out
    down in the gulf coast this year…many of these companies will go out of
    business. But that’s how the industry works. You collect premiums and then pay
    out when you have to. <o:p></o:p>

    BTW: if you want to complain about something in the industry you should research some of the near-criminal claim handling practices of these low cost carriers.

    Sorry about the date reference, I misread the date on your "Joined on" as the date the message was posted.
    <o:p></o:p>



    The problem is: If this were the case, they would have raised the rates when my credit went south. What they did was they chose the most profitable set of numbers they could find, and applied it to the rate of the new driver. It had nothing to do with whether she's a higher risk. THAT is what I consider arbitrary. My history with the company meant nothing at that point. When I added her, there was NO REASON to run MY credit. I already had an established rate w. the company, and they couldn't legally change it. What they did was add that rate to the new addition to my policy, because, you see, they can legally charge a different rate on her (based on MY credit, not HER credit), what they did was find a loophole in the law that allows them to gouge customers, who would be otherwise locked-in, because changing companies would likely result in an EVEN HIGHER rate.

    You see how this game plays out? Thankfully, we waited until we had the policy declarations on hand, and were able to go with a different carrier.

    As far as I'm concerned, credit should have nothing to do with auto insurance, and you cannot convince me otherwise. Everyone knows statistics are completely bunk, and you'd have to be stupid to think otherwise. The rate on my wife's car was the same as the rate for a dangerous driver. I'm  very sorry, but my credit rating has nothing to do with either my or her ability to drive safely. Do you realise how insulting that is? Do you realise how insulting you and others sound? Its obvious why ins. companies do what they do, because no one gives a shit about what they do to consumers, becuase they're losers and deserve it.




  • <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I feel like there should be violin music playing when I read your posts.
    It’s not like there was a person sitting in their cubicle who couldn’t wait for
    you to add a car or make some other change to your policy so they could screw
    you. Some shlub operator typed the numbers into their little terminal emulator
    and the policy issuance system puked out a rate based on all of the factors that
    the company uses to asses its risk.<o:p></o:p>
    </font>

    <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I’m not sure what you mean by statistics being “bunk”. How the hell can you call an entire field of mathematics bunk? It’s math and like 2+2=4 and the fact that your are a dolt it is not subject to interpretation. It is impossible for it to be bunk. You can argue that the use of statistics is sometimes inappropriate but that is another subject. Statistical data is the only way for insurance companies to determine the risk of insuring anything. You may think that using someone’s credit rating as part of this calculation is unfair to you but I assure you that there is real data that supports the assumption that someone with poor credit represents a higher risk. In your case your credit rating may not increase the risk to insure you but then your underwriter can’t hang out with you for a couple years to make sure that is the case. They have to come up with a number based on some quantitative standards.<o:p></o:p></font>

    <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I know it’s kind of beside the main subject but when did one’s credit rating become such a integral part of their feeling of self worth? Why is it insulting that people are talking about your poor credit? I don’t think that it is just you because a lot of people seem to feel this way it’s just strange to me.<o:p></o:p></font>


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.