Crying shame. VHI should be carved up, and carved up now. This is simply the most outrageous thing I have come across. Completely off what we have been trying to achieve as a nation. Vivas will no doubt have to take some remedial action too, in order to minimise their risk/losses.
Thanks Simon.
As well as the hypocrisy of on the one hand advocating a free market while on the other bailing out a semi-state through penalising a rival, it shouldn’t be forgotten that this has put 300 jobs on the line in Fermoy. Way to go Mary. Merry Christmas to you.
Risk-Equalisation is a farce. To compel a company to subsidise it’s competitors is the height of nonsense and possibly a breach of the EU Treaty. If applied to the motor-insurance sector it would have compelled insurers with a less risky subscriber base e.g. the old, to pay R.E. payments to those with younger drivers which illustrates how risible it is. Comparisons have been made with Australian R.E. but it’s not comparing like with like - the regime is far less honorous there with only the costs of over-65’s being taken account of in determining payments. One ray of light - Martin O’Rourke on the radio didn’t seem to rule out staying in the market if the govt agreed to a fairer form of R.E. I think Bertie and Mary should think this through carefully particularly with 450,000 angry BUPA subscribers with votes. Separately I back the breakup of the inefficient, rip-off monolith that is VHI, but I’m already hearing the AMICUS union is pledging to resist a breakup. Will Bertie surrender to the unions as usual, or act in the best interests of the consumer - which needs a breakup to retain competition and prevent an even more oppressive monopoly being foisted on us? Personally I stayed with VHI only because I saw BUPAgate coming down the tracks.
“Risk-Equalisation is a farce. To compel a company to subsidise it’s competitors is the height of nonsense and possibly a breach of the EU Treaty. If applied to the motor-insurance sector it would have compelled insurers with a less risky subscriber base e.g. the old, to pay R.E. payments to those with younger drivers which illustrates how risible it is. “
Actually that only shows how risible your argument is - there is no community rating in the car insurance market. Younger drivers and other high-risk categories already pay more than lower risk drivers.
Irish Parties looking at learning online and database lessons from Obama could do worse than bear this post in mind. Almost as soon as the election is over, improvements and evolution are making some parts redundant and others essential. Get your campaign an i-phone for everyone? Might be better than printing flyers, it goes to show how parties, if they take it seriously, need to keep ahead of the wave - not just follow.
Dan Sullivan gets himself into The Sunday Times, calling for the internet to connect citizens to a more meaningful democracy. Its an argument I agree with wholeheartedly myself. Have a read and let him know what you think.
Colm Burke MEP reckons that we need to get honest and tell people we will be holding a second Lisbon Vote in Oct 2009 with protocols desigend to secure a yes vote.
Crying shame. VHI should be carved up, and carved up now. This is simply the most outrageous thing I have come across. Completely off what we have been trying to achieve as a nation. Vivas will no doubt have to take some remedial action too, in order to minimise their risk/losses.
Thanks Simon.
As well as the hypocrisy of on the one hand advocating a free market while on the other bailing out a semi-state through penalising a rival, it shouldn’t be forgotten that this has put 300 jobs on the line in Fermoy. Way to go Mary. Merry Christmas to you.
Risk-Equalisation is a farce. To compel a company to subsidise it’s competitors is the height of nonsense and possibly a breach of the EU Treaty. If applied to the motor-insurance sector it would have compelled insurers with a less risky subscriber base e.g. the old, to pay R.E. payments to those with younger drivers which illustrates how risible it is. Comparisons have been made with Australian R.E. but it’s not comparing like with like - the regime is far less honorous there with only the costs of over-65’s being taken account of in determining payments. One ray of light - Martin O’Rourke on the radio didn’t seem to rule out staying in the market if the govt agreed to a fairer form of R.E. I think Bertie and Mary should think this through carefully particularly with 450,000 angry BUPA subscribers with votes. Separately I back the breakup of the inefficient, rip-off monolith that is VHI, but I’m already hearing the AMICUS union is pledging to resist a breakup. Will Bertie surrender to the unions as usual, or act in the best interests of the consumer - which needs a breakup to retain competition and prevent an even more oppressive monopoly being foisted on us? Personally I stayed with VHI only because I saw BUPAgate coming down the tracks.
“Risk-Equalisation is a farce. To compel a company to subsidise it’s competitors is the height of nonsense and possibly a breach of the EU Treaty. If applied to the motor-insurance sector it would have compelled insurers with a less risky subscriber base e.g. the old, to pay R.E. payments to those with younger drivers which illustrates how risible it is. “
Actually that only shows how risible your argument is - there is no community rating in the car insurance market. Younger drivers and other high-risk categories already pay more than lower risk drivers.