Thanks Ben for the thorough writeup. I've led scrutineering at a few counts and while the initial counts by agency staff can have errors, these do get fixed and the AEC staff really do their best to enfranchise votes. Very sad to see votes go informal for mistakes or messy handwriting.. e.g. elderly

was great to have this today. great format. needed.

I need to know more about the tea. Sugar? What milk?? How strong???

6. Insurers have continued this practice since our report. Yes, costs are up. Yes, risk rating is hard. But insurance companies should be transparent about their increases. Especially when your product is subsidised to $7 billion a year.

Our Feb report:
www.choice.com.au/money/insura...

5. As the Ombudsman notes, this impact restricts consumer choice as a consumer which may want to move funds will have to pay much higher prices. Consumers unhappy with their existing fund may feel compelled to stay 'loyal' as once they leave that old policy they can't come back.

4. Some of these increases were absurd: the Ombudsman found in one example a 21% price increase in the 'new' compared to the previous policy. These are not immediately reflected in the annual premium approval process on which the rebate % is determined. This is a giant loophole.

3. Insurers are restricted to increasing the prices of existing policies once a year in an approval process with the government, however this phoenix practice allows insurers to double-dip the price increases for new customers.

2. The phoenix practice is simple: insurers can close off an existing product and the next day introduce a 'new' product which is virtually identical with a new name and a much higher premium.

I vibechecked my Roman Empire today: here's 5 things it taught me about Ohio B2B sales.