As I said: Fair warning

[James Deuce]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2952114/The-painful-bills-about-to-wallop-your-wallet

They're not here to discuss their findings or the application of regulatory change.

Running a vehicle is about to become very much more expensive. Couple this with Third Party Insurance becoming compulsory and very expensive in the near future and there will be a huge increase in unregistered, unwarranted, unlicensed, uninsured drivers.

[jrandom]

I guess we'll all just have to find better-paying work.

Or sell the kids for medical experiments.

I might start with the latter.

[Str8 Jacket]

I guess we'll all just have to find better-paying work.

Or sell the kids for medical experiments.

I might start with the latter.

OR, look for lower paid jobs so that we give them less...

[jrandom]

OR, look for lower paid jobs so that we give them less...

I was thinking of the fuel taxes and compulsory insurance costs.

[JimO]

what if you already have full cover insurance

[Trudes]

Or sell one of our bikes :crybaby:

[AllanB]

"This $4.8b loss will go down in New Zealand history as the biggest corporate loss of any entity, public or private, and is actually bigger than any deficit that the government has run collectively across all portfolios."

So it makes me wonder - just what the F were Labour doing for nine years - I only got tax increases and extra levies (ha ha a tax) from them during their reign. Bastards.

Looks like I'll be broke under National too! Lets see - a wee tax cut, followed by huge increases in ACC etc.

[jrandom]

what if you already have full cover insurance

Congratulations; it's about to get more expensive.

[riffer]

Hang on a minute.

What effect has the lowered ACC take due to large rises in unemployment had here?

If the economy picks up ACC income will go up too, won't it?

I bit short-sighted lifting the levy too high too fast I would have thought.

What do they do when ACC has a surplus in a couple of years?

Oh yeah, use it to cover the shortfall from all the uninsured, unregistered drivers crashing in their unroadworthy cars.

My bad. As you were.

[AllanB]

Insurances - pah don't start me.

Life insurance so if I die the family is covered
Medical insurance for the family, so if we get ill we won't die waiting for the public health system
Mortgage insurance so if I lose my job the family can remain in the house
Vehicle insurances
House & contents insurances
ACC (a form of insurance) from pay, petrol, rego etc
Income insurance so I can keep paying all the insurances I have if I lose my job!

[SS90]

This hasn't come from "out of the blue", obviously EVERY SINGLE minister has known about this for sometime.

For some reason, they chose NOW to inform us all of it.... I wonder why.

My guess is that is the pre-courser to announcing the compulsory 3rd party insurance we all knew was coming.

It reminds me of Winstons compulsory retirement savings plan that came and went oh so quickly.......

I recon in about ummm 10 years, the same will be said for our retirement savings (government super)

(SIGH) don't think it's tough in NZ though guys...... In Germany the income tax for an average worker is 42%, and they get taxed on inheritance,property value gains, etc.

Hang on a second..... there is a better way to get money when the country needs it, TAX PROPERTY GAINS.........

Sure, it will make a few unscrupulous property developers whine, but man, think about the Millions of dollars they are missing out on EACH MONTH in NZ, moreover, change the tax regs for property developers, for it is THEY who forced the values so artificially high in NZ, making purchasing a home all but a dream for most Kiwi's.

The only reason they TAX fuel so high is because we will still use it, no matter what the price.

The only way round it is to use public transport, or better still, cycle to work, forcing them to find another means to get money from the working class Kiwi.

Fat chance on the public transport!

[The Stranger]

So it makes me wonder - just what the F were Labour doing for nine years - I only got tax increases and extra levies (ha ha a tax) from them during their reign. Bastards.



I'll PM skyrider and short circuit. Can't wait for the response.

[CookMySock]

The only way to stop incurring this level of expenditure is to stop spending it.

The govt won't collect any more money - they will just reduce the number of contributors.

Steve

[Grahameeboy]

Mmmm...welcome to the rest of the world...

TPO Insurance should not be too expensive...it's not now and that is with insurance not being compulsory...with Insurance it means that Insurer's can recover money....

ACC is medical and income insurance rolled into into one...cost a whole lot more for private insurance.

[Grahameeboy]

The only way to stop incurring this level of expenditure is to stop spending it.

The govt won't collect any more money - they will just reduce the number of contributors.

Steve

Or penalise drunk drivers...

[Big Dave]

It's still less than I was paying in NSW 10 years ago.

[rosie631]

What a crock of shit. Just privatise the fucking thing. Anyone earning a decent wage and with more than one vehicle I reckon could at least get cheaper insurance privately. Or at least give everyone the option. Oh, but hang on, we have to prop up all the rugby players, skiers etc etc that don't pay any user related levies.

[sinned]

[I]"This $4.8b loss will go down in New Zealand history......

So it makes me wonder - just what the F were Labour doing for nine years - I only got tax increases and extra levies (ha ha a tax) from them during their reign. Bastards.

Off course they didn't know of this pending deficit - well officially anyway. A nice little present to leave the Nats and part of the plan to win in the future.

[Dave Lobster]

$4.8Billion deficit..

Doesn't the welfare system cost us all $7M a day?

My maths might be out by a decimal point.. but wouldn't it be easier to not pay out any benefit payments for seven days, and there'd be enough money in the kitty to clear the deficit.. and wage earnings (rather than benefit earnings) wouldn't be affected at all.

Edit.. just read all the story..


Labour's ACC spokesman David Parker said the situation was not as gloomy as the government was projecting. The ACC's liabilities and costs were increasing but it was also the country's biggest insurer, and the cost blow-out could not simply be blamed on poor management.

How the fuck would someone from liabour be able to recognise poor manangement??

[p.dath]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2952114/The-painful-bills-about-to-wallop-your-wallet

They're not here to discuss their findings or the application of regulatory change.

Running a vehicle is about to become very much more expensive. Couple this with Third Party Insurance becoming compulsory and very expensive in the near future and there will be a huge increase in unregistered, unwarranted, unlicensed, uninsured drivers.

We wont necessarily get a "huge increase" in unregistered, unwarranted, unlicensed, uninsured drivers.

Lets get strict with confiscating vehicles for those people who habitually operate a vehicle illegally.

We have no automatic right to have a licence to operate a vehicle on a public road.

[firefighter]

We have no automatic right to have a licence to operate a vehicle on a public road.

I fucken well do. Why? Becuase I pay for it.

I paid for my licences.

I pay rates, tax through my pay, tax through fruit and veges, tax through consummables, tax through petrol, tax through meat, tax through my registration, tax through my WOF.

That's just a few small areas where I pay tax.

Piss off with the "automatic right to have a licence to operate a vehicle on a PUBLIC ROAD" old hack statement.

I pay for the right. Who the fuck are you or anyone else who wanks this argument to tell me i'm privelidged to be able to do so?

[p.dath]

I fucken well do. Why? Becuase I pay for it.

I'll agree with you to the extent that a licence bestows upon the entity the ability to perform what is listed in the licence.

For vehicles your licence is initially granted by the Crown after an initial test for the use of the Crown's road. Your licence is granted for a period of ten years, upon which you pay an administration fee to renew your licence.

You don't pay any royalty for the use of the licence per-see, and the Crown can revoke your licence - for the use of the Crown's road.

The Crown has no obligation to re-new your licence, although it is common practice to do so.


Your "right" to a licence is really just the Crown continuing to allow you to use its road. If the Queen rang up the Governor General tomorrow and said you couldn't use the Queen's road again, that would be the end of it - licence or not.

[Ixion]

I'm afraid that your grasp of Constitutional Law is extremely deficient.

[p.dath]

I'm afraid that your grasp of Constitutional Law is extremely deficient.

I bow to your knowledge. :) Would you care to correct my errors so I may learn?

[James Deuce]

TPO Insurance should not be too expensive...it's not now and that is with insurance not being compulsory...with Insurance it means that Insurer's can recover money....



Because they have to compete in a very limited market. Given the choice between TP and no insurance, my gut feeling is that an awful lot of people skip insurance to buy a bigger intercooler.

As SOON as it is compulsory premiums will sky rocket. It's disingenuous to believe otherwise, ESPECIALLY if you work IN the Insurance industry.

[James Deuce]

We wont necessarily get a "huge increase" in unregistered, unwarranted, unlicensed, uninsured drivers.

Lets get strict with confiscating vehicles for those people who habitually operate a vehicle illegally.

We have no automatic right to have a licence to operate a vehicle on a public road.

How do you figure that? It will go against every trend recorded by the NZ "public" whenever legal compulsion has been presented. There are already a significant number of unwarranted, unlicensed, uninsured lower income folk driving on the road, citing expense as an excuse.

Vehicle confiscation does not punish the driver. It punishes the owner.

[James Deuce]

It's still less than I was paying in NSW 10 years ago.
Yes, and NZers on the whole still earn less than the average New South Welshman was earning 10 years ago.

[Skyryder]

Your "right" to a licence is really just the Crown continuing to allow you to use its road. If the Queen rang up the Governor General tomorrow and said you couldn't use the Queen's road again, that would be the end of it - licence or not.

You need to understand what a Constitutional Monachy is.

The last bloke who did not understand this got his chopped off.


Skyryder

[Brian d marge]

lets see
cost me a bundle to use me car
the health ain't free (anymore)
Me boss doesn't pay very well
cant afford a house or electricity
food has gone through the roof

but its a nice place to live ...wouldn't swap it for any other

mustn't grumble

Stephen :lol:

Iceland looking good right now ....

[Hitcher]

Governments shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entities that should be commercial, particularly banks and insurance companies. That's because politicians love to meddle, particularly with money that isn't theirs.

ACC should be privatised. It was briefly once before, just over 10 years ago. Oh how I rejoiced when my employer premiums fell. Then, in 1999, the Bloody Labour Gummint(TM) won an election and felt compelled to renationalise it all again, for no good reason either other than political dogma. Left-leaning parties are good at dogma.

[James Deuce]

We need more Catma.

Just saying.

[p.dath]

...
ACC should be privatised. It was briefly once before, just over 10 years ago. Oh how I rejoiced when my employer premiums fell. Then, in 1999, the Bloody Labour Gummint(TM) won an election and felt compelled to renationalise it all again, for no good reason either other than political dogma. Left-leaning parties are good at dogma.

Oh how I agree with you. I don't think I have ever heard anyone object to the notion of ACC being privatised. I can't imagine why the Labour Government stopped the brief change.

[p.dath]

How do you figure that? It will go against every trend recorded by the NZ "public" whenever legal compulsion has been presented. There are already a significant number of unwarranted, unlicensed, uninsured lower income folk driving on the road, citing expense as an excuse.

Vehicle confiscation does not punish the driver. It punishes the owner.

[duck for cover knowing a well reasoned response is about to follow from James]

I guess your referring to the prohibition of alcohol, and to the lesser extent the current legislation against personal cannabis use.

Your putting forward that a large number of people are close to the "line" where paying all the fees to use a vehicle on the road is "doable", versus crossing the line where they think "bugger it", enough is enough, and decide to stop paying and start using their vehicles illegally.

So the situation we are looking at is effectively taxing people off the road. The other situations, like prohibition or cannabis policy, used legislation to make it out right illegal. There was no choice of being able to comply and pay. So you were simply forced to conform, or break the law.

I would like to think that given a legal option, even at a price, that most road users would choose to take the legal option - even if they hated paying the extra.

[ManDownUnder]

I'll PM skyrider and short circuit. Can't wait for the response.

It was only realised during a National Govt reign... if they'd left it alone and opretended the loss wasn't there no-one would be asked to pay for it. Cullenomics 101.

... right up there with cullilingus... the act of getting one's mouth around such matters to make everything feel good while running the risk of slipping into deep shit

[Ixion]

Oh how I agree with you. I don't think I have ever heard anyone object to the notion of ACC being privatised. ..

Until now.

[p.dath]

Until now.

Why do you feel a public based ACC is better than having the option of private insurance?

[Skyryder]

The average worker will have to pay a 21 per cent increase in their ACC bill next year, rising from $658 a year to $799, ACC Minister Nick Smith said today.
Dr Smith blamed predicted cost increases of more than $4 billion between now and 2011 as ACC covers more accidents and pays more for care and compensation.
He said he had tried hard to ease the pain, but the average worker levy would increase from $1.40 to $1.70 per $100 earned from next April.
The employer and self-employed levy would rise from $1.26 to $1.31 per $100 of payroll.

From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10548370


The government could soften the blow for taxpayers by extending the date for the full funding of historic claims, which were due to come into effect in 2014.

From http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2952114/The-painful-bills-about-to-wallop-your-wallet


“Instead of hiking up prices until 2014 and then dropping them dramatically, it makes sense to smooth out the process and extend the deadline until 2019 - a process which will effectively halve the residual claims costs for the next five years,” Maryan Street said.
“The average employers’ levy is now $1.26 per $100 of liable earnings and this is also ACC’s proposed rate for next year. This would reduce to about $1.01 if the date was pushed out to 2019.

From http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00235.htm


Skyryder

[James Deuce]

I would like to think that given a legal option, even at a price, that most road users would choose to take the legal option - even if they hated paying the extra.

It's largely anecdotal, but I work with lads who buy Sti Imprezas and then don't insure them, simply because no one will, even TP - and laugh about doing a runner if they ever nobble someone. These are guys who earn above average money for their age, and they simply haven't been taught about their responsibility to other road users and don't accept that they are doing anything wrong.

Remember that these are intelligent kids, with decent qualifications. Above average you could say. Now have a think about some of the stupid shit the average person pulls from time to time. Half the population is dumber than that.

[Brian d marge]

Half the population is dumber than that.


Please tell me you are Joking

Please


please


Stephen

[Dave Lobster]

It's largely anecdotal, but I work with lads who buy Sti Imprezas and then don't insure tham, simply because no one will, even TP - and laugh about doing a runner if they ever nobble someone. These are guys who earn above average money for their age, and they simply haven't been taught about their responsibility to other road users and don't accept that they are doing anything wrong.

Remember that these are intelligent kids, with decent qualifications. Above average you could say. Now have a think about some of the stupid shit the average person pulls from time to time. Half the population is dumber than that.

It isn't 'just' those sort of clowns. I know middle aged people that ride quite powerful (expensive) bikes without insurance, and look at me as if I'm retarded because I wont. "Just ride carefully" is the answer I get..
Yeah, if only it was that simple to not be involved in a smash.

It's WAY over half.

[jono035]

Hang on a second..... there is a better way to get money when the country needs it, TAX PROPERTY GAINS.........

Sure, it will make a few unscrupulous property developers whine, but man, think about the Millions of dollars they are missing out on EACH MONTH in NZ, moreover, change the tax regs for property developers, for it is THEY who forced the values so artificially high in NZ, making purchasing a home all but a dream for most Kiwi's.

This is something I've been saying for the past 6-7 years. The problem is part of the kiwi dream appears to be owning a couple of rental properties to support yourself without actually having to do anything.

Property investment doesn't do squat all for the economy and it certainly doesn't make NZ more wealthy as a whole. It is wealth redistribution, plain and simple. Take from the poor and give to the rich. Extend the concept to its extreme and you end up with feudal England, rich landowners sitting fat and bored in their castles and serfs working their asses off to feed and house themselves...

[jono035]

It isn't 'just' those sort of clowns. I know middle aged people that ride quite powerful (expensive) bikes without insurance, and look at me as if I'm retarded because I wont. "Just ride carefully" is the answer I get..
Yeah, if only it was that simple to not be involved in a smash.

It's WAY over half.

Yeah, there are a few on here who I've seen using the whole 'every crash has a cause therefore learn to ride better and you won't cause a crash'...

Boggles my mind. I'm really not certain whether it is arrogance or lack of imagination...

On another note, doesn't anyone know which countries other than America lean so heavily on private insurance. There was an article I was reading recently which was talking about making public healthcare available for everyone.

I like to think that things like public health care are a sign of a more civilised nation. If we are having problems with ACC spending too much then we need to, as a nation, stop having less accidents or seriously look into what is causing them to run over budget. I'm sure everyone here has heard of people who are trumping up a minor injury and living off ACC payments. Starting with that and pruning the excess from there would surely be a better approach than scrapping it completely.

[jrandom]

'every crash has a cause therefore learn to ride better and you won't cause a crash'...

That statement is (almost) a truism.

Its fallacy lies in the fact that none of us are perfect.

Still worth striving for, though.

[rainman]

Just privatise the fucking thing.


ACC should be privatised....Left-leaning parties are good at dogma.

... no more so than those of the right, I'm afraid.


I don't think I have ever heard anyone object to the notion of ACC being privatised.

Serious question for those of you pro-privatisation:
A few years ago I stuffed my back up - sporting injury. Pretty much all the treatment (physio, surgery, drugs) for this so far has been from ACC - although my private disability insurance paid me while I was recovering from the surgery. It's likely I will need more work done on this as time goes by - ACC did the minimum possible (for good medical reasons). In fact I'm enjoying a course of physio for it at the moment.

I have spoken to Tower and SX and both confirm that they won't cover anything to do with my back, for any price. I can't see a way that privatising ACC would do anything but remove my cover completely or only provide cover at extortionate premiums. What am I missing?

What actual benefits (extra points for being non-knee-jerk-ideologically-pro-free-markets, 'cos, y'know, they're good and stuff; ditto for the government-small-enough-to-drown-in-bathtub crap) would privatising ACC bring?



“Instead of hiking up prices until 2014 and then dropping them dramatically, it makes sense to smooth out the process and extend the deadline until 2019 - a process which will effectively halve the residual claims costs for the next five years,” Maryan Street said.
“The average employers’ levy is now $1.26 per $100 of liable earnings and this is also ACC’s proposed rate for next year. This would reduce to about $1.01 if the date was pushed out to 2019.


Looks like Nick Smith is listening (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/10/12/1245cda3187d) to Labour. However I'll bet this will still mean large increases, particularly since John Judge is saying more than 10%.

From that article:

On Friday, ACC issued figures showing claim liabilities - that's the future cost of existing claims - have grown to $23.8 billion.

It has net assets of $11-billion - leaving a shortfall of $12.8 billion.

So, comparing the future liability to the present assets - yeah, that's honest accounting. Good on the media for picking that up, too - not. This has all the hallmarks of a manufactured crisis.


It's WAY over half.

What, more than 50% of NZ is above averagely stupid? Um... Ok, you probably have a point. :dodge:

[rainman]

So, comparing the future liability to the present assets - yeah, that's honest accounting. Good on the media for picking that up, too - not.

Pardon me quoting myself, but I take back my comments implying all of the media are useless - there is always Rod Oram (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/2262350/Rod-Oram-ACC-the-political-claims-and-the-reality). This is an article well worth reading for those that wish to cut through the spin and incompetence from the ACC minister.

The Nats are just trying to find more ways to sell off our stuff to their wealthy mates.

[p.dath]

...
Serious question for those of you pro-privatisation:
A few years ago I stuffed my back up - sporting injury. Pretty much all the treatment (physio, surgery, drugs) for this so far has been from ACC - although my private disability insurance paid me while I was recovering from the surgery. It's likely I will need more work done on this as time goes by - ACC did the minimum possible (for good medical reasons). In fact I'm enjoying a course of physio for it at the moment.

I have spoken to Tower and SX and both confirm that they won't cover anything to do with my back, for any price...

And I wouldn't expect them to in the current market. They can't compete with ACC - because you still have to insurance yourself with ACC no matter what.

Now if you could take that money you were paying ACC and instead pay it to another insurer, then suddenly a market will develop - based on competition. Some insurers will offer a better price, some will charge more but offer better services.

[Fatjim]

Governments shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entities that should be commercial, particularly banks and insurance companies. That's because politicians love to meddle, particularly with money that isn't theirs.

ACC should be privatised. It was briefly once before, just over 10 years ago. Oh how I rejoiced when my employer premiums fell. Then, in 1999, the Bloody Labour Gummint(TM) won an election and felt compelled to renationalise it all again, for no good reason either other than political dogma. Left-leaning parties are good at dogma.

Anything that is COMPULSORY to pay for, al a electricity, rates, taxes should be provided by the government. The overwhelming desire within the private sector to "maximise the shareholder value" does not mesh well with utilities and taxes.

Yes I know governments have a bad track record of running things. But just look at the the electrical sector, and Telecom. We have seen NZ systematically raped, end of story.

Power
We pay 20c a kW based on last years peak prices, despite the fact that

a. We were getting ripped off last year and
b. There wasn't a "power crsis" this year and therfor the wholesale rates didn't get anywhere near last years prices.

That 4.3b we where over charged just keeps growing, only its growing faster now because we're getting even more ripped off.

Telecommunications
We are still operating exchanges that were installed in the 80's. The wastage within our telecom sector is horrendous. Projects to replace the failing and unsupportable infrastructure keep getting shitcanned. I believe one major Telco is up to version 3.x of their residential VOIP service. Each version costing millions upon millions. Who's managed to get on that service?

You think governments are bad at running business's. Simple fact, nobody is. The only difference is the incompetence can't be uncovered with a ministerial review or a commission of inquiry.

[Clockwork]

Oh how I agree with you. I don't think I have ever heard anyone object to the notion of ACC being privatised. I can't imagine why the Labour Government stopped the brief change.


And I wouldn't expect them to in the current market. They can't compete with ACC - because you still have to insurance yourself with ACC no matter what.

Now if you could take that money you were paying ACC and instead pay it to another insurer, then suddenly a market will develop - based on competition. Some insurers will offer a better price, some will charge more but offer better services.


So they'll provide more for less and still deliver a profit for their shareholders? 'cus everything that operates in a market get cheaper, just ask Max Bradford!

[NighthawkNZ]

So they'll provide more for less and still deliver a profit for their shareholders? 'cus everything that operates in a market get cheaper, just ask Max Bradford!

Well for a start they won't just pay out willy nilly... you break any of your licence restrictions no pay out, you drink drive no pay out, speeding and have an accident no pay out, any criminal act no pay out and you hurt yourself no pay out...

You cause injuiry to some one else drunk drinking or through stupididy ie; speeding and loose of control you pay...

Hell I may get a no claim bonus having never made a ACC claim in my life... (it would have been cheaper for me to have put that money into a savings account "the what if day fund"... fuck I would be better off...

The first thing that needs to be fixed with ACC is the no fault system... take some responabiity for their actions and some may learn self control (I doubt but you never know), you make a fuck up you pay... cause I am sick of paying for every one elses fuck ups


"The underlying problem is that ACC has drifted from being a state insurer to a welfare provider."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2950551/Big-lift-in-ACC-levies-needed

[Clockwork]

I must admit, I don't know how this works in the real world but when someone needs medical assistance and they don't have money, insurance or they're just made responsible for their own fuck-ups, do they just leave 'em to bleed at the side of the road? If someone who earns less than me has an accident at work should they get less money spent on their treatment?

The fact is when it comes to this sort of situation and the "in it for the profit" boys bail out - we (ie society) are always left to pick up the cost anyway! And if the insurace company does meet the meet the cost we all get to pay bigger premiums instead.

[jono035]

I must admit, I don't know how this works in the real world but when someone needs medical assistance and they don't have money, insurance or they're just made responsible for their own fuck-ups, do they just leave 'em to bleed at the side of the road? If someone who earns less than me has an accident at work should they get less money spent on their treatment?

The fact is when it comes to this sort of situation and the "in it for the profit" boys bail out - we (ie society) are always left to pick up the cost anyway! And if the insurace company does meet the meet the cost we all get to pay bigger premiums instead.

In the states they treat people 'on the cheap' then leave them the bill I believe, basically leaving to indentured servitude. Sounds fun.


That statement is (almost) a truism.

Its fallacy lies in the fact that none of us are perfect.

Still worth striving for, though.

Definitely worth striving for! Not really a reason to assume that you will never ever have a crash..

[rainman]

Now if you could take that money you were paying ACC and instead pay it to another insurer, then suddenly a market will develop - based on competition. Some insurers will offer a better price, some will charge more but offer better services.

This, I believe, is the "just because it can happen it will happen" fallacy. Markets are good for some things, hopeless at others. (Financial markets are particularly broken, as an example). In general, the asymmetry of information intrinsic to healthcare makes it pretty unlikely that unregulated markets are a good solution to the health problem.

An example from another thing I care about: NZ provides bugger-all taxpayer-subsidised dental care. I am not bound to contribute to some insurance scheme to buy dental insurance in the same way I am for ACC. And yes, there is a market for dental services - but they are almost all farking expensive as measured against earnings. Is this a one-off market failure, or maybe just how healthcare markets work?



The first thing that needs to be fixed with ACC is the no fault system... take some responabiity for their actions and some may learn self control (I doubt but you never know), you make a fuck up you pay... cause I am sick of paying for every one elses fuck ups

So what happens when the person who fucks up can't pay? For themselves - or the victims of their idiocy? I'm thinking a drunk driver takes you out while you're out for a ride one day (hope not, of course, but it's a thought experiment). They're broke. Who pays for the lifetime of care that you will need?


The fact is when it comes to this sort of situation and the "in it for the profit" boys bail out - we (ie society) are always left to pick up the cost anyway! And if the insurace company does meet the meet the cost we all get to pay bigger premiums instead.

Well said.

[Skyryder]

Pardon me quoting myself, but I take back my comments implying all of the media are useless - there is always Rod Oram (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/2262350/Rod-Oram-ACC-the-political-claims-and-the-reality). This is an article well worth reading for those that wish to cut through the spin and incompetence from the ACC minister.

The Nats are just trying to find more ways to sell off our stuff to their wealthy mates.

From the article and for those with short attention spans and did not get to the end.

All the information in this column comes from widely available sources, including ACC's briefing to the incoming minister, dated November 2008.

So the government can only be taking its extreme line on ACC because it's panicking or politicking.

If it is the latter, it must have its sights set on sharply cutting ACC's services.



Skyryder

[Mikkel]

In capitalism man exploits man, in socialism it's the exact opposite.

[jono035]

Yeah, softening people up for scaling back ACC services would probably make more sense than coming straight out and saying 'hey everyone, bend over!'.

Means that anyone who opposes it can be shown to be in favour of further taxation, I guess...

[NighthawkNZ]

T
So what happens when the person who fucks up can't pay? For themselves - or the victims of their idiocy? I'm thinking a drunk driver takes you out while you're out for a ride one day (hope not, of course, but it's a thought experiment). They're broke. Who pays for the lifetime of care that you will need?

The rider would be covered by ACC, the drunk gets the Bill and has a life time of payments to make to ACC...

[jono035]

The rider would be covered by ACC, the drunk gets the Bill and has a life time of payments to make to ACC...

Where do you draw that 'at fault' line though? Person driving drunk? Tired? Using a cell phone? No current WOF? No current Rego?

One of the good things about the no-fault system is that you don't have these thin ephemeral lines to judge. This means you can be confident in the system and that it will be there for you when you need it.

[Clockwork]

The rider would be covered by ACC, the drunk gets the Bill and has a life time of payments to make to ACC...

And you think a private insurer will operate on that basis? Pay your medical bill and "hope" they will recoup their money from a lifetime of payments from a third party? Or do you propose this as a solution for after the private insurer has bailed out in which case, who funds the ACC meet your medical costs?

[Swoop]

and they simply haven't been taught about their responsibility to other road users and don't accept that they are doing anything wrong.
You work with a certain kiwibiker?

[NighthawkNZ]

Where do you draw that 'at fault' line though? Person driving drunk? Tired? Using a cell phone? No current WOF? No current Rego?

One of the good things about the no-fault system is that you don't have these thin ephemeral lines to judge. This means you can be confident in the system and that it will be there for you when you need it.

here is a good example of stupidity that we are paying for...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6196448/man-pinned-under-van-after-car-surfing/

ACC will cover the costs of any of his injuiries wil it not... but why should they

[p.dath]

So they'll provide more for less and still deliver a profit for their shareholders? 'cus everything that operates in a market get cheaper, just ask Max Bradford!

Yes, most definitely - some will provide more for less. And you want to know why?
Because they can target low risk individuals - just like insurance does now.

For example, if you want full car insurance now, are 18, you'll pay a lot than someone who is 30 with a clean record.
That's because these two different sectors have a different risk profile. And commercial profit orientated companies will adjust to this - to maximise their profit.

In the same way if ACC is privatised - those low risk individuals would pay less, and those high risk would pay more - as it should be.

[p.dath]

Anything that is COMPULSORY to pay for, al a electricity, rates, taxes should be provided by the government. The overwhelming desire within the private sector to "maximise the shareholder value" does not mesh well with utilities and taxes.
...

I'll agree - their are some cases of privatisation that haven't worked as well as the public would have liked.

But that does not mean anything that is compulsory to pay should be done by the Government.

Shall we abolish funeral parlours, and only allow Government ones - because we all have to pay when we die?

Shall we abolish private hospitals because when we urgently need medical treatment, and the public system can't supply it in a timely manner, and you have to pay for it? Or is it that reason private hospitals exist because the Government fails to provide a system that we have to pay for that does the job?
ps. Have had two relatives die waiting for treatment for cancer in public Hospitals. Both of them might be alive today if they had gone to a private hospital, but their misplaced faith in the public system resulted in their preventable deaths.


Shall I suggest that their exists both a need for public and private enterprise. At that in both cases their are good and bad examples of their success.

[slofox]

I heard a couple of people discussing this last week - these are people who provide Psychological services to "sensitive cases" on ACC.

Relevant bit is this: ACC's internal costs are EIGHT TIMES what they pay the therapists. EIGHT TIMES! In other words, 88% of the cost of providing sensitive case services is sucked up internally by ACC itself..

No wonder they got a friggin budget blowout...

[Grahameeboy]

Because they have to compete in a very limited market. Given the choice between TP and no insurance, my gut feeling is that an awful lot of people skip insurance to buy a bigger intercooler.

As SOON as it is compulsory premiums will sky rocket. It's disingenuous to believe otherwise, ESPECIALLY if you work IN the Insurance industry.

One problem for Insurer's is uninsured drivers so if Insurance is made compulsory then this will not be an issue so does not mean that premiums will sky rocket...

[Kickaha]

One problem for Insurer's is uninsured drivers so if Insurance is made compulsory then this will not be an issue so does not mean that premiums will sky rocket...

Would you like to put a wager on that?

[jono035]

here is a good example of stupidity that we are paying for...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6196448/man-pinned-under-van-after-car-surfing/

ACC will cover the costs of any of his injuiries wil it not... but why should they

Compared to what? If he had private health insurance then either it would come out of the pool of what other people had available or it would be on him.

Do you honestly think that he was likely to have thought 'oh, hey, I better not get on this van roof, if something happens to me then I'll have a massive medical bill!'? I doubt it. If people are going to do stupid shit like that anyway, then why go out of your way to try ruin someones life because of a bad call...

And none of that speaks to the issue of where you draw the line as to what is covered and what isn't, which I feel is the more important issue.

Edit: Also, what seems stupid and dangerous to you, may not seem so to others. There are many people who think that because you ride a motorcycle you're already either suicidal or mentally deficient... It is far too easy to condemn a nameless person to a life of crushing debt because of a stupid risk he took once, can you honestly say you've never done anything remotely like that? Would you feel the same if it was your brother, close friend or son who had been involved?

[James Deuce]

One problem for Insurer's is uninsured drivers so if Insurance is made compulsory then this will not be an issue so does not mean that premiums will sky rocket...
That would go against the experience of every country that has introduced compulsory TP insurance and then allowed private companies to compete for business.

I still don't understand what Mr Dath is getting at either. Some people won't be sold insurance because they are high risk. They'll still drive and they won't pay their fines.

[Brian d marge]

what will it take for Nz to get off its arse and say enough?

for years I have watched Joe plumber getting reamed , This latest round of reaming is going to smart a bit

I think NZ has been told to cut costs and rein in its Debt , do is looking at every possibility

Life is for enjoying , not beiing reamed by a enraged gorilla

Leave NZ , live in another country , My health care , dental , Glasses are cheap and easy to get

I when to the dentist the other day to get a filling done , try $20 for a check , clean and fill

Something s are a little expensive like Rego and WOF $ 550 for two years

oh and I only work for four hours a day , which leaves the rest of the day for the kids

Stay and do something about the reaming , or leave ....and the pain stops


Stephen

[Swoop]

Relevant bit is this: ACC's internal costs are EIGHT TIMES what they pay the therapists. EIGHT TIMES! In other words, 88% of the cost of providing sensitive case services is sucked up internally by ACC itself..

No wonder they got a friggin budget blowout...
No revelation there. I bet it is fairly standard for any gubbinment organisation. They do not live or operate in the real world, with the rest of us.
Remember that the number of public servant's bloated up over the last 9 years...

[Clockwork]

Yes, most definitely - some will provide more for less. And you want to know why?
Because they can target low risk individuals - just like insurance does now.

For example, if you want full car insurance now, are 18, you'll pay a lot than someone who is 30 with a clean record.
That's because these two different sectors have a different risk profile. And commercial profit orientated companies will adjust to this - to maximise their profit.

In the same way if ACC is privatised - those low risk individuals would pay less, and those high risk would pay more - as it should be.


If you take that approach to its logical end, everyone should self insure. ie just not have insurance at all, then we can all be solely responsible for funding our own lifestyles.


I'll agree - their are some cases of privatisation that haven't worked as well as the public would have liked.

But that does not mean anything that is compulsory to pay should be done by the Government.

Shall we abolish funeral parlours, and only allow Government ones - because we all have to pay when we die?

You think funeral parlours offer the consumer value for money!! Have you paid for a funeral lately?

[jono035]

No revelation there. I bet it is fairly standard for any gubbinment organisation. They do not live or operate in the real world, with the rest of us.
Remember that the number of public servant's bloated up over the last 9 years...

Yeah, but surely this means that we need to decrease the amount of beauracracy involved in the processes and institute enough transparency that it stays out, rather than saying 'well, that didn't work, lets privatise it!'...

Seems to me like another one of these situations where everyone thinks the answer is either black or white when the situation is actually a subtle shade of grey...

Maybe privatisation could work if it was regulated enough, maybe public could work if the beauracracy was kept in check...

[Genestho]

The no fault system needs reviewing and changed IMO.

Also, I bought shares in a company back in 2000, which I still have invested, last year or the year prior I noticed with interest that ACC bought 250 thousand units in this company.

Last years those units dived by more than half. (I'm too scared to see where they are at now!):crazy:
How much investing has been done and lost eh?

[Brian d marge]

I just realised

Posted on this site is a survey of Kiwi riders , and according to that survey, you are all over forty , have a house , and the kids are on the way out and have disposable income

you lot aint going to change a thing

Hurry up and pass on so I can move back and make it more livable

:mega:COME ON

do your bit for the better good of the country ,,,,

Stephen

:corn:

[SPman]

ACC fees...rant rant....fucking labour gubbmint...rant...foam...rave..Helen Clarke....privatise the only way....foam....rant....dribble............:angry2: :angry2:
bloated gubbmint companies....slaver....feckin labour .......foam.. pant.. howl......

It all sounds so boringly familiar...

Australian Insurance companies are looking to make $200m when National privatises the ACC - which is what their intention is and always has been. And they'll make the books look as bad as they can by whatever means they can to acheive this.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10561167&pnum=0 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&) link not working - text below

http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=910

It's still a better system than most around the world, but, what would I know......

[SPman]

Brian Fallow: ACC hostage to a changing world

NZ Herald Thursday Mar 12, 2009

For the Government to wrap legitimate concerns about slippage in ACC's performance in a whole lot of shrill scaremongering and scapegoating is gratuitous.
Indeed it is downright irresponsible when talking about the scheme to use terms like "insolvent" and "going down the gurgler" - even if the context is counterfactual - because there are people who depend on it to keep body and soul together and will do for the rest of their days.
The Accident Compensation Corporation is one of the largest financial organisations in the country with revenues and outgoings running into billions of dollars. Its finances are correspondingly complex.
Its actuaries, PricewaterhouseCoopers, estimate its liabilities as at next June 30 will be $21.9 billion, which is $2.6 billion higher than they thought they would be back in June last year.
Its reserve assets by contrast are around $10 billion and like other investors it is not immune to what has been happening on financial markets worldwide.
<script type="text/javascript" defer="true">var adDiv = document.getElementById('adSpace3');if (adDiv) { document.getElementById('adSpace3').innerHTML = document.getElementById('INVadSpace3').innerHTML;d ocument.getElementById('INVadSpace3').innerHTML = ''; }</script>

Its record as a fund manager is impressive, however. It managed a $187 million gain - yes, gain - for the six months to December 2008 and over the past 16 years it has outperformed its market benchmark indices by an average of 1.5 percentage points a year.
Nevertheless, ACC Minister Nick Smith said last week that if it were an insurance company it would be insolvent.
It is not a commercial insurer, of course, and most of the gap between its assets and its liabilities arises from the fact that it is only part-way through a process of transition from a pay-as-you-go scheme to a fully funded one.
As the law stands the scheme has to be fully funded by 2014.
ACC's briefing to the incoming minister last year notes that upward pressure on levies would be reduced if the date were pushed back to 2019, or if it were allowed to continue indefinitely as a partly funded scheme, with only new injuries fully funded.
Labour ACC spokesman David Parker has a private member's bill in the ballot to push the date out to 2019 and Nick Smith has indicated he supports that approach too. That will help.
Most of the recent increase in the fund's liabilities, however, has nothing to do with the way ACC is run.
Rather it reflects the parlous state of the world economy and the resulting steep drop in the discount rate, the assumed interest rate used to put a net present value on the scheme's future obligations.
As soon as an injury occurs the lifetime costs of that injury accrue. Conceptually the exercise of annually revaluing the liabilities is simple enough. It is to answer the question: how much money would you need to set aside in a bank account to cover the lifetime costs arising from existing injuries and the coming year's projected injuries?
In practice it is very demanding task. The answer depends on all sorts of things, including how many injuries occur, how much it costs to treat them, how long people stay on ACC and what happens to wages growth.
A key variable is interest rates. The lower rates are the larger the notional lump sum needed to fund the required cash outgoings will be. And lately they have dropped with a thud.
In the actuaries' latest estimate the steep drop in interest rates, all along the yield curve but especially at the short end, has alone added $1.6 billion to the liability - more than half the overall increase.
Together with other changes in economic assumptions, including the outlook for economic growth and wage inflation, it accounts for 71 per cent of the latest "blowout" in liabilities the politicians are wringing their hands over.
Given the prodigious sum governments around the world are borrowing it is a racing certainty interest rates will climb - and the seesaw effect on the net present
value of ACC liabilities will be downward.
It is also specious to assume that the current level of interest rates will continue when projecting the outlook for levies in the earners' account and conclude that they would need to treble to 4 per cent of gross wages by 2014. "There go your tax cuts!"
But fluctuations in the discount rate are only part of the blowout story.
Blow that political froth away and there is still some honest-to-goodness beer beneath.
The briefing to the incoming minister highlights three troubling trends.
One is in the number of claims. In the 2007-08 year claims rose 4 per cent when the population grew only 1 per cent.
In the case of workplace accidents alone the number of claims per million hours worked has increased by 15.6 per cent over the past four years, and is now at the same rate as Australia (where the trend has been declining).
Secondly the proportion of claimants who return to work has been trending down, from 93 per cent in 2001 to 87 per cent six years later.
And the combined effect of more claims and high rates of inflation in the health industry have pushed ACC's overall cost of medical treatment up an arresting 55 per cent in the three years to June 2008.
The Department of Labour's most recent quarterly report card on ACC says: "The three-month rehabilitation rate, return-to-work rate and long-term claims pool are continuing to show negative results, indicating clients are staying on the scheme longer, thus increasing outstanding liabilities, particularly weekly compensation."
But the board, in a letter to the minister objecting to being muzzled, argues that most of the $9.2 billion increase in the scheme's reported liabilities over the past three years was beyond its control.
In addition to the effect of lower interest rates ($1.45 billion) there was a $2.45 billion increase in the reported liability because of a change in accounting standards which required a higher risk margin.
"The underlying situation is not worse, it is just reported differently," now-ousted chairman Ross Wilson wrote.
Another $200 million was the result of court rulings (about asbestos) and legislative changes to increase the scheme's coverage, on top of $600 million in Cabinet-approved policy decisions.
"Of the total only 20 per cent is able to be influenced by the board through operational programmes and interventions," he said.
"The previous Government wanted to increase ACC benefits take-up and coverage. Now the new Government wants greater cost control."
The shift in focus is fair enough.
But ACC is a civilised and cost-effective approach to dealing with the injured. Why undermine confidence in the scheme, unless you plan to undermine the scheme itself?

[Skyryder]

At last someone (SPman) who knows what they are talking about.

Skyryder

[p.dath]

If you take that approach to its logical end, everyone should self insure. ie just not have insurance at all, then we can all be solely responsible for funding our own lifestyles.
...

If you have sufficient cash assets to be able to sustain the largest payout required then you should be able to self insure - just realise you stand to loose a lot.
Quite a few policies offer liability cover of $1m to $10m against third parties.

Even a lot of insurance companies don't take the whole risk on, and use larger foreign underwriters to cover them against large wide spread losses.

[Ixion]

Why do you feel a public based ACC is better than having the option of private insurance?

I think this question has largely been answered by others whilst I was shovelling shit.

But, to explicitly cover it:

Firstly, let us turn that question on its head. We have a multi billion dollar business , which generates its income from compulsory levies, delivered by an organisation that is (at least indirectly ) answerable to the people of New Zealand , which is obliged by law to comply with Government policy,and which is specifically tasked, by statute , with delivering universal and equitable coverage to all New Zealanders. You would turn that over to foreign corporations , who have no interest in anything other than maximising the amount they move off shore each year to their owners, and who demonstrably have the morals and ethics of a hyena. Why?

Now, let us, right at the beginning , explode the blithe myth of competition. Yeah, sure. Competition just like the fuel companies? Or the banks? Or the power companies ? There will be no competition, it is not in the nature of oligopolies. The insurance companies will gouge the prices up (remember, this is mandatory - you don't have the "I won't pay that" option), there being no practical limit on what they choose to charge.

At present insurance company premiums are not extortionate - not cheap or good value either but not stratospheric. That is ONLY because insurance is not compulsory. If they get too greedy people will just not bother. But ACC insurance IS compulsory. So , you must pay whatever the insurance company demands. And all the "opposition" :rofl: companies will demand just the same.

What will happen if ACC is privatised is exactly what happened last time. The insurance companies will move in, cherry pick the "fat" business (insuring office workers is pretty safe, how dangerous can a paper cut be): while leaving the "hard" business , where people really are likely to be injured either to the Gods or to a rump ACC. Which, landed with all the expensive cases, plus the back log of residual claims (like, the insurance companies will be picking up their share of that? Sure they will), will end up actually raising levies to more than they are at present.

Moreover: ACC at present is a universal insurer. Noone can be denied insurance.Bear in mind, we are not just talking motor vehicle insurance here. ACC also cover work injuries and "home" injuries. Once privatised that would go. Insurance companies are only interested in the low hanging fruit. Little old lady ? No way, too likely to slip in the shower. Invalid ? Forget it.
Disabled, oh dear me no.

Now, inability to obtain insurance in such cases will not mean "merely" being unable to drive or ride. It may mean not being able to work - you have insurance cover in your job through ACC. It may mean employers closing down.

Following from the fact that in a privatised environment there will be many people unable to obtain insurance, it inevitably follows that it will be necessary to return to those people the right to sue. Can't have it both ways. Welcome to the wonderful USA world of litigation. And watch things like doctors malpractice insurance premiums (which they'll need - most of the people they treat won't be able to get insurance) go into orbit.

Your example of hospitals is fallacious: every hospital is obliged by medical ethics (a word insurance companies do not understand) to offer treatment to any patient who can pay (assuming they have such treatment available). If I am sick or injured and am willing to pay I can turn up at a private hospital and ask to be treated. The hospital will not say "No go away we do not want to treat people like you, we do not think we will make a profit from you ". Or I can go to the public hospital (where I also pay, though not so much ) who are also obliged to treat me.

Ask yourself - would you ever expect to see the news headline : "Child dies in street after hospital refuse to treat her because they would not make a profit doing so" ? I think not. Yet that is exactly what the insurance companies want to do - and so much do we expect it that it would not even be newsworthy.


And finally: a mandatory requirement by the Crown should never be handed over to private enterprise. It is an abuse of the prerogative of the Crown, and a return to the practice of monopoly farming outlawed in the 17th century.

[Brian d marge]

And finally: a mandatory requirement by the Crown should never be handed over to private enterprise. It is an abuse of the prerogative of the Crown, and a return to the practice of monopoly farming outlawed in the 17th century.

Have Crafar farms gone under then ???


I wonder how far this ACC thing will go ..... Where is Mz Richardson when you need her , no, she was one who could get the party line though the hurdles thrown up by the common man

:corn: luckily popcorn is of a lower calorie

Stephen

[Ixion]

Have Crafar farms gone under then ???


..
Yes. Receivers appointed.

[davereid]

I think this question has largely been answered by others whilst I was shovelling shit.

A good arguement, well defendable.

But it is also fair to say that a lot of the current problem is a smokes and mirrors kind of situation.

ACC is now required to (start a program to) cover its future obligations, in the year it invoices.

So it has to charge every plumber, a premium that will cover all losses for all plumbers that occur in that year, as well as the consequential losses of all the accidents for all time.

So, in times of poor investment performance, ACC has to charge a lot more to ensure it has the money in the bank so to speak.

Secondly, the law of diminishing returns applies.

Say they double car rego.

Some will choose to drive unregistered, because lets be honest, you have to be pretty unlucky to be caught. And even then the fine is lower than the rego, and its easy as pie to get off.

Others will say "Gee, we have two cars, lets sell one."

This doesn't help ACC at all.

The single car will still be doing the same trips as two cars were previously doing, so ACC face exactly the same liability, but have halved income.

[Ixion]

Yes indeed. The huge "deficit" when analysed turns out to be mainly a matter of bean counters juggling the figures. Some of the "deficit" is simply that investments are paying less than in the boom (everyone's- ACC have done much better than most). A lot of it is because interest rates are now very low - and the beanies have "assumed" that these low interest rates will continue indefinitely - which means much more must be put in the kitty now to cover the future cost of the plumber's bad back .

The diminishing returns problems is not limited to the motor vehicle account. Put ACC levies up too much, and that plumber decides not to take on an apprentice or labourer - not worth it.

And everyone's wage packet gets smaller - because all workers pay (directly) a considerable sum each year for their ACC cover. More money to ACC, less in the pay packet, less to spend , gee I wonder why the recession is hanging on.

And a lot of ACC claims are funded directly from taxes 9the ones you and I pay). that old lady who slipped in the shower, f'instance. ACC levies for that account go up, taxes have to go up to pay for it (anyone still remember the tax cuts we were promised, BTW?). Higher taxes hello BIGGER recession.

Why should I pay higher taxes, on a reduced pay packet, to allow foreign corporations to make billion dollar profits? Which don't even stay in New Zealand ?b=

[jono035]

I really can't even be bothered thinking about this any more.

If ACC is privatised I think I'll just get out while the going is good and move somewhere that is civilised.

[Robert Taylor]

Yet another poisoned chalice inherited by the current Government. I have to wonder aloud on two points,

1) How many specialists / private companies etc that invoice to ACC have been milking the gravy train and hiking their charges for too long?

2) And heres a hot potatoe....sport is a discretionary activity. I wonder what percentage of claims are sporting injuries.

In a country of over 4 million can we afford such a liberal ACC system? And what sections of society are doing most to effectively subdisdise all of this nonsense?

[p.dath]

I really can't even be bothered thinking about this any more.

If ACC is privatised I think I'll just get out while the going is good and move somewhere that is civilised.

Like the USA? :)

[jono035]

Like the USA? :)

I said somewhere civilised :p

[Jonno.]

Opps. Delete wrong thread.

[StoneY]

But, to explicitly cover it:




Yep, you nailed that one mate :niceone:
Best synopsis of the why we should NOT go private I ever read

Ixion for PM

[Rayray401]

And they wonder so many NZers are leaving NZ. Another reason to get out, then come back to retire and eat off the government, then its another excuse for Winston to bitch on...

[jono035]

And they wonder so many NZers are leaving NZ. Another reason to get out, then come back to retire and eat off the government, then its another excuse for Winston to bitch on...

I'm confused, are you suggesting that people are leaving due to ACC or will leave due to possible privatisation?

[Rayray401]

I'm confused, are you suggesting that people are leaving due to ACC or will leave due to possible privatisation?

Bah, due to the increasing costs, ACC itself is a good thing. But in NZ its quite fail i think. ACC going private def not a good thing though.

[jono035]

Bah, due to the increasing costs, ACC itself is a good thing. But in NZ its quite fail i think. ACC going private def not a good thing though.

Ahh, I get ya. For me it has always been true that I would earn more money living overseas, so technically staying in NZ is the more expensive option anyway.

I like it here.

[Rayray401]

Ahh, I get ya. For me it has always been true that I would earn more money living overseas, so technically staying in NZ is the more expensive option anyway.

I like it here.

Yeah, depends on the type of lifestyle you're looking for. Environment here is the best, but to get rich? na..

[p.dath]

And they wonder so many NZers are leaving NZ. Another reason to get out, then come back to retire and eat off the government, then its another excuse for Winston to bitch on...

I think since the recession more NZ's have returned home than left. Seem to recall something about it on the news a while ago.

[twinkle]

What a crock of shit. Just privatise the fucking thing. Anyone earning a decent wage and with more than one vehicle I reckon could at least get cheaper insurance privately. Or at least give everyone the option. Oh, but hang on, we have to prop up all the rugby players, skiers etc etc that don't pay any user related levies.

I imagine private insurance would cover peoples recreational activities too, just the same as ACC does now?

[jono035]

I think since the recession more NZ's have returned home than left. Seem to recall something about it on the news a while ago.

Yeah, but a year or so of recession won't exactly make up for the last decade!

Also depends on whether it is the skilled workers returning or just people who have been travelling and now can't find basic unskilled jobs overseas...

[twinkle]

In a country of over 4 million can we afford such a liberal ACC system?

I'm not sure I see how economies of scale can be applied to healthcare.

[p.dath]

So lets say, wrongly or rightly, ACC scales back its insurance offering considerably. So lets pretend they are only going to cover you for a maximum of 30 days, and only if your injury is severe enough to require hospitalisation for 24 hours or longer.

Suddenly a crop of private insurers would step in, offering to provide cover beyond the 30 day limit, and for less serious injuries (like a broken arm).

Would you take up some kind of additional private accident insurance, or stick with the minimum cover provided by ACC - effectively deciding to "self insure" for those less severe medical requirements.

[pete376403]

I heard a couple of people discussing this last week - these are people who provide Psychological services to "sensitive cases" on ACC.

Relevant bit is this: ACC's internal costs are EIGHT TIMES what they pay the therapists. EIGHT TIMES! In other words, 88% of the cost of providing sensitive case services is sucked up internally by ACC itself..

No wonder they got a friggin budget blowout...
My employer does a bit of work for ACC. I worked on a job some time ago where around thirty or forty people were relocated from one building to another in Wellington, with all the folderol that goes with shifting desks, computers, rejigging phones, etc - all after hours of course. Reason for relocate - they were now reporting to a different manager. Would it not be quicker and cheaper to relocate the manager? Yes, but manager didn't want to loose his nice corner office with a view of the harbour. But it's alright, it's only money, and best of all it's someone elses money

[Brian d marge]

And they wonder so many NZers are leaving NZ. Another reason to get out, then come back to retire and eat off the government, then its another excuse for Winston to bitch on...

:doh: you have seen through my cunning plan, I might start paying into the Japanese scheme , then bugger off

Acc was and is affordable , yes some thing might have to be trimmed , stopped but its original conception was affordable and sustainable ,

It has been inherited by both parties and the ones who I feel have made the better changes are from Helen and her mates ,

Good luck you lot voted for the current regime...... you reap you sow

Carry on ! ( I m all right Jack )

Stephen

[pete376403]

2) And heres a hot potatoe....sport is a discretionary activity. I wonder what percentage of claims are sporting injuries.
Should you be asking that, given your income is largely derived from products and services used in dangerous sporting activities...?:crazy:

[p.dath]

I fucken well do. Why? Becuase I pay for it.

I paid for my licences.
...

A red blinger has just bought something to my attention.

Remember when we had lifetime licences? I bet you paid for one of those like most of us.
Just as the Government can give you something, it can just as easily take it away.

[Grahameeboy]

That would go against the experience of every country that has introduced compulsory TP insurance and then allowed private companies to compete for business.

I still don't understand what Mr Dath is getting at either. Some people won't be sold insurance because they are high risk. They'll still drive and they won't pay their fines.

Difference is that take UK you can claim for General Damages and since the seat belt law in the 80's, claims costs have gone up...average whiplash claim was GBP4000 when I left in 1998 plus loss of wages etc...

Same in States too.

NZ does not have to worry about those damages

[p.dath]

...
I still don't understand what Mr Dath is getting at either. Some people won't be sold insurance because they are high risk. They'll still drive and they won't pay their fines.

Sounds harsh - but if you can't find anyone who will sell you insurance at any price - then that's the market saying your too dangerous to be on the road.

And yeah, I do expect some recidivist offenders, especially recidivist drunk drivers, wont be able to get insurance.

And I know what your going to say. They'll drive anyway. As I've said before, keep confiscating the cars they are in.
They'll loose their car, their mates car, and anyone else's car who is foolish enough to let an uninsured driver use.
Soon they'll have no mates, and no further access to vehicles.

Hard lesson, but better than them killing people.

[pete376403]

Meanwhile, back at ACC..The number of ACC staff on salaries of more than $100,000 has increased by 67 to a total of 259.

Those earning more than $300,000 has doubled to 10.

And the chief executive has had a big pay rise, now taking home up to $560,000.

[James Deuce]

Sounds harsh - but if you can't find anyone who will sell you insurance at any price - then that's the market saying your too dangerous to be on the road.

And yeah, I do expect some recidivist offenders, especially recidivist drunk drivers, wont be able to get insurance.

And I know what your going to say. They'll drive anyway. As I've said before, keep confiscating the cars they are in.
They'll loose their car, their mates car, and anyone else's car who is foolish enough to let an uninsured driver use.
Soon they'll have no mates, and no further access to vehicles.

Hard lesson, but better than them killing people.

You're not getting it. It's not a harsh lesson at all. Recidivist drunk drivers can't get insurance now. It doesn't stop them. The car confiscation thing doesn't stop them either. It just disadvantages people who often have no idea that "X" even has their car because they lent it to someone completely different.

The UK has had compulsory Insurance for decades and it doesn't stop people driving without it even though they crush uninsured, untaxed cars there. They just go and buy another bomb and drive that until it gets crushed, and so on, and so on. In the meantime the overburded court system gets backed up with yet another petty "invented" crime whihc helps prevents a wider system from working at all.

Not having Insurance because the market says you can't have it, won't stop people driving or riding without it. You don't even need a licence to buy a vehicle in NZ.

The only people who are ever governed by a law are those who are burdened with a sense of civic duty, or those with something to lose if they don't comply with a particular aspect of a law. It's why the middle class is so enormous. We keep paying tax.

[p.dath]

Meanwhile, back at ACC..The number of ACC staff on salaries of more than $100,000 has increased by 67 to a total of 259.

Those earning more than $300,000 has doubled to 10.

And the chief executive has had a big pay rise, now taking home up to $560,000.

Is there a break down of what those people do?

I think ACC has done a stellar job of investing the money it has. And the only way to attract top fund managers is by paying them well. So I don't mind so much paying those people well. The more money they make ACC the less we pay.
Put it another way - lets say we spend $3 million on their wages, and they generate $100m of income. Great investment in staff.

If you consider ACC NZ's largest company - go compare the wages of the ACC CEO to that of the Telecom CEO ...

[Sketchy_Racer]

If ACC stopped paying out to all the fuck wits that see how long they can blatantly bludge the system, then it wouldn't lose so much.

My mind boggles as costs sky rockets, and pay levels certainly do not follow that trend, how the fuck are people expected to pay for everything? It's going to get to a point were the bills of living overcome the achievable amount of income and we will go from being very close to being a third world country, to the bottom of the pit.

ACC is a great idea, but the way they manage it is complete and utter crap.

I've been on it twice through injury now, and even being completely fit to work, the amount of effort I had to go through the first time to have them let me back at work was a nightmare! So much so I didn't bother the next time until they told me to go back to work. Unfortunately it is that attitude that is costing ACC so much, but they bring it on themselves.

ACC doesn't need more money to operate, it just needs to spend less!

[Rayray401]

If ACC stopped paying out to all the fuck wits that see how long they can blatantly bludge the system, then it wouldn't lose so much.

My mind boggles as costs sky rockets, and pay levels certainly do not follow that trend, how the fuck are people expected to pay for everything? It's going to get to a point were the bills of living overcome the achievable amount of income and we will go from being very close to being a third world country, to the bottom of the pit.

ACC is a great idea, but the way they manage it is complete and utter crap.

I've been on it twice through injury now, and even being completely fit to work, the amount of effort I had to go through the first time to have them let me back at work was a nightmare! So much so I didn't bother the next time until they told me to go back to work. Unfortunately it is that attitude that is costing ACC so much, but they bring it on themselves.

ACC doesn't need more money to operate, it just needs to spend less!

Well, NZ does have a fail management in money. The government's budget deficit is actually at the level of a third world country.

[p.dath]

You're not getting it. It's not a harsh lesson at all. Recidivist drunk drivers can't get insurance now. It doesn't stop them. The car confiscation thing doesn't stop them either. It just disadvantages people who often have no idea that "X" even has their car because they lent it to someone completely different.
...

Perhaps I am just naive. There are only so many people a recidivist driver knows who has a car. Once they have no more access to cars (through confiscation), I don't see how they can continue to drive.
And if you know you could loose a car through confiscation, you'd be dam careful who you lend it to.

Time for me to read some UK stats and see what has happened their.

[NighthawkNZ]

If ACC stopped paying out to all the fuck wits that see how long they can blatantly bludge the system, then it wouldn't lose so much.

...

ACC doesn't need more money to operate, it just needs to spend less!


Which is why I hate the no fault system...

[p.dath]

I've done some reading of the situation in the UK. It is believed 1 in 20 road users have no insurance.

The MPA (metropolitan police authority) published this report:
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/x-f/2008/080417/08/

They did a test of the policy, and confiscated uninsured vehicles in an area called Heston. Over 12 months 3,000 vehicles were removed from the road. Over that same period, crime fell by 30%.
The report goes on to mention numerous other benefits.

Now I know some of you aren't keen on Government statistics, because you have the view the statistics are created to support the Government's view.


But if you make it a legal requirement that you have to have insurance to use a vehicle on the road, and those high risk road users can't get insurance, and you take the vehicles off those high risk users who decide to use the road anyway, then I can't see how they can continue to remain on the road. And by their very defintion, high risk, it seems very reasonable that the roads will be safer without them.

[Swoop]

Once they have no more access to cars (through confiscation), I don't see how they can continue to drive.

They go to a car yard and buy another. Or,

They buy one second hand on tardme. Or,

They buy one privately. Or,

They steal one.

They don't care. Getting a car to drive is simple. They also do not care about any licence or fines.

They just DON'T care.

[p.dath]

They go to a car yard and buy another. Or,

They buy one second hand on tardme. Or,

They buy one privately. Or,

They steal one.

They don't care. Getting a car to drive is simple. They also do not care about any licence or fines.

They just DON'T care.

Unless they have an endless supply of cash, they can't just keep buying vehicles.

Stealing a car only works the first 30 or 40 times in NZ. Then they'll probably give you some time inside for 3 months. :)

[vifferman]

Then they'll probably give you some time inside for 3 months. :)
Send you to the University of Crime, for training in better car conversion techniques, at a cost of $80k/annum to you, me, him and her?

[jono035]

Send you to the University of Crime, for training in better car conversion techniques, at a cost of $80k/annum to you, me, him and her?

Ssshhhh, making people criminals and then locking them up is always the answer to everything.

[vifferman]

Ssshhhh, making people criminals and then locking them up is always the answer to everything.
Not.

Refer to Dr Deuce's signature for the answer to everything.

[jono035]

Not.

Refer to Dr Deuce's signature for the answer to everything.

A motorcycle in an explosion? I can see it being an answer to many things at least...

[vifferman]

A motorcycle in an explosion? I can see it being an answer to many things at least...
True, true... but you've missed the point!
The Dr Deuce Ultimate Solution is "Burn them!"

[jono035]

True, true... but you've missed the point!
The Dr Deuce Ultimate Solution is "Burn them!"

Ahhh, I'm with ya now. Agreed.

[davereid]

Unless they have an endless supply of cash, they can't just keep buying vehicles.

Actually they can.

I drive every single day, and it has been years since I have been stopped by a cop randomly, or at a random checkpoint.

If I had been riding or driving an unregistered vehicle I would have gotten away with it, all that time, saving (potentially) $500 per year in rego or compulsory insurance, and another $100 in wofs.

That actually makes it more economic than paying the rego and thrird party insurance !.

And if its an old shitter, the local towie wont take it, as he knows he will be stuck with it, as the owner will find it easier to buy a new shitter than collect the old one.

[jono035]

Yeah, the availability of cheap vehicles shouldn't be underestimated, especially if you don't need a vehicle that is able to be rego'd/WOF'd...

[p.dath]

Actually they can.

I drive every single day, and it has been years since I have been stopped by a cop randomly, or at a random checkpoint.

If I had been riding or driving an unregistered vehicle I would have gotten away with it, all that time, saving (potentially) $500 per year in rego or compulsory insurance, and another $100 in wofs.

That actually makes it more economic than paying the rego and thrird party insurance !.

And if its an old shitter, the local towie wont take it, as he knows he will be stuck with it, as the owner will find it easier to buy a new shitter than collect the old one.

By chance, do you drive in a normally and safe manner?

As opposed to a drunk who can't keep between the lanes, or a boy racer who does 100+ km/h in a quiet 50km/h street?

I think you'll find those recidivist offenders are much easier to spot that you think.

[Dave Lobster]

I think you'll find those recidivist offenders are much easier to spot that you think.

Even when not going fast, you can still spot them with their hoods up and their wanker lights on.

[Brian d marge]

Actually they can.

I drive every single day, and it has been years since I have been stopped by a cop randomly, or at a random checkpoint.

If I had been riding or driving an unregistered vehicle I would have gotten away with it, all that time, saving (potentially) $500 per year in rego or compulsory insurance, and another $100 in wofs.

That actually makes it more economic than paying the rego and third party insurance !.

And if its an old shitter, the local towie wont take it, as he knows he will be stuck with it, as the owner will find it easier to buy a new shitter than collect the old one.

So for daily use

old shitter ( bike or car ) and just take the fine(s)

for Sunday ,,, a real nice vehicle rego for the day !

Sod it who cares !

Stephen

oh by the way ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,