Reply from ACC

[cheshirecat]

had a reply to an email I sent quoting an outside stats expert.
Their own comments vary - now it's 16 times more likely!

See here -great on them replying though unless they have to

Dear Mr Hill



2010/11 ACC Levy Consultation



Thank you for your email in which you ask ACC to verify the accident statistics included in the organisation’s levy consultation media releases. You also refer to an article written by Associate Professor Charles Lamb from Lincoln University in which he states that “ACC and the Minister for ACC were basing the proposed increases on poor facts”. We provide the following response to points raised in this article and in your email.



· ACC is a no-fault scheme and this means that if you have an accident you will be covered by ACC regardless of whose fault it is. It does not mean that your potential for having an accident is not taken into account when levies are calculated. Motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to be involved in a road crash than any other road user, and they are far more likely to be seriously injured. That’s why their levies need to be higher. It’s like the work levy, e.g. a deep sea fisherman pays more than an office worker. This is the only fair way to spread the cost of ACC.



· Motor vehicle levies fund ACC cover for most injuries involving moving vehicle on public roads in New Zealand. Off-road accidents do not occur on public roads, therefore are not covered by the Motor Vehicle Account and are not included in the levy assessment for motorcycles. For example if you are a farmer and you have an accident on your farm bike you are covered by the work account; if you are a trail-bike rider and you have an accident you are covered by the non-work account. We know if accidents are on or off-road from the ACC claim form which asks very specific questions.



· The idea of cyclists paying an ACC levy has been raised. It would be difficult for ACC to do this as cyclists are not required to register their cycles so it could not be part of a registration fee; nor do they use fuel so it could not be a fuel levy; and there is nothing in the IPRC Act which allows ACC to levy cyclists.



· The $62 million figure that ACC was reported to have paid from the Motor Vehicle Account in the year ending 30 June 2008 represents the amount of money spent, in that year, on injured riders and pillion passengers of motorcycles for accidents that occurred from 1974 to 2008. It excludes the cost of acute care provided in hospitals and costs for claims that only require medical treatment.



· Injuries from motor vehicle crashes can be very serious and take, in some cases, many years to recover from. This is why there are still a few injuries that occurred in 1974 that still require support from ACC now.



· In the 2007/08 year ACC collected $12.3m from motorcyclists, which is comprised of $10.9 million from motorcycles and $1.4 million from mopeds.





You may be interested in reading the attached document which provides an overview of the Levy setting process for the Motor Vehicle Account. I also refer you to the Levy Consultation document which can be found at www.acc.co.nz/for-business/levy-consultation/index.htm.



Note that if you wish to make a submission it must be received at ACC by 5:00pm on 10 November 2009.





Yours sincerely





Keith McLea

General Manager, ACC Insurance



Attached

· Levy setting process for the Motor Vehicle Account

· Calculating the motorcycle levy – frequently asked questions

[rainman]

General Manager, ACC Insurance


Is that a subtle rebranding, or just their insurance division...?

[James Deuce]

I'm with him.

ACC Insurance? WTF?

Chesire, could you please forward that letter to as many opposition parties as possible, highlighting the "Insurance" in the signature?

[Marmoot]

· ACC is a no-fault scheme and this means that if you have an accident you will be covered by ACC regardless of whose fault it is. It does not mean that your potential for having an accident is not taken into account when levies are calculated. Motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to be involved in a road crash than any other road user, and they are far more likely to be seriously injured. That’s why their levies need to be higher. It’s like the work levy, e.g. a deep sea fisherman pays more than an office worker. This is the only fair way to spread the cost of ACC.



· Motor vehicle levies fund ACC cover for most injuries involving moving vehicle on public roads in New Zealand. Off-road accidents do not occur on public roads, therefore are not covered by the Motor Vehicle Account and are not included in the levy assessment for motorcycles. For example if you are a farmer and you have an accident on your farm bike you are covered by the work account; if you are a trail-bike rider and you have an accident you are covered by the non-work account. We know if accidents are on or off-road from the ACC claim form which asks very specific questions.



· The idea of cyclists paying an ACC levy has been raised. It would be difficult for ACC to do this as cyclists are not required to register their cycles so it could not be part of a registration fee; nor do they use fuel so it could not be a fuel levy; and there is nothing in the IPRC Act which allows ACC to levy cyclists.


I wouldn't have done it better. They have just contradicted themselves a few times in as little as 3 paragraphs. The conclusion: yes the levy is according to the policies but the policies are crap, broken and unfair.

[Ixion]

Is that a subtle rebranding, or just their insurance division...?

Rebranding. he's the dude who was on Closeup. He used to be Levy Manager , then his title got changed. h

[James Deuce]

Rebranding. he's the dude who was on Closeup. He used to be Levy Manager , then his title got changed. h

Is the rebrand public knowledge or are they leaking it deliberately or inadvertantly?

[Grahameeboy]

I would read this guys....

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524

To be honest I would prefer to pay more ACC levy to ensure that my riskier pastime means I get top treatment when I need it.

$700....and it will end up being less is less that $70 a month...I pay Southern Cross $70 a month and that covers less than what ACC covers which includes income protection.

Even allowing for petrol etc ACC is still a pretty good deal. Would you rather not have it and be like the UK and USA...

I agree that the increase is unfair..however, all the Govt are doing is going high knowing that some fuss will be made and it will be reduced...basic haggling which is what happens with all new Bills.

That's my levies worth



Cyclists pay ACC via cars, petrol and work and some have motorbikes so they have the same argument that Kbers put out so they are paying their dues....

[Grahameeboy]

I'm with him.

ACC Insurance? WTF?

Chesire, could you please forward that letter to as many opposition parties as possible, highlighting the "Insurance" in the signature?

Of course it's an insurance...

[James Deuce]

Of course it's an insurance...

It isn't and it never has been. Read the ACC Act Graham.

It's a Compensation scheme. It was never intended to be Insurance.

If you're going to stir at least back it up with knowledge instead of your blissed-out-Christian-she'll-be-right attitude.

[James Deuce]

I would read this guys....

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524

To be honest I would prefer to pay more ACC levy to ensure that my riskier pastime means I get top treatment when I need it.

$700....and it will end up being less is less that $70 a month...I pay Southern Cross $70 a month and that covers less than what ACC covers which includes income protection.

Even allowing for petrol etc ACC is still a pretty good deal. Would you rather not have it and be like the UK and USA...

I agree that the increase is unfair..however, all the Govt are doing is going high knowing that some fuss will be made and it will be reduced...basic haggling which is what happens with all new Bills.

That's my levies worth



Cyclists pay ACC via cars, petrol and work and some have motorbikes so they have the same argument that Kbers put out so they are paying their dues....

You have to be smoking crack if you think that raising ACC will improve the standard of medical care in NZ.

[Grahameeboy]

It isn't and it never has been. Read the ACC Act Graham.

It's a Compensation scheme. It was never intended to be Insurance.

If you're going to stir at least back it up with knowledge instead of your blissed-out-Christian-she'll-be-right attitude.

In essense it is the same as "Insurance" which is "Compensation"....it's all the same thing at the end of day...it's just a word issue...bit like the "Anti Smacking Law" that isn't callled that but you will claim is its...:yes:

Not taking a Christian view...I would say the same if I was not...looking at the big picture...

[cheshirecat]

I'm with him.

ACC Insurance? WTF?

Chesire, could you please forward that letter to as many opposition parties as possible, highlighting the "Insurance" in the signature?

will do

m

[Grahameeboy]

You have to be smoking crack if you think that raising ACC will improve the standard of medical care in NZ.

I suspect that medical care and advances are not linked to ACC...compared to the UK NZ's health care is pretty good and is also funded by the Govt, not just ACC. ACC pays for personal injury part which the hospitals invoice the ACC for...and are paid from the levies..

I guess it's a bit like Private treatment...

I had a sports injury in 2000..so a few years ago and received great treatment...no complaints...operated on within 3 hours...

Nats is having spinal surgery in 2 weeks...she is having a brace around her spine which grows with her...pretty good medical care if you ask me

[NONONO]

In essense it is the same as "Insurance" which is "Compensation"....it's all the same thing at the end of day...it's just a word issue...bit like the "Anti Smacking Law" that isn't callled that but you will claim is its...:yes:

Not taking a Christian view...I would say the same if I was not...looking at the big picture...

OHHH, For gods sake...
ACC and insurance schemes/scams are NOT the same!
You are some strange apologist type...
Let me put it into words from your own mouth..
Church and God, not the same...
ACC and insurance, not the same...
Whats the matter with you?
:angry2:

[spookytooth]

I would read this guys....

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524

To be honest I would prefer to pay more ACC levy to ensure that my riskier pastime means I get top treatment when I need it.

$700....and it will end up being less is less that $70 a month...I pay Southern Cross $70 a month and that covers less than what ACC covers which includes income protection.

Even allowing for petrol etc ACC is still a pretty good deal. Would you rather not have it and be like the UK and USA...

I agree that the increase is unfair..however, all the Govt are doing is going high knowing that some fuss will be made and it will be reduced...basic haggling which is what happens with all new Bills.

That's my levies worth



Cyclists pay ACC via cars, petrol and work and some have motorbikes so they have the same argument that Kbers put out so they are paying their dues....

and i have already payed over $5000.00 with another demand of $1000.00 to acc for the priverlage of working for myself, with out taking into acount acc on gas, car and bike rego I think i could get a resonable privet cover for that sort of coin

[Grahameeboy]

OHHH, For gods sake...
ACC and insurance schemes/scams are NOT the same!
You are some strange apologist type...
Let me put it into words from your own mouth..
Church and God, not the same...
ACC and insurance, not the same...
Whats the matter with you?
:angry2:

ACC provides an insurance when you get injured...compensation is a financial compensation to a person..i.e. they get money...

I am sure there are a few scams with ACC....

Church and God....I agree are not the same but they are linked...

I am fine thanks...

[scumdog]

ACC provides an insurance when you get injured...compensation is a financial compensation to a person..i.e. they get money...

I am sure there are a few scams with ACC....

Church and God....I agree are not the same but they are linked...

I am fine thanks...

It ain't ACI, it's ACC.....

[Grahameeboy]

and i have already payed over $5000.00 with another demand of $1000.00 to acc for the priverlage of working for myself, with out taking into acount acc on gas car and bike rego I think i could get a resonable privet cover for that sort of coin

To get the same cover provided by ACC would probably cost more via private if it was even available

Worst case scenario

Paraplegic

Mobility Van that you can drive $110,000
Wheelchair - :Oops:$15,000 plus upgrades over years as you get older
Housing mods, ramps etc. $50,000 at least

Loss of income $a lot

Find a private medical cover that covers all that...

[NONONO]

ACC provides an insurance when you get injured...compensation is a financial compensation to a person..i.e. they get money...

I am sure there are a few scams with ACC....

Church and God....I agree are not the same but they are linked...

I am fine thanks...

If I had a lion, I would throw you to it....

[Grahameeboy]

It ain't ACI, it's ACC.....

It aint the Anti Smacking Law either....ACC...it's just a chosen title but it amounts to the same thing.

It used to be Life Assurance but it's now Life Insurance..same thing still

[Grahameeboy]

If I had a lion, I would throw you to it....

Well at least I would be covered by ACC...

[NONONO]

Well at least I would be covered by ACC...

Nicely done...:innocent:

[Grahameeboy]

Nicely done...:innocent:

YesYesYes :sunny:

[scumdog]

Well at least I would be covered by ACC...


As a professional lion-fighter what is your ACC levy???:shutup:

[Grahameeboy]

As a professional lion-fighter what is your ACC levy???:shutup:

Do you mean after "Clawbacks"

[yachtie10]

It aint the Anti Smacking Law either....ACC...it's just a chosen title but it amounts to the same thing.

It used to be Life Assurance but it's now Life Insurance..same thing still

Dont think so

Life assurance is when you are guaranteed payout
Life insurance you only get paid if you die in the term of your contract

Dont agree that the levies are fair either as we are singled out because its easy.

[MorphingDragon]

Please send these letters to Target or Fair Go. :gob:

[kwaka_crasher]

The $62 million figure that ACC was reported to have paid from the Motor Vehicle Account in the year ending 30 June 2008 represents the amount of money spent, in that year, on injured riders and pillion passengers of motorcycles for accidents that occurred from 1974 to 2008. It excludes the cost of acute care provided in hospitals and costs for claims that only require medical treatment.

So it covers residual & ongoing claims too, not just new. Good.

But where does the funding for the costs of acute care and claims that only require medical treatment come from? And what is ACC funding if it's not those? :scratch:

[Ixion]

So it covers residual & ongoing claims too, not just new. Good.

But where does the funding for the costs of acute care and claims that only require medical treatment come from? And what is ACC funding if it's not those? :scratch:

ACC pays a lump sum to the hospitals to bulk fund their treatment of accident victims. But it's not broken down by person, too much work for the hospital system (not poking them , they're not set up to invoice on an individual case basis) .

[Grahameeboy]

Dont think so

Life assurance is when you are guaranteed payout
Life insurance you only get paid if you die in the term of your contract

Dont agree that the levies are fair either as we are singled out because its easy.

No it's called Life Insurance now....it used to be "Assurance" as you are assured of dieing and they changed it to Insurance....same thing because you are insuring for an event.

If you have an accident you are guaranteed of payment....

We are singled out because we are a higher risk...so in essence we actually single ourselves out....no different to Workplace levies....or say Commercial Insurance where you pay higher premiums if you are a higher risk...so that's the way it is and we are not singled out...

If you chose to ride a bike you are a higher risk...no argument...if you are say a self employed welder you will pay more for Public Liability insurance...

[yachtie10]

No it's called Life Insurance now....it used to be "Assurance" as you are assured of dieing and they changed it to Insurance....same thing because you are insuring for an event.

bollocks
I quote
"Insurance vs Assurance


The specific uses of the terms "insurance" and "assurance" are sometimes confused. In general, in these jurisdictions "insurance" refers to providing cover for an event that might happen (fire, theft, flood, etc.), while "assurance" is the provision of cover for an event that is certain to happen. "Insurance" is the generally accepted term, however, people using this description are liable to be corrected. In the United States both forms of coverage are called "insurance", principally due to many companies offering both types of policy, and rather than refer to themselves using both insurance and assurance titles, they instead use just one."


If you have an accident you are guaranteed of payment....

Huh? what is your point


We are singled out because we are a higher risk...so in essence we actually single ourselves out....no different to Workplace levies....or say Commercial Insurance where you pay higher premiums if you are a higher risk...so that's the way it is and we are not singled out...

If you chose to ride a bike you are a higher risk...no argument...if you are say a self employed welder you will pay more for Public Liability insurance...

My point is it is not even handed. Motorcyclists are being singled out because its easy to bill us. I'm not arguing we don't have higher costs. So do other groups but they are harder to bill.

[Grahameeboy]

bollocks
I quote
"Insurance vs Assurance


The specific uses of the terms "insurance" and "assurance" are sometimes confused. In general, in these jurisdictions "insurance" refers to providing cover for an event that might happen (fire, theft, flood, etc.), while "assurance" is the provision of cover for an event that is certain to happen. "Insurance" is the generally accepted term, however, people using this description are liable to be corrected. In the United States both forms of coverage are called "insurance", principally due to many companies offering both types of policy, and rather than refer to themselves using both insurance and assurance titles, they instead use just one."

That is what I said....


Huh? what is your point

That ACC pays out

My point is it is not even handed. Motorcyclists are being singled out because its easy to bill us. I'm not arguing we don't have higher costs. So do other groups but they are harder to bill.

So are high risk occupations, businesses....they pay more for Insurance etc....why do motorcyclists always claim they are singled out...

...................

[James Deuce]

Graham, FFS. The only Road Users singled out for ever increasing ACC levies are motorcyclists. ACC was never meant to have an account basis. The accounts were setup prior to the last round of attempted privatisation. Motorcycle registation is the only part of the motor vehicle account that can be have levies increased independently of any other ACC levy, EXCEPT for the hazardous occupations account that employers fund. Again, they shouldn't be paying more either. There's no need. ACC makes money, largely thanks to its investment team

If ACC is replaced by insurance Natalie will not be able to get Insurance cover and will not get anything like the care she gets now. 2 of my kids woul dbe uninsurable as well.

I'm not going to say again, because you're either trolling, unbelieveably dense, or blissfully incapable of understanding the implications of removing a no fault compensation scheme and replacing it with liability insurance.

ACC is not Insurance. It was never meant to be Insurance. It is ONLY the National Party and latterly ACT that have decided to present it as Insurance. The commission that created ACC went to great pains to create legislation that separated ACC from insurance.

Either get on board Graham or fuck off. Seriously.

[Mystic13]

I would read this guys....

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524

To be honest I would prefer to pay more ACC levy to ensure that my riskier pastime means I get top treatment when I need it.

$700....and it will end up being less is less that $70 a month...I pay Southern Cross $70 a month and that covers less than what ACC covers which includes income protection.

Even allowing for petrol etc ACC is still a pretty good deal. Would you rather not have it and be like the UK and USA...

I agree that the increase is unfair..however, all the Govt are doing is going high knowing that some fuss will be made and it will be reduced...basic haggling which is what happens with all new Bills.

That's my levies worth



Cyclists pay ACC via cars, petrol and work and some have motorbikes so they have the same argument that Kbers put out so they are paying their dues....

I think you're getting bogged down in detail and missing the big picture. ACC made a $1 Billion surplus last year. They want to create a fund that has some $23 Billion in it. They need a further $12 Billion. They want to get that in 5 years. So they propose a huge hike to do it. If they spread that out over 15 years then no increase is required. Why the need to create the surplus in such a short timeframe.

Beyond that there is much misquoted facts.

So I'm with BRONZ. The Motorcycle levy should be reduced to the same level as cars.

Further in excess off 99% of motorcycle riders own a car. So that means we're already paying twice.

If I was insured privately I'd be insured on my higher risk profile. ACC want to get me on my bike, then on my car and then on my other bikes. That is in no way fair. They need to be getting one premium from each person and the only way that you can do that is to tag it onto fuel. Then we pay proportionally for the time we're out on the road.

Of course Uncle Keith from ACC has already commented in his report on this. He noted that motorcycles use less fuel which gives them a discount and beyond that he thought motorcycls should pay a huge premium over cars forgetting that we already pay a huge premium by owning a car and bike.

There are so many miss-stated details and facts that you can get bogged down arguing the detail. Don't lose sight of the big picture. ACC does not have a problem, they don't need the money and Keith hates motorcyclists.

[Mystic13]

had a reply to an email I sent quoting an outside stats expert.
Their own comments vary - now it's 16 times more likely!



Right from their first release they've said 16 times more likely? There comments have been this figure consistently.

[Grahameeboy]

Graham, FFS. The only Road Users singled out for ever increasing ACC levies are motorcyclists. ACC was never meant to have an account basis. The accounts were setup prior to the last round of attempted privatisation. Motorcycle registation is the only part of the motor vehicle account that can be have levies increased independently of any other ACC levy, EXCEPT for the hazardous occupations account that employers fund. Again, they shouldn't be paying more either. There's no need. ACC makes money, largely thanks to its investment team

If ACC is replaced by insurance Natalie will not be able to get Insurance cover and will not get anything like the care she gets now. 2 of my kids woul dbe uninsurable as well.

The only constant is change...ACC started at one level and has evolved...that's what happens...

I agree that levies should be gained from petrol..user payers...however, in essence I don't mind paying more for my bike levies and it will probably end up being closer to $500 anyway which is not that bad...that is simply what I am saying

I'm not going to say again, because you're either trolling, unbelieveably dense, or blissfully incapable of understanding the implications of removing a no fault compensation scheme and replacing it with liability insurance.

ACC is not Insurance. It was never meant to be Insurance. It is ONLY the National Party and latterly ACT that have decided to present it as Insurance. The commission that created ACC went to great pains to create legislation that separated ACC from insurance.

Either get on board Graham or fuck off. Seriously.

I have not said remove ACC Jim..show where I have said this....I have just said it is a good thing...

The Insurance issues is just semantics...

As for Facts...Nats is not under ACC...leave that one with you?

I don't have to get on board Jim...I am allowed to see things the way I do...funny thing is that if I have got on board Nats would not have half the things she has now..some firsts in NZ...getting on board is safe...not my style.

And no I would fuck off (you should know better than that..lol).....do I tell you to do that....I express my view...we just see things different and you are allowing your "rage" to even get facts wrong like thinking Nats is under ACC...:bash:

[Grahameeboy]

I think you're getting bogged down in detail and missing the big picture. ACC made a $1 Billion surplus last year. They want to create a fund that has some $23 Billion in it. They need a further $12 Billion. They want to get that in 5 years. So they propose a huge hike to do it. If they spread that out over 15 years then no increase is required. Why the need to create the surplus in such a short timeframe.

Beyond that there is much misquoted facts.

So I'm with BRONZ. The Motorcycle levy should be reduced to the same level as cars.

Further in excess off 99% of motorcycle riders own a car. So that means we're already paying twice.

We will just have to see things differently

If I was insured privately I'd be insured on my higher risk profile. ACC want to get me on my bike, then on my car and then on my other bikes. That is in no way fair. They need to be getting one premium from each person and the only way that you can do that is to tag it onto fuel. Then we pay proportionally for the time we're out on the road.

Of course Uncle Keith from ACC has already commented in his report on this. He noted that motorcycles use less fuel which gives them a discount and beyond that he thought motorcycls should pay a huge premium over cars forgetting that we already pay a huge premium by owning a car and bike.

There are so many miss-stated details and facts that you can get bogged down arguing the detail. Don't lose sight of the big picture. ACC does not have a problem, they don't need the money and Keith hates motorcyclists.

We will just have to see things differently............