If I am to pay $750 in ACC/rego fee for my bike I want the fright to sue!

[Conquiztador]

Ooopss.. "Right To Sue" that was supposed to say... As you were.

What ACC was set up to do is being eroded. It is now becoming a "User Pay" scheme. This is not new, as employers already pay higher ACC fees if the occupation is considered a "high risk" one by ACC. But now it is taken to new levels. Bikers have been singled out as a group who is costing more therefore they should pay more, is the logic.

So what is next? Using "statistics" to break each group down in to smaller bits? Make of bike will matter, model will also matter, and year of manufacture will determine what you pay. Next we pay based on tyre choice, mufflers, mirrors we choose? Then comes where the bike is registered. And whatever else can be used to separate us to show statistically who is costing more.

Fine I say. I then have a choice to select a bike and a place of registration based on my purse.

BUT if this is where it is going it is not ACC anymore. It is "User Pay" insurance scheme that is run as a business.

And I therefore consider the ACC as it was instigated defunct.

So now I want the right to sue the bastard who caused me to crash! I take him/her to the cleaners and he/she will pay until he/she dies! Because I fuckin get them. And if they hurt my kids by their actions in an accident I will make it my sole purpose to make their life a misery!

I think that was part of why ACC was put in place, to cover all and everyone without any separation based on who you were.

That is now gone.

[rainman]

So now I want the right to sue the bastard who caused me to crash!

Yeah, because that arrangement works really well in other countries, doesn't it. Don't be an arse.

[duckonin]

Ooopss.. "Right To Sue" that was supposed to say... As you were.

What ACC was set up to do is being eroded. It is now becoming a "User Pay" scheme. This is not new, as employers already pay higher ACC fees if the occupation is considered a "high risk" one by ACC. But now it is taken to new levels. Bikers have been singled out as a group who is costing more therefore they should pay more, is the logic.

So what is next? Using "statistics" to break each group down in to smaller bits? Make of bike will matter, model will also matter, and year of manufacture will determine what you pay. Next we pay based on tyre choice, mufflers, mirrors we choose? Then comes where the bike is registered. And whatever else can be used to separate us to show statistically who is costing more.

Fine I say. I then have a choice to select a bike and a place of registration based on my purse.

BUT if this is where it is going it is not ACC anymore. It is "User Pay" insurance scheme that is run as a business.

And I therefore consider the ACC as it was instigated defunct.

So now I want the right to sue the bastard who caused me to crash! I take him/her to the cleaners and he/she will pay until he/she dies! Because I fuckin get them. And if they hurt my kids by their actions in an accident I will make it my sole purpose to make their life a misery!

I think that was part of why ACC was put in place, to cover all and everyone without any separation based on who you were.

That is now gone.

Yep 100% +10

[Naki Rat]

Having seen first hand what the liability i ndustry has done in North America to insurance premiums, medical costs and people's mindsets in terms of relating to your fellow humans, you do NOT want to go there :no:

[Mully]

Having seen first hand what the liability i ndustry has done in North America to insurance premiums, medical costs and people's mindsets in terms of relating to your fellow humans, you do NOT want to go there :no:

Exactly.

Everybody will have to hold liability insurance as well. Or declare bankruptcy every time they have an at fault crash.

[AD345]

Yeah, because that arrangement works really well in other countries, doesn't it. Don't be an arse.


Having seen first hand what the liability i ndustry has done in North America to insurance premiums, medical costs and people's mindsets in terms of relating to your fellow humans, you do NOT want to go there :no:


Exactly.

Everybody will have to hold liability insurance as well. Or declare bankruptcy every time they have an at fault crash.

I think you guys might be missing C's point.

You caint have some parts of the populace being treated differently to others and still call it a universal scheme.

If it AINT a universal scheme therefore then the compact under which it was first set up has been broken and we should get our rights back that we gave away.

I don't think anyone really want a litigous system but C is right in pointing out that the damned govt. is seriously trying to have its cake and eat it too.

[Conquiztador]

I think you guys might be missing C's point.

You caint have some parts of the populace being treated differently to others and still call it a universal scheme.

If it AINT a universal scheme therefore then the compact under which it was first set up has been broken and we should get our rights back that we gave away.

I don't think anyone really want a litigous system but C is right in pointing out that the damned govt. is seriously trying to have its cake and eat it too.

I knew there was intelligent lifeform still around.

[Winston001]

I think you guys might be missing C's point.

You caint have some parts of the populace being treated differently to others and still call it a universal scheme.

.

Mmmmm......so what do you call "Working For Families Tax Credits"?? A person with 1/2/3 etc children gets a payment and effectively pays no tax. Their neighbour, same age, same job, but no child pays the full whack of tax. How is that fair? Why should one person be treated so differently to another?

People disabled by sickness (spina bifida, motor-neuron disease) get taxpayer support often while not being able to earn any income. Why should you pay for that?

[Conquiztador]

People disabled by sickness (spina bifida, motor-neuron disease) get taxpayer support often while not being able to earn any income. Why should you pay for that?

Yep. I agree with you. They should sort them selves. After all they decided that they wanted that illness. In the 1940's the Germans knew how to fix this issue. Gass anyone who was not able bodied.

Or perhaps the Indian way is what we should have here? Put them on the street corners with their hat out? If nobody gives them any bread they deserve to die.

[Motu]

Did you see TV1 news tonight Pete? At the Auckland protest there is some guy with a purple beard,his brother,his son....and the back of my head.I've just had to do a mercy dash tonight to get one of them going in my town...faulty alt wiring and flat batt.

[rainman]

I think you guys might be missing C's point.


I think you're missing mine: which is that a litigious system is the wrong answer, regardless.


You caint have some parts of the populace being treated differently to others and still call it a universal scheme.

Well, you can extend the same cover to all and still call it universal. Universal doesn't mean that the levies all have to be the same - they haven't been for some time. Different industries pay different rates, based on likelihood of injury.

The "ACC problem" needs to be fixed mainly by dealing to Nick Smith's reflexive approach pro privatisation, tidying up some of the minor inconsistencies regarding what's covered, and addressing the extortionate rates charged by the providers. The last one is the hardest, but would make the biggest difference.

Ordinary folk won't get better or cheaper service with a privatised ACC, nor with a scheme where everyone sues everyone else.

[Conquiztador]

I think you're missing mine: which is that a litigious system is the wrong answer, regardless.



Well, you can extend the same cover to all and still call it universal. Universal doesn't mean that the levies all have to be the same - they haven't been for some time. Different industries pay different rates, based on likelihood of injury.

The "ACC problem" needs to be fixed mainly by dealing to Nick Smith's reflexive approach pro privatisation, tidying up some of the minor inconsistencies regarding what's covered, and addressing the extortionate rates charged by the providers. The last one is the hardest, but would make the biggest difference.

Ordinary folk won't get better or cheaper service with a privatised ACC, nor with a scheme where everyone sues everyone else.

Fuck Nick, you are too obvious...

[Conquiztador]

Did you see TV1 news tonight Pete? At the Auckland protest there is some guy with a purple beard,his brother,his son....and the back of my head.I've just had to do a mercy dash tonight to get one of them going in my town...faulty alt wiring and flat batt.

Is there a link?

[Motu]

I had to use Explorer to make it work.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bikers-protest-planned-acc-rises-3104716/video

[Conquiztador]

I had to use Explorer to make it work.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bikers-protest-planned-acc-rises-3104716/video

Cheers. But cant see anyone with a purple beard. And nobody looking like you...

[JimO]

it was a light purple and wasnt on long

[Motu]

Cheers. But cant see anyone with a purple beard.

He's wearing a floppy black hillbilly felt hat....about 3/4 of the way through.

[slowpoke]

So now I want the right to sue the bastard who caused me to crash! I take him/her to the cleaners and he/she will pay until he/she dies! Because I fuckin get them. And if they hurt my kids by their actions in an accident I will make it my sole purpose to make their life a misery!



Yeah, and also open yourself to be sued. Catch that mirror when you are lane splitting, someone claims their kid is now too terrified to ride in a car and there goes your house. Nice vision mate......not.

[mctshirt]

So now I want the right to sue the bastard who caused me to crash! I take him/her to the cleaners and he/she will pay until he/she dies! Because I fuckin get them. And if they hurt my kids by their actions in an accident I will make it my sole purpose to make their life a misery!

As long as you accept that you and your kids can be sued for any alleged harm you cause others - you must be a lawyer to like that idea. That low roar you can hear is the sound of thousands of lawyers rubbing their hands together like Monty Burns

How many hours of decent lawyer time do you think $750 will buy? Once lawyers are involved it's not about truth and justice - like motorsport he with the most money generally wins :angry:

[Starky307]

Mmmmm......so what do you call "Working For Families Tax Credits"?? A person with 1/2/3 etc children gets a payment and effectively pays no tax. Their neighbour, same age, same job, but no child pays the full whack of tax. How is that fair? Why should one person be treated so differently to another?

People disabled by sickness (spina bifida, motor-neuron disease) get taxpayer support often while not being able to earn any income. Why should you pay for that?

That is the benefit of living in a country WITH a social conscience, we don't cast those less fortunate out on the streets to fend for themselves.

[Naki Rat]

The downside of ACC is that we can't extract compensation or vengence directly on those that screw up and cause us injury, including slack medical practicioners.

The upside of ACC is that we aren't forced to pay crippling insurance premiums, health service costs and tradesmen's rates to cover the risk of litigation.

After spending 25 years in Canada my partner couldn't believe how cheap house and vehicle insurance was in NZ. They are a fraction of North American rates due to the lack of needing to insure against the likes of the delivery person who sues you for having slipped on your front entrance because you failed to de-moss it, or the notorious 'whiplash' claims in vehicle accidents.

A friend now living in Texas pays $800/month medical insurance for his wife, son and self, and was recently caught unwawares and paid $675 to treat an ear infection. The asthma treatment for his son that costs $15 in NZ is $200 in the US. These cost differentials are largely caused by the insurance risks borne by the medical system.

Another frien's return to NZ was due to a large part in the stress and expense placed on him in protecting and insuring his Californian plumbing business against malicious litigation. On arrival in NZ he mistook the annual insurance premium on his imported Ford pick-up for a monthly cost such was the difference in insurance costs :shit:

ACC ain't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than the 'right to sue' alternative. It just needs tweaking to make it work better, and I don't much like being the means by which they tweak it.

[oldrider]

Having seen first hand what the liability i ndustry has done in North America to insurance premiums, medical costs and people's mindsets in terms of relating to your fellow humans, you do NOT want to go there :no:

But the National government is taking us there without the right to sue as well!!!

Back to basics with ACC........or else! That may even mean returning to "Liabour" shudder, shudder!

They stuffed it up too! :bash: Where to go??? :crybaby: