Proposed new ACC campaign association - a new direction

[FastBikeGear]

It's become apparent that ACC is unfair and the premiums are too expensive for motorcyclists.

It's also apparent that this government doesn't have the political capital to drive through the legislation changes required to drop lump sum ACC levies attached to motor vehicle registration and charge ACC levies through fairer systems such as;


Increased GST, (The Dpex preferred option).
Road User (mileage) Charges for all road users .
or much higher petrol levies and diesel levies.
or Single Flat Rate ACC levy for all motorists.


Because the government doesn't have the political capatal to enact any of the above their only solution is to hand the problem to private insurers and let them bear the political cost.

OK so the question is in our heart of hearts do we really believe they really privatise the road user account?

You do the logic! (It's a variation on you do the math). The ACC is hell bent on adopting a fully funded model. We don't fully fund superannuation, health care or any other state service in New Zealand so ask yourself why just ACC? ...


Today I have come to the conclusion that motorcyclists as a group will be one of the few road user groups who will benefit from privatising the motor vehicle account of ACC ...and bringing back the right to sue - read on and I will explain why it's in the interests of motorcyclists to urgently push for the introduction of COMPULSORY FULL personal injury road user insurance for all road users.

Here's why:


ACC doesn't take prevention seriously. (Nick Smith is on record saying it doesn't work (at the Tamaki National party supporters meeting). When it's privatised the insurance companies will offer incentives to put the fences at the top of the cliff.
We are developing an attitude and acceptance of user pays and that as a nation our attitues have changed and no one wants to subsidise anyone else. Privatisation supports these new attitudes.
Because retired road users who don't have a salary, don't qualify for ACC Earnings Replacement Compensation if they a motor vehicle accident - yet they pay the same motor vehicle ACC levies as everyone else. John Judge says that's just not fair. As a consequence the retired are subsidising John Key's, Nick Smith's and John Judge's ACC Insurance premiums.
For similar reasons to those above, motorists on lower incomes are subsidising Earnings Replacement Compensation payments for those like Nick Smith and John Key on higher incomes. Again, John Judge has pointed out the inequity of this.
Because Nick Smith has said that the rapidly increasing injury, rehabilitation and ERC costs for cyclists "will be covered by higher employer and employee ACC levies" However injury, rehabilitation and ERC costs for cyclists are not paid out of the workers account - but erroneously out of the road users account. ACC's accounts have become so muddled that we rob Peter to pay Paul in a confusing array of ways that's skews and obfuscates any attempt at sensible analysis and makes a ridicule of the notion of having separate accounts and levies.
because people who own multiple vehicles are paying multiple levies, yet can only drive/ride one vehicle at a time.
and because there are riders now who didn't ride a motorcycle between 1972 to 1999. Why should they be paying anything towards the residual costs from this period?
Because riders of larger bikes are being asked to pay higher ACC levies. Nick Smith has failed to demonstrate any correlation with any statistics to explain why this should be the case.
The premiums ACC wants to charge are justified on the lies ACC has sold to the public such as "Motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to be injured". Whereas the premiums private insurance companies set are determined by skilled actuaries who take into account your risk profile and ensure they make a fair profit for the share holders (and I intend to buy some shares in them with the money I save on my low risk profile adjusted premiums).
Because New Zealanders are fair minded, fair players, on the rugby field etc and we just won't accept something that is so blatently unfair. A large percentage of Motorcyclists just won't register their vehicles and the decisions made by the National Party will bias the way a large percentage of the population votes at the next election.



A call by motorcyclists to privatise ACC to lower our costs will highlight that:

we believe we are being charged a disproportionately high levy

demonstrate that under a fair insurance scheme that car drivers have to insure themselves for the damage they do to motorcyclists when they are at fault. Rather than the current scheme whereby motorcyclists are expected to pay a premium to cover drivers mistakes. Insurance companies understand that the motorist at fault needs to take financial responsibility for the accident they caused.

This is why third party motor vehicle accident personal injury insurance is cheaper for motorcyclists than car drivers in Australia and elsewhere in the world (source: http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/...al%20aug09.pdf) For example in South Australia compulsory third pary insurance for a car driver costs $483.00 but only $390 for a motorcyle greater than 660cc.[/B][/SIZE]

Where National is taking ACC



I believe that John Judge's ACC Insurance can compete alongside the private companies to moderate their excesses in the way that Kiwi Bank moderates the Australian banks in New Zealand to some extent.

To this end I have established an association of motorcyclists who wish to campaign for this on these grounds. Membership to this new association is free....but you are expected to be an active member of the campaign. Of course you can still belong to BRONZ or Ulysses even though their objectives and manifestos are quite different with regards to ACC.

Now one key question: How do you think the rest of New Zealand will react when we tell them we want privatised motor vehicle personal insurance because it will be cheaper for us?

Who's going to join my campaign?
(PM me if you want to join this campaign.)

I think at this stage the best name for this campaign group is 'Privatise ACC Insurance Now'

Wobblyas
President P.A.I.N. Campaign

[Squiggles]

You dont really want to go there. Its an all or nothing move and im pretty damm sure NZ'rs dont want to go back there. I, like you, qualify for 8/10ths of fuck all with ERC but as a student ACC is a damn sight better for us. I would rather support those in need in the community (cross subsidisation) and have the piece of mind that should anything happen to me i'll get the same treatment no questions asked.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

So I will tell you why I went to Wellington to protest.

“1” Do away with the “ Fully funded forward” plan.

“2” To ask the Government to be up front with its plans for ACC. “ Are you going to sell it?”. If yes then what rules will you put in place?

“3” Make sure you treat ever part of society fairly. Ie riders, sports players etc

I would like to look at the following to replace ACC or run along side ACC,

“1” Private insurance scheme that will reward for Risk Management. A system to run along side the private option to cover people who do not want or are unable to have private insurance.

“2” The right to recover the cost from others should I not be in the wrong.

“ 3” All people that have risk, IE Rugby players, pushbikes on the road, race riders/driver etc must pay according to risk.


Now the problem areas I see,
As above. A student rides a bike to keep the cost down. My son is an apprentice and does exactly this. He needs cover of some sort but is unlikely to get private insurance due to his age and the perceived risk. Who covers the people that have a dirt bike down the river? Who covers the ones that thumbs their nose at the system and crash anyway? Do we leave them to die? Obviously not, but what do we do? Take them to hospital and keep them alive and then send them home to manage themselves with no further help from the Heath system? I don't think so. I don’t know the answer to these and many other questions. But I do know that the mentality of some indicates that the system we have now is only fuelling stupid things cos others will pay.

The previous Government was happy to let people have unlimited time at physiotherapy and many other expenses that should have been pulled back. Hence the cost of the care ballooned out of control per claim..

I have had a few conversations with other riders that freely admit that they would slow down if they had private insurance cos if they crash the cost of reinsuring would be so expensive they just could not afford it. So they need an incentive to manage risk now and ACC is not providing that.

So in short, the system we have sort of works. I can’t see how we could cover everyone under a private system. I know the fully funded forward idea is crap and can not work, other than to make the ACC look good enough to sell. I want to be rewarded for not claiming but still have the cover should I crash. I want to make sure all people have the chance to have cover but if you don’t manage risk then you pay. So I suppose I want my cake and eat it at the same time.
Let the debate continue and I might see light at the end of the tunnel in time. We could have a much cheaper system if people would manage risk. And that doesn’t mean risk management will stop all accidents but it could help to reduce the cost and the frequency of them.


This thread started from here.....
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=113983

[koba]

No. <tenchars>

[Gixxer 4 ever]

You dont really want to go there. Its an all or nothing move and im pretty damm sure NZ'rs dont want to go back there. I, like you, qualify for 8/10ths of fuck all with ERC but as a student ACC is a damn sight better for us. I would rather support those in need in the community (cross subsidisation) and have the piece of mind that should anything happen to me i'll get the same treatment no questions asked.
You have a good points here.

I really want people who manage, the risk, to be rewarded for their efforts. Just like your insurance company do. Don't crash you get a cheaper cover. So to get that you need to change the " no faults/blame" part of ACC.

But noone wants an accident hence it is called an accident but we can do things to help prevent accidents. The currant system doesn’t reward good risk management.

And under the last government we spent stupid amounts on things like Physiotherapy and that racked up the cost of each claim. I note as soon as the free treatment ended most people stopped going. Hmmmmm

[Conquiztador]

As I stated somewhere: Bikers agree on only one thing: The proposed new levies are too high. THAT is what we are protersting against. Together.

Once you take it past that being a biker or not looses the importance. And we all have different ideas. I want all to go back to what ACC was in the beginning. I am against any plans of privatisation

[NONONO]

As I stated somewhere: Bikers agree on only one thing: The proposed new levies are too high. THAT is what we are protersting against. Together.

Once you take it past that being a biker or not looses the importance. And we all have different ideas. I want all to go back to what ACC was in the beginning. I am against any plans of privatisation

No to privatization.
You want to split the campaign? Play right into Nick's hands?

[FastBikeGear]

“1” Private insurance scheme that will reward for Risk Management.
Yes


A system to run along side the private option to cover people who do not want or are unable to have private insurance.

I agree kind of like the Kiwi Bank.



“2” The right to recover the cost from others should I not be in the wrong.
absolutely



“ 3” All people that have risk, IE Rugby players, pushbikes on the road, race riders/driver etc must pay according to risk.

Yes



Now the problem areas I see,
As above. A student rides a bike to keep the cost down. My son is an apprentice and does exactly this. He needs cover of some sort but is unlikely to get private insurance due to his age and the perceived risk.

the higer the risk the higher the premium, the greater the profit opportunities for the insurance companies. If he can't afford to pay for the risk - he can't afafford to do the activity.[/quote]



Who covers the people that have a dirt bike down the river? Who covers the ones that thumbs their nose at the system and crash anyway? Do we leave them to die? Obviously not, but what do we do? Take them to hospital and keep them alive and then send them home to manage themselves with no further help from the Heath system?

Yes and put them on sickness beneficiaries not ACC ERC.


The previous Government was happy to let people have unlimited time at physiotherapy and many other expenses that should have been pulled back. Hence the cost of the care ballooned out of control per claim.

Your right on the button again. If Physio hasn't fixed the problem after 6 weeks then any fruther physio will have a very diminishing return on investement



Let the debate continue and I might see light at the end of the tunnel in time. We could have a much cheaper system if people would manage risk. And that doesn’t mean risk management will stop all accidents but it could help to reduce the cost and the frequency of them.

This thread started from here.....
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=113983

[FastBikeGear]

No to privatization.
You want to split the campaign? Play right into Nick's hands?

Yes, I want to support National in their agenda to privatise ACC. I want to show New Zealand what we are going to get and why it benefits motorcyclists, and the retired, and the low income most.

[Conquiztador]

Again: To be a "biker" you only need to own/ride/have an interest in bikes. nothing else matters. Your political conviction does not come in to it, or your occupation, if you are employed or on a benefit, you are a police or a crim.

So we can realistically only agree on one thing: The levies are NOT to go up.

Apart from that...

[Gixxer 4 ever]

As I stated somewhere: Bikers agree on only one thing: The proposed new levies are too high. THAT is what we are protersting against. Together.

On this we agreed in two other threads.


Once you take it past that being a biker or not looses the importance. And we all have different ideas. I want all to go back to what ACC was in the beginning. I am against any plans of privatisation

We need to agree to disagree. As we did in the H/Bay thread. Then it got sent to the bin. If my discussing the other ideas undermines the fight with the government then we need to build a stronger case. I am only one person in a very small voice , K/B, for the bike riders of NZ. What I think will have little influence on the big picture. But if I want to ask questions and opinion of others here how will that weaken our resolve to better the ACC?

I have stayed away from the H/Bay thread to stop you and others getting upset about me wanting to discuss other ideas. So I have made the effort to stop antagonizing you. But I have the right to discuss this if I think there is another option. Looks like some people think there is. I will protest about the increases. But I think we should look at other solutions at the same time.

[FastBikeGear]

Again: To be a "biker" you only need to own/ride/have an interest in bikes. nothing else matters. Your political conviction does not come in to it, or your occupation, if you are employed or on a benefit, you are a police or a crim.

So we can realistically only agree on one thing: The levies are NOT to go up.

Apart from that...

No I can't agree on this. The premiums determined by insurance companies are set by actuaries to take into acccount your risk profile and ensure they make a fair profit for the share holders (and I intend to buy some shares in them with the money I save on my low risk profile adjusted premiums). If you or any car driver has a higher risk profile you should pay your fair share. I don't want to subsidise you.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

No. <tenchars>

No.... No what?

[Conquiztador]

On this we agreed in two other threads.

We need to agree to disagree. As we did in the H/Bay thread. Then it got sent to the bin. If my discussing the other ideas undermines the fight with the government then we need to build a stronger case. I am only one person in a very small voice , K/B, for the bike riders of NZ. What I think will have little influence on the big picture. But if I want to ask questions and opinion of others here how will that weaken our resolve to better the ACC?

I have stayed away from the H/Bay thread to stop you and others getting upset about me wanting to discuss other ideas. So I have made the effort to stop antagonizing you. But I have the right to discuss this if I think there is another option. Looks like some people think there is. I will protest about the increases. But I think we should look at other solutions at the same time.

I am happy to disagree with you re this. Your opinion does not raise my bloodpressure. I actually welcome your opinion. My point is that we need to be united to get a result. Therefore we need to take it back to where we all agree. And, as we concluded in the now dead HB thread, that point is the unacceptable increase of ACC levies. Once that is achieved, and one wants to stay active re this all, then it becomes an issue of finding allies to take that further. And at that stage we will stand on different sides.


No I can't agree on this. The premiums determined gy insurance companies are set by actuaries to take into acccount your risk profile and ensure they make a fair profit for the share holders (and I intend to buy some shares in them with the money I save on my low risk profile adjusted premiums). If you or any car driver has a higher risk profile you should pay your fair share. I don't want to subsidise you.

You are talking about eroding ACC to a state where it is just another insurance, where the premium is determined by a multitude of factors. We will have to agree to disagree here, as I am totally against this. But if that is where it goies I want the right to sue back. And I will sue every bastard who makes me or my kids have an accident. But that is what you are looking for. You a lawyer by chance?

[FastBikeGear]

You are talking about eroding ACC to a state where it is just another insurance, where the premium is determined by a multitude of factors.... I want the right to sue back. And I will sue every bastard who makes me or my kids have an accident. But that is what you are looking for.

Absolutely. Those who cause the accident should be sued until they pay and pay!


You a lawyer by chance?

No. I am a retired businessman. I now do some free sales and marketing mentoring. (Occassionally I charge for some of this work.)

[scissorhands]

The recent media backpedal made me think National was going to come at this from a differnt angle.

If that angle includes higher payments/costs for responsible motorcyclists, I'm against it.

This proposal offers no guarantee that higher costs could be imposed via a back door, at a later date.

And, if a possibility for this exists, dollars for doughnuts the taxing national government we have now will impose these greater costs, at the nearest opportunity

[Dadpole]

Using the risk assessment model, how would anyone get into the world of motorcycling? No previous history and experience would leave a 17 year old getting a 125 with a possible yearly premium far higher than the price of the bike.
End result of this is no new riders and the eventual end of biking in this country. Perhaps this is what ACC and the safety brigade ultimately want.

[bogan]

Using the risk assessment model, how would anyone get into the world of motorcycling? No previous history and experience would leave a 17 year old getting a 125 with a possible yearly premium far higher than the price of the bike.
End result of this is no new riders and the eventual end of biking in this country. Perhaps this is what ACC and the safety brigade ultimately want.

exactly, private insurance is a bad way to go, I like that i can pay similar levies throughout my lifetime instead of high when im learning (and when i have the least money) and low when im experienced and have more money, better to subsidise my learning self from my experienced self levies!

And private insurance costs more overall due to the litigation fees, payouts take longer due to the lengthy litigation process.

Though you are right about this being about more than just bikers, we are the tip of the wedge national is trying to use to drive ACC apart, lets go back to the original ACC principals!

[FastBikeGear]

Using the risk assessment model, how would anyone get into the world of motorcycling? No previous history and experience would leave a 17 year old getting a 125 with a possible yearly premium far higher than the price of the bike.
End result of this is no new riders and the eventual end of biking in this country. Perhaps this is what ACC and the safety brigade ultimately want.

Do people ride motorbikes in the US?
They have private personal injury insurance there.
I wonder how much more expensive personal insurance is in the states than our ACC system?
I wonder how much of this extra expense is consumed by the lawyers?
I don't expect privatised personal insurance to be cheaper than the ACC system, but I do expect it to be fairer than the cockeyed and falsely skewed system we have here.

It's a well established fact that if the public believe that a taxation system is unfair, then it will not survive. There must be wide spread support of any taxation system for it to work. ACC is now getting so far out of whack that it doesn't pass this test.

I like many other motorcyclists will not pay the proposed ACC motor vehicle levies. However if I have an accident ACC will still pick up the tab for medical and rehabilitation but not ERC. But aI am not eligiible for ERC anyway as I am retired.

When someone charges at me, I will attempt to step out of the way and add some extra momentum to their direction.

It's easier than trying to block the charge and getting wounded in the process.

National is breaking ACC deliberately and I support them whole heartedly with the same intent.

[Genestho]

Who covers the ones that thumbs their nose at the system and crash anyway? Do we leave them to die? Obviously not, but what do we do? Take them to hospital and keep them alive and then send them home to manage themselves with no further help from the Heath system?

As I understand it -the proposal regarding this states, emergency care, and rehabilitaive care.

The rest of entitlements (lump sum and income subsidy) will be automatically removed based on a 2 year sentence, if that proposal is implemented..

See, I've always thought this levy raising was about fully funding, to make an attractive case for Insurance. And I still do.

But I also know it is WRONG, to be paid for ignorant stupidity while putting other lives at risk or killing them.

Are people really keen on subsidising the high risk behaviour on our roads?

Thankyou for killing or injuring my family member with a history of dangerous behaviour, now here's a lump sum and some income subsidy for your work while you comitted this offence?<_<
EDIT I don't support this proposal in its current form, but I would like to see it reviewed somewhat

[Pussy]

As I understand it -the proposal regarding this states, emergency care, and rehabilitaive care.

The rest of entitlements (lump sum and income subsidy) will be removed if that proposal is implemented..

See, I've always thought this levy raising was about fully funding, to make an attractive case for Insurance. And I still do.

But I also know it is WRONG, to be paid for ignorant stupidity while putting other lives at risk or killing them.

Are people really keen on subsidising the high risk behaviour on our roads?

Thankyou for killing or injuring my family member with a history of dangerous behaviour, now here's a lump sum and some income subsidy for your work while you comitted this offence?<_<
Brilliant post and sentiment, TGW!

[candor]

Total support and what I've always thought was the solution. This plan preserves ACC for the future - and enhances road safety.

But a form of insurance whether state or competitor must be mandatory at least so far as third party.

Not a motorcyclist myself, just a supporter of motorcycling - can I join?

Guzzi, at select committee we said the criminal provision ought include drink drivers but not if they die - as families shouldn't cop it unless they did not take reasonable precautions to stop the driver. The committee said it wasn't possible to prosecute a dead man - but I'm sure private insurers would consider the blood alcohol level before granting claims. See the incentive to prevent drink drive if it were privatised :wari:

[bogan]

It's a well established fact that if the public believe that a taxation system is unfair that it will not survive. There must be wide spread support of any taxation system for it to work. ACC is now getting so far out of whack that it doesn't pass this test.

Is there a poll on here somewhere to see if kb'ers feel private is a better option over the Original ACC (not the BS that it has/is turning into)? cos maybe there shud be

[glegge]

I love the link out - go and look at it, very very funny,.. well done that man..

[FastBikeGear]

But a form of insurance whether state or competitor must be mandatory at least so far as third party.

Agreed P.A.I.N is fully committed to mandatory full insurance for motor vehicle personal injury.


Not a motorcyclist myself, just a supporter of motorcycling - can I join?

Yes, as the self appointed President, I now hereby formally accept you as an honary member of P.A.I.N. (Privatise ACC Insurance Now).

P.A.I.N. now has two memebers - we are now a formidable voting block...umm some more members would make us an even stronger force.

roll up! roll up!

[Genestho]

Total support and what I've always thought was the solution. This plan preserves ACC for the future - and enhances road safety.

But a form of insurance whether state or competitor must be mandatory at least so far as third party.

Not a motorcyclist myself, just a supporter of motorcycling - can I join?

Guzzi, at select committee we said the criminal provision ought include drink drivers but not if they die - as families shouldn't cop it unless they did not take reasonable precautions to stop the driver. The committee said it wasn't possible to prosecute a dead man - but I'm sure private insurers would consider the blood alcohol level before granting claims. See the incentive to prevent drink drive if it were privatised :wari:

I agree families shouldn't cop it either. They should'nt be held to suffer/ransom unless proved there could've been intervention.

I wonder if it did get to the point of privatisation, whether you could opt out????

I have all my insurances covered, I'm quite happy to be responsible for myself.
The proposed levy increases across the board will be WAY more than what I would pay each year anyway?
level of cover not the same though...

ALSO, the number one ranked intiative in Safer Journeys was compulsary third party....

[FastBikeGear]

Is there a poll on here somewhere to see if kb'ers feel private is a better option over the Original ACC (not the BS that it has/is turning into)? cos maybe there shud be

Let's hold off on a poll until we develop this idea further.

I think that when the general motoring public hear that many motorcyclists are for privatising ACC they are going to do a big rethink.

[Pussy]

I'm quite happy to be responsible for myself.


There are too many that aren't......

[bogan]

Let's hold off on a poll until we develop this idea further.

I think that when the general motoring public hear that many motorcyclists are for privatising ACC they are going to do a big rethink.

but thats not what is happening, an unknown portion of motorcyclist thing privatisation is the way to go, and an unknown proportion think ACC should be kept but returned to its original principals. If you were to figure out the proportions before jumping the gun and saying this and that to the non motorcyclists some embarrassment could be avoided, (westfeild mall protest...).

If you want to take more time to weight the pro's and cons of each then that is a different matter, maybe start an ACC vs Private thread, get pros and cons (add to first post), then add a poll

[Genestho]

There are too many that aren't......
True story brother!:sunny:

[candor]

OMG - evaded cops for 2 years - kinda shows how seriously they classed the HOMICIDE investigation.

I think it would have to be an option so people or workplaces have a choice to go private or with the State - as in ACC still offers a low cover level for the poor or high risk driver at a realistic price - and also has right to decline or price them off the road.

Sorry Mr (fill the gap with names of all thefamiliar killers) - you are not seen as an acceptable risk, catch the bus and have a nice day.

[Genestho]

but thats not what is happening, an unknown portion of motorcyclist thing privatisation is the way to go, and an unknown proportion think ACC should be kept but returned to its original principals. If you were to figure out the proportions before jumping the gun and saying this and that to the non motorcyclists some embarrassment could be avoided, (westfeild mall protest...).

If you want to take more time to weight the pro's and cons of each then that is a different matter, maybe start an ACC vs Private thread, get pros and cons (add to first post), then add a poll

Be an interesting poll, because not that long ago, I thought the original structure was the way to stay, but this week (after two submissions - doh, can't rescind either) I'm not so sure, especially on the proposed rises across the board, unless we can opt out. Which is possibly the point?

[Mully]

Is it really our place to be giving the Government alternatives to raping motorcyclists with Levy hikes?

To my mind, "our" position should be "these levy proposals are unacceptable" not "how about this instead?"

I'm in two minds about privatising the motor vehicle account - I just don't know.

[bogan]

Be an interesting poll, because not that long ago, I thought the original structure was the way to stay, but this week (after two submissions - doh, can't rescind either) I'm not so sure, especially on the proposed rises across the board, unless we can opt out. Which is possibly the point.

lets put the proposed increases aside for a bit, as we know the bike ones are BS, so the income etc ones probly are as well. And just compare the theoretical ACC with the theoretical Private insurance, after all, the grass is always greener...

Accidents are gonna happen regardless of whether it is fault or non fault based. Non fault based gives quicker payouts with less overall costs, which is good for the masses.
Cross subsidization means some people get much more value for their money than others, but I'm okay with that, I pay for people (some just lazy fuckers) to be on the dole so I'm happy to pay for peoples accidents.
Income compensation is one of the points I'm not overly happy about, but then, higher income people pay more to the scheme, and have probably worked hard to get to high income jobs, so they deserve to get more income compensation.

[FastBikeGear]

Income compensation is one of the points I'm not overly happy about, but then, higher income people pay more to the scheme, and have probably worked hard to get to high income jobs, so they deserve to get more income compensation.

Some nice points in your post but the last one is wrong.

ERC for motor vehicle accidents is paid out of the motorvehicle account.
Higher income people simply do not pay more into the motor vehicle account.
Those on higher incomes are getting a higher level of cover for the same price as low income contributors.
Low income contributors are subsidising people like John Judge who purportedly earns $500,000 per year.

[candor]

Ozzies post on third party shows per Oz your risk rated fee (ins payment or rego injury insurance component) would on average go down versus cars.

http://www.allianz.com.au/allianz/cict+sa.html
Took quick look at UK scheme and only cars require compulsory third - defined as having 4 wheels and being able to carry passengers + few other things http://www.autonetinsurance.co.uk/car-insurance/.

But for third party to work as a road safety measure it must be enforced. In the UK cameras detect drivers or rather cars on road whose owners lack 3rd as well as this being checked at vehicle stops.

Mandatory means a usable licence is earnt, and if you are an idiot risking self and others you pay for the "privilege" if you can afford to or bugger off the road.

[Pussy]

lets put the proposed increases aside for a bit, as we know the bike ones are BS, so the income etc ones probly are as well. And just compare the theoretical ACC with the theoretical Private insurance, after all, the grass is always greener...

Accidents are gonna happen regardless of whether it is fault or non fault based. Non fault based gives quicker payouts with less overall costs, which is good for the masses.
Cross subsidization means some people get much more value for their money than others, but I'm okay with that, I pay for people (some just lazy fuckers) to be on the dole so I'm happy to pay for peoples accidents.
Income compensation is one of the points I'm not overly happy about, but then, higher income people pay more to the scheme, and have probably worked hard to get to high income jobs, so they deserve to get more income compensation.

It is a curly subject, and I for one won't/don't pretend to know the answers.
I DO get the shits with mis-directed payouts, career ACC claimants (non-genuine ones) etc etc.... and the present intention to get raped with the proposed levies.
I'm not selfish, but find it difficult to provide a free lunch to those who don't want to take ANY responsibility for themselves

[bogan]

Some nice points in your post but the last one is wrong.

ERC for motor vehicle accidents is paid out of the motorvehicle account.
Higher income people simply do not pay more into the motor vehicle account.
Those on higher incomes are getting a higher level of cover for the same price as low income contributors.
Low income contributors are subsidising people like John Judge who purportedly earns $500,000 per year.

ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. Though the motor vehicle account is seperate from others, if one pays more to ACC in one form and gets more out in another does it really matter? im sure there are others who will subsidize in the other direction.


...
I'm not selfish, but find it difficult to provide a free lunch to those who don't want to take ANY responsibility for themselves

you talking bout the dole or ACC? I have far more objection to the dole than ACC, taking responsibility for oneself on ACC has an additional incentive in that most people don't want to get maimed, what the incentive for not going on the dole?

[raster]

Noticed a little addon after one of Judges statements in the herald, (if you can beleive it)

"The question I would have is whether the [regularly changing] Government is a good owner of a long-tail insurance scheme."

it should be the people that is the owner of the sceme!!!!

[FastBikeGear]

ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. Though the motor vehicle account is seperate from others, if one pays more to ACC in one form and gets more out in another does it really matter? im sure there are others who will subsidize in the other direction.


Unfortunately it just doesn't 'even out' or 'come out in the wash' at any point.


If he has an accident at work then his higher than average ERC comes out of the work account to which he contributes more than average and so this is fair. Effectiely he pays for and gets more coverage. In this instance he's not motorcyclists in anyway or vice versa.

Nick Smith points to the motor vehicle account and says that he as a car driver is subsidising motorcyclists. However the reality is we subsidise his much higher than average potential ERC liability from this account.

He wants a buck each way. I say he is bludging off the lower income earners and the retired people and he should come clean, shut up and pay what he should.

[bogan]

Unfortunately it just doesn't 'even out' or 'come out in the wash' at any point.


If he has an accident at work then his higher than average ERC comes out of the work account to which he contributes more than average and so this is fair. Effectiely he pays for and gets more coverage. In this instance he's not motorcyclists in anyway or vice versa.

Nick Smith points to the motor vehicle account and says that he as a car driver is subsidising motorcyclists. However the reality is we subsidise his much higher than average potential ERC liability from this account.

He wants a buck each way. I say he is bludging off the lower income earners and the retired people and he should come clean, shut up and pay what he should.

I mean people like me (student) or retirees..., who pay into the motor vehicle account, but if we are injured at places other than the road it come out of the other account, evening out (ish) the system. No income compensation, but people do pay into the motor vehicle account, and claim from the general account.

[FastBikeGear]

I mean people like me (student) or retirees..., who pay into the motor vehicle account, but if we are injured at places other than the road it come out of the other account, evening out (ish) the system. No income compensation, but people do pay into the motor vehicle account, and claim from the general account.

No this still doesn't add up.
Just because you make a claim from an insurance policy that you have not paid to have coverage from (work account insurance policy) it doesn't mean that it somehow precludes you making a claim from the motor vehicle insurance policy that you have paid for. An analogy to what you are saying is that I have a boat insurance policy that I have paid for but I also want to be covered if my house burns down even though I haven't paid for a house insurance policy?

With this approach we might as well throw the dice to decide what each individuals premium is or just charge high premiums from which ever group is easiest to collect from - hold on - isn't this the same as Nationals current ridiculous and absurd proposal?

[RiderInBlack]

Absolutely NOT interested in PRIVATION of ACC in any way, so NO ya plan SUCKS, and runs against the whole reason I went down to Wellington to join the BIKEOI.
You need to read Ixion's post here ( http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129549107&postcount=5) all the way through to understand why you idea plays right in to Nick Myth's hands.

[bogan]

No this still doesn't add up.
Just because you make a claim from an insurance policy that you have not paid to have coverage from (work account insurance policy) it doesn't mean that it somehow precludes you making a claim from the motor vehicle insurance policy that you have paid for. An analogy to what you are saying is that I have a boat insurance policy that I have paid for but I also want to be covered if my house burns down even though I haven't paid for a house insurance policy?

With this approach we might as well throw the dice to decide what each individuals premium is or just charge high premiums from which ever group is easiest to collect from - hold on - isn't this the same as Nationals current ridiculous and absurd proposal?

but ACC isnt insurance, you dont need to pay for cover for specific things, the money is gathered through levies. The point i was making is that what goes around comes around, some pay more hear and claim more there, others the opposite, some dont pay much and claim lots, some pay lots and dont claim much.

[Squiggles]

and the low income most.

How? Will i even be able to afford the lawyer who'll help me sue the guy with no money???

[bogan]

How? Will i even be able to afford the lawyer who'll help me sue the guy with no money???

exactly, and the thing is, a lot of incidents are just accidents, genuine mistakes, is there really any fault that needs to be placed in such cases?

[FastBikeGear]

but ACC isnt insurance, you dont need to pay for cover for specific things, the money is gathered through levies.

Bogan, thanks for the really thought provoking discussion on this. Presently we do pay ACC discrete premiums to cover us for specific things, We have different points of levy collection and these corrollate to the separate accounts ACC already runs for each type of coverage.

No ACC isn't 'insurance' by the narrow definition that you and I accept. But Nick Smith empahtically says it is Insurance and I want it to be, because it is to our advantage if it is insurance. Nick and John Key are looking for our support to help them change ACC to an Insurance company and I say lets support them wholeheartedly and then some.


The point i was making is that what goes around comes around, some pay more hear and claim more there, others the opposite, some dont pay much and claim lots, some pay lots and dont claim much.

"What goes around does comes around". Saying it simply doesn't make this statement true.

[bogan]

Bogan, thanks for the really thought provoking discussion on this. Presently we do pay ACC discrete premiums to cover us for specific things, We have different points of of levy collection and these corrollate to the separate accounts ACC already runs for each type of coverage.

All good, is one of the most on track ACC threads in a while!

Yes we do, but they are very general accounts, road users, employees, employers, other (i think they are). These seem to be set up to collect levies which are affordable to the individual, while still being able to cover the whole claims budget for each account. I like the idea of this, as risk based levies would most likely have prevented me from getting into road riding at all simply because the insurance would be too expensive as a learner rider and student, im sure the sam applies to other activities and people, ACC give us freedom to do more when we are young and earning less, then pay for it in middle age while earning more.



"What goes around does comes around". Saying it simply doesn't make this statement true.

yeh, but i illustrated that subsidisation went both ways between the accounts as well :confused: i think

[FastBikeGear]

How? Will i even be able to afford the lawyer who'll help me sue the guy with no money???

You can employ a lawyer on a pro rata basis where if he thinks your case is worthy, he takes it on for a percentage of the return. When he sues them he also sues them for the cost of the legal action so you don't miss out.

[FastBikeGear]

I like the idea of this, as risk based levies would most likely have prevented me from getting into road riding at all simply because the insurance would be too expensive as a learner rider and student.

Motorcyclists have been paying more ACC than car drivers for years.


ACC give us freedom to do more when we are young and earning less, then pay for it in middle age while earning more.

Great point well made.


yeh, but i illustrated that subsidisation went both ways between the accounts as well :confused: i think

Give me an example of the subsidisaton going each way then?

Bogan are you ready to become a member of P.A.I.N (Privatise ACC Insurance Now) yet?

[Squiggles]

I think most who want it privatised just dont want to pay a cent (and wont get private insurance)... they'll concern themself with the consequences after an incident and hope they can sue another broke new zealander...

[bogan]

Motorcyclists have been paying more ACC than car drivers for years.


yeh, I dont think we should, same ACC account, same rate!



Give me an example of the subsidisaton going each way then?


the one you gave of the motor vehicle account paying for income compensation of a high earner after he has an accident on the road. And the one i gave of a student having an accident at university and being paid from the earners account though the student only pays into the motor account.



Bogan are you ready to become a member of P.A.I.N (Privatise ACC Insurance Now) yet?

I am not :bleh:

[Mully]

exactly, and the thing is, a lot of incidents are just accidents, genuine mistakes, is there really any fault that needs to be placed in such cases?

This is what bothers me about privatisation. The only people who will make money are the lawyers.

And if you have a crash, you'll get sued by everybody in the car cos the passengers will all have "whiplash" and "emotional harm" and "hurt and humiliation"

And then the councils (or Transit) will be sued cos the roads are substandard and contributed to the crash - which means they'll need more cash to insure themselves, which they'll tear from the hands of ratepayers who are already hurting cos the rat-faced bastards keep increasing the "ratable" value of houses (and therefore the rates take) even when you are deafened by the whistling of house prices dropping around you.

*breathe* (sorry).

Or a kid will ride his pushbike into another kid, causing the "innocent" kid to have whiplash and emotional harm, so the parents of the "guilty" kid will get sued......

Where would it end?

Do we really want to be a mini-America in this regard?

[Squiggles]

if he thinks your case is worthy

BS, if he thinks theres any money in it... should i make a mistake what the hell will you manage to get out of me? I have pretty much nothing but intellectual property

[FastBikeGear]

BS, if he thinks theres any money in it... should i make a mistake what the hell will you manage to get out of me? I have pretty much nothing but intellectual property

Yes you have the right definition of worthy.

Please note than just as in Australia third party insurance will be compulsory so they won't have any trouble getting the money out of your insurance company. Of course you might want to defend it - because if you are deemed at fault you will loose your excess, your no claim bonus and your premiums are likely to go up next year.

Squiggles get off the fence will you be joining P.A.I.N. or not?

[Squiggles]

Yes you have the right definition of worthy.

Please note than just as in Australia third party insurance will be compulsory so they won't have any trouble getting the money out of your insurance company. Of course you might want to defend it - because if you are deemed at fault you will loose your excess, your no claim bonus and yourpremiums are likely to go up next year.

Squiggles get off the fence will you be joining P.A.I.N. or not?

You do realise that in Victoria with TAC (Compulsory 3rd party insurance) its costly and with what is currently a $50 extra if you're on a bike...

also note clauses such as that mentioned below... good wiggle room to get out of a claim

Under Victorian transport law you cannot make a compensation claim for damages unless you have suffered a 'serious injury', which is typically defined as a level of permanent impairment of 30% or more.

[davereid]

ACC is the way to go.

'Cos I wont pay it, I'll save the money to pay the fines should I ever be caught. 20,000 km last year without being checked...

But with ACC, I'm still 100% covered - Way to go eh !

[FastBikeGear]

BS, if he thinks theres any money in it... should i make a mistake what the hell will you manage to get out of me? I have pretty much nothing but intellectual property

In Australia it is an offence to operate a motor vehicle without thrid party insurance. I am proposing the same deal here. So therefore if you make a mistake I or my insurance company will sue your arse off. And yes the lawyers will make some money out of the process.

[FastBikeGear]

yeh, I dont think we should, same ACC account, same rate!

Nice idea. But what's your confidence level on achieving this?


the one you gave of the motor vehicle account paying for income compensation of a high earner after he has an accident on the road. And the one i gave of a student having an accident at university and being paid from the earners account though the student only pays into the motor account.

No but you will be paying into the earners account once you get a job. What's the point of having separate accounts if you are going to treat them as one account?

[FastBikeGear]

ACC is the way to go.

'Cos I wont pay it, I'll save the money to pay the fines should I ever be caught. 20,000 km last year without being checked...

But with ACC, I'm still 100% covered - Way to go eh !

Well you might profit from this but you might not.

Once the police realise their is a money earner in checking registrations on bikes what do ou think will happen?

What's the bet that if you injure yourself in a bike accident and you don't have a registration, they will change it in the very near future so that you don't get ERC.

Of course since I and all the other retired and unemployed people don't qualify for ERC anyway your plan will work for us.

[Squiggles]

will sue your arse off. And yes the lawyers will make some money out of the process.

Will this be a $1 a week arse being sued off?

[FastBikeGear]

You do realise that in Victoria with TAC (Compulsory 3rd party insurance) its costly and with what is currently a $50 extra if you're on a bike...

Only $50 dollars extra if your on a bike in Australia....and remind me again, how much extra do you pay in ACC levies in New Zealand if you are on a bike?

[FastBikeGear]

How? Will i even be able to afford the lawyer who'll help me sue the guy with no money???

You could just buy this type of legal cover. http://www.autonetinsurance.co.uk/legal-protection/motor-legal-protection.asp?Insurance=Bikenet

It's very cheap.

[bogan]

Nice idea. But what's your confidence level on achieving this?

not huge but well worth a shot



No but you will be paying into the earners account once you get a job.

not if i get maimed and am on ACC for rest of my life :shit:


What's the point of having separate accounts if you are going to treat them as one account?

dunno, though its not treated as the same account, as levies are collected for each to pay the claims for each, its just easier to assume it all cross subsidises and evens out good enough (ive pretty much forgotten what the original discussion was about for this point though). Did the woodhouse principals have them set as different account or was that a later development?

[Squiggles]

Only $50 dollars extra if your on a bike in Australia....and remind me again, how much extra do you pay in ACC levies in New Zealand if you are on a bike?

Thus the outrage we've got here? Doesnt make it the way forward


You could just buy this type of legal cover. http://www.autonetinsurance.co.uk/legal-protection/motor-legal-protection.asp?Insurance=Bikenet

It's very cheap.


Run through the terms and conditions... I laughed at this one:

Your Motorcycle:

* must not have been modified from the manufacturer's standard specification.

Regardless, its one more thing i'd need to get, how many different covers would i need, people i'd pay??? :shutup:

/im playing devils advocate, quite interested in the vic system myself

[koba]

No.... No what?

The ideas put foward in the opening posts of this thread, I disagree.

[Jiminy]

I like the 'No Fault' part of ACC, so no privatisation for me, thanks. With privatisation, the only real winners are lawyers.

No matter what system you come up with, there will always be some people enjoying a 'free ride'.

[FastBikeGear]

I like the 'No Fault' part of ACC, so no privatisation for me, thanks.

I like you, like the idea of no-fault. However the way that National is currently interpreting this and explaining it to Joe Public means we have to pay a premium to cover our costs when we are hit by a motorist. If it wasn't no-fault they would have to pay a premium to cover this cost/risk... and if it was a true no-fault system we would share the cost/risk equally with cars and pay the same levy/premium.



No matter what system you come up with, there will always be some people enjoying a 'free ride'.

With a privatised insurance scheme no one gets a free ride. Every one pays according to their risk (plus a little more for the lawyers).

[bogan]

I like you, like the idea of no-fault. However the way that National is currently interpreting this and explaining it to Joe Public means we have to pay a premium to cover our costs when we are hit by a motorist. If it wasn't no-fault they would have to pay a premium to cover this cost/risk... and if it was a true no-fault system we would share the cost/risk equally with cars and pay the same levy/premium.


Exactly, and thats what we should aim for, equality, not privatization.

[MacD]

While I understand the intellectual argument for a fully privatised fault-based system, the reality of such systems is completely different from what is proposed (as is pretty much true for any neo-con economic theory).

The epitome of such a health and injury insurance system, as operates in the USA, provides the least coverage for the population as a whole, while costing the greatest percentage of GDP of any developed nation. It is hideously inefficient with around 40% of the population unable to afford insurance or unable to get insurance.

Also you are only discussing third party personal liability insurance and forgetting that ACC also covers first party insurance. In other words you also need cover for when you injure yourself (ie. single vehicle lost control on a corner accidents) and there is nobody else at fault to sue.

While I personally could indeed benefit from a fully privatised fault-based system, I wouldn't want to live in a country that operated one.

Making ACC unpalatable and increasing support for privatisation is just part of the long game that is being played out.

[candor]

Mac D you and others would have less injury, all other things equal under such a scheme. Consequences of behaviour on the pocket and strongly linking ones ability to use the roads to ones safety record, quickly improves safety.
3rd party culls the idiots - who are too motorised here. There is a reason only one in 100 Ozzies dies on the road, whereas here its one in 40 or 50 people get the torture death. Worse torture rate than in the dark ages no doubt.

A shared scheme could see ACC do first party and privates do the mandatory third.

Can't find full study right now only an article here http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/sep99/sen.pdf
but I remember it showed over a 20 year study of thousands of deaths compared in different provinces that increased numbers of liquor stores and third party insurance were the most powerful reducers of drink driving harm - while increased speed and drink drive penalties achieved bugger all.
CULL menace numbers and reduce travel

Wobbly you wanted this - its on 3rd party thread
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=111557&highlight=3rd+party+injury

[eelracing]

While I understand the intellectual argument for a fully privatised fault-based system, the reality of such systems is completely different from what is proposed (as is pretty much true for any neo-con economic theory).

The epitome of such a health and injury insurance system, as operates in the USA, provides the least coverage for the population as a whole, while costing the greatest percentage of GDP of any developed nation. It is hideously inefficient with around 40% of the population unable to afford insurance or unable to get insurance.

Also you are only discussing third party personal liability insurance and forgetting that ACC also covers first party insurance. In other words you also need cover for when you injure yourself (ie. single vehicle lost control on a corner accidents) and there is nobody else at fault to sue.

While I personally could indeed benefit from a fully privatised fault-based system, I wouldn't want to live in a country that operated one.

Making ACC unpalatable and increasing support for privatisation is just part of the long game that is being played out.

At last some common sense amongst the self serving rhetoric going on here.

Re; single vehicle accident/corner etc.How many here have been out on a lone ride and have had to take emergency action in avoiding oncoming vehicles on your side of road or pulling out in front etc.

With private insurance all i can see is an increase in hit and run merchants.

[bogan]

Mac D you and others would have less injury, all other things equal under such a scheme. Consequences of behaviour on the pocket and strongly linking ones ability to use the roads to ones safety record, quickly improves safety.

I would have thought the pain and disability (sometimes permanent) would be more of a deterrent than a loss of no claims bonus, wouldn't you agree?

[candor]

ACC is heinous - it does not look after many crash victims and forces back to work asap. Girl killed (then revived by ambos) by head on by drug driver... with broken back, head injury (significant brain damage), face had to be rebuilt age 19 - 2 years learning to walk and still drugged up for chronic pain was forced by ACC to take job as waitress on feet all day - in chronic pain.

Not really the best scheme in the world for many.

[candor]

I would have thought the pain and disability (sometimes permanent) would be more of a deterrent than a loss of no claims bonus, wouldn't you agree?

No - idiots aren't like us - don't think of injury consequences as bulletproof. Money drives the reality home. It's not no claims bonus, its having to pay a lot more if you repeatedly have offences/incidents causes risk modification and in some cases finding no insurer (not likely tho as there are high risk insurers in NZ that even insure full on repeat drunks.... at a price

[bogan]

ACC is heinous - it does not look after many crash victims and forces back to work asap. Girl killed (then revived by ambos) by head on by drug driver... with broken back, head injury (significant brain damage), face had to be rebuilt age 19 - 2 years learning to walk and still drugged up for chronic pain was forced by ACC to take job as waitress on feet all day - in chronic pain.

Not really the best scheme in the world for many.

and private insurance is better? where some can't afford insurance? some aren't even eligible for insurance? and if you are injured by someone who hasn't got insurance or money you aren't likely to ever get a cent. Yeh that sounds way better :no::no:

what would have happened had the girl been hit by a drunk driver in a private insurance scheme? his insurance wouldnt have paid out cos he was drunk, in a private system she may not have had insurance either

[bogan]

No - idiots aren't like us - don't think of injury consequences as bulletproof. Money drives the reality home. It's not no claims bonus, its having to pay a lot more if you repeatedly have offences/incidents causes risk modification and in some cases finding no insurer (not likely tho as there are high risk insurers in NZ that even insure full on repeat drunks.... at a price

ah what? if you repeatedly have incidents in NZ now you have to pay more, to fix your shit that you have just wrecked, if you get done for anyhting illegal theres a fine, hows increasing the insurance premiums as well gonna make any difference?

[candor]

ah what? if you repeatedly have incidents in NZ now you have to pay more, to fix your shit that you have just wrecked, if you get done for anyhting illegal theres a fine, hows increasing the insurance premiums as well gonna make any difference?

No you don't pay more for repeated incidents - many don't pay fines and just steal the next bike or car.
Sigh - just look to the countries with 3rd party, and the studies showing this reduces injury massively. Thats not really disputed by anyone. Lower chance of injury, lower costs all round.
It can be legislated so someone has to pay, and the State is there as back stop if glitches. Not talking total removal of ACC - just changes and competition.

[FastBikeGear]

Just to bring this thread back on track a little what I proposed in the original post was compulsory COMPULSORY FULL personal injury road user insurance for all road users.


and private insurance is better? where some can't afford insurance?

Well in Australia at least it would appear to be more affordable than our proposed motorcycle levies and as National is apparently courting Australian Insuruance companies we are most likely to end up with something akin to their system


some aren't even eligible for insurance?

There are a number of ways to ensure that everyone but those disqualified from driving are eligble. One way is to have ACC Insurance operating as Kiwibank back stop to provide insurance when the private companies won't ....and also to set a competitive premiums in the way that Kiwi bank exerts some limited control on mortgage rates.

Guys I sure hope that when we announce motorcyclists support of National's plans for privatising ACC in order to get a fairer system with reduced costs for motorcyclists they aren't going to react as negatively as you.

Bogan I still can't see your P.A.I.N membership donation in my bank account? Are you sure you are serious about wanting to be vice spokesman?

By the way can someone please come up with a better (more positive sounding) acronym than P.A.I.N (Privatise ACC Insurance Now)?

[bogan]

No you don't pay more for repeated incidents - many don't pay fines and just steal the next bike or car.
Sigh - just look to the countries with 3rd party, and the studies showing this reduces injury massively. Thats not really disputed by anyone. Lower chance of injury, lower costs all round.
It can be legislated so someone has to pay, and the State is there as back stop if glitches. Not talking total removal of ACC - just changes and competition.

But those who don't pay fines and steal cars will pay compulsory insurance? Can you provide some links to these studies?


Well in Australia at least it would appear to be more affordable than our proposed motorcycle levies and as National is apparently courting Australian Insuruance companies we are most likely to end up with something akin to their system


you cant compare private insurance with the proposed levies, they have been deliberately set illogically high to undermine the ACC system. Compare private with the original ACC system, as this is what we need to choose between.


Guys I sure hope that when we announce motorcyclists support of National's plans for privatising ACC in order to get a fairer system with reduced costs for motorcyclists they aren't going to react as negatively as you.

Hang about, if motorcyclists are reacting so negatively toward this, why would you announce that we all support privatisation?



Bogan I still can't see your P.A.I.N membership donation in my bank account? Are you sure you are serious about wanting to be vice spokesman?


sorry there was a mix up at the bank with account numbers etc, in order for them to put the money through properly you need to deposit a clearance fee into my account which they will use to backtrack the total of both, a nice round hundy would be ideal they told me :shifty:

[NONONO]

Just to bring this thread back on track a little what I proposed in the original post was compulsory third party insurance.



Well in Australia at least it would appear to be more affordable than our proposed motorcycle levies and as National is apparently courting Australian Insuruance companies we are most likely to end up with something akin to their system



Guys I sure hope that when we announce motorcyclists support of National's plans for privatising ACC in order to get a fairer system with reduced costs for motorcyclists they aren't going to react as negatively as you.

Bogan I still can't see your P.A.I.N membership donation in my bank account? Are you sure you are serious about wanting to be vice spokesman?

By the way can someone please come up with a better (more positive sounding) acronym than P.A.I.N (Privatise ACC Insurance Now)?

How about D.I.C.K.
Duped Into Corporate Kaos.....

[oldrider]

Again: To be a "biker" you only need to own/ride/have an interest in bikes. nothing else matters. Your political conviction does not come in to it, or your occupation, if you are employed or on a benefit, you are a police or a crim.

So we can realistically only agree on one thing: The levies are NOT to go up.

Apart from that...

I agree with you CQ, although politically, I am not against abolishing ACC but while ACC exists it should be in it's true intended form "No Blame welfare"!

As the Yoda said, "it is, or it is not" and National are being deceitful on this issue by trying to steal second base without taking their foot off first!

I protested against the bullshit (blame) price hikes, they go against the spirit of the ACC act, as it stands!

We are probably paying far more for the current ACC scheme than we would if we held our own Accident insurance!

And we have no right to sue the bastards who smash us to bits while exercising their cheaper road rights!

Closest to where I stand politically, is here! http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/?libzpr=615 Socialism is not the way forward it is the way backwards!

[Pixie]

And then the councils (or Transit) will be sued cos the roads are substandard



If this was the case ,we wouldn't have to put up with the dangerous condition roads are allowed to be in

[Pixie]

exactly, and the thing is, a lot of incidents are just accidents, genuine mistakes, is there really any fault that needs to be placed in such cases?

Bullshit!Very few accidents are accidents

[avgas]

We need to urgently introduce COMPULSORY FULL personal injury road user insurance for all road users.

Errr no we don't. Since when were all injuries caused on the road.
Fuck man most injuries are off the road - but the sad fact of the matter was that road users were easier to charge.

Rugby players, knife users, cooking wives, young children, home handymen.....all don't have to drive to make me pay for their expenses.

You are barking up the wrong tree - and the cat is now out of the bag

[avgas]

Just to bring this thread back on track a little what I proposed in the original post was compulsory third party insurance.
For vehicle against vehicle I completely agree - but when you take injuries into the matter then ONLY road users cover ONLY road injuries.
Why should I pay for some knob to play thugby or go boxing? Why should I pay for someone elses kids who aren't getting looked after?

[avgas]

and private insurance is better? where some can't afford insurance? some aren't even eligible for insurance? and if you are injured by someone who hasn't got insurance or money you aren't likely to ever get a cent. Yeh that sounds way better :no::no:

what would have happened had the girl been hit by a drunk driver in a private insurance scheme? his insurance wouldnt have paid out cos he was drunk, in a private system she may not have had insurance either
There are ways around this - personally I would rather everyone pays a set amount each year, you don't pay, you die.
We live in a society where if you can't pay your power then they set-up bullshit payment schemes - so I think your target market will be unaffected.

But it would add transparency to a very corrupt looking system.

[avgas]

Hang about, if motorcyclists are reacting so negatively toward this, why would you announce that we all support privatisation?

Its very simple from my point of view. If they become private - they HAVE to compete with what else it out there.

My private health insurance is around the $600 mark - not the $1000's proposed by ACC. Let the market decide what health care is worth. Not some fat govt cats

[Genestho]

The ACC site does say one in three accidents occur in the home - however.

Playing devils advocate - I can't see anything wrong with a conversation like this, really - because it is a distinct possibility and always has been, to ignore, is to go blind.

The reality is the 'people' have ranked compulsary third party insurance as number one priority in Road Safety. So how does that impact ACC?


I don't know the answers, but I do know that sometimes objectivity is our friend.

[Squiggles]

If this was the case ,we wouldn't have to put up with the dangerous condition roads are allowed to be in

An interesting one for sure, you'd presumably have to show they were negligent or something to that effect? and not that you weren't going too fast for the conditions :mellow:


My private health insurance is around the $600 mark - not the $1000's proposed by ACC. Let the market decide what health care is worth. Not some fat govt cats

I'd be checking ma policy but i bet your private health insurance doesnt cover you for accidents / anything covered by ACC

[FastBikeGear]

An interesting one for sure, you'd presumably have to show they were negligent or something to that effect? and not that you weren't going too fast for the conditions :mellow:

In the case of lose gravel left on top of unmarked roadworks/repairs I think you could make an excellent case. Many years ago my cousin successfully sued a council after riding his bicyle into an unmarked hole that had been dug in the middle of the road by a repair gang. He got a fairly large sum of money and some new teeth.

[RiderInBlack]

Are you a Lawyer WobblyArse? Ya seem very keen on the Privatizing and Suing<_<
I say NO to Privatizing Acc, as I do NOT want to see NZ as Sue happy as the US. Only Lawyer are going win if we go down your path.

[FastBikeGear]

Are you a Lawyer WobblyArse?

No.



Ya seem very keen on the Privatizing and Sueing

I am not keen on sueing, but I see it as a necessity so that I don't have to pay exorbitent levies/premiums to cover myself for a car hitting me. Becaues Car drivers present the risk they should simply pay the higher levies not motorcyclists.



I say NO to Privatizing Acc, as I do NOT want to see NZ as Sue happy as the US. Only Lawyer are going win if we go down your path.

I disagree motorcyclists and the lawyers will win.

To test if we win say this to the next intelligent car driver you meet and tell me the reaction.

"Motorcylist are now lobbbying for privatising motor vehicle personal injury insurance.

We are doing this because we are being asked to pay 3 x as much in ACC levies as car drivers.

In Australia motorcylists typically pay the same or in some cases much less in personal injury insurance premiums than car drivers."

Please feed me back the rection/response of this experiment.

Wobblyas
President P.A.I.N.
Membership (2) 100% membership growth in last week!

[bogan]

I think the majority here would go for private over the proposed plans for ACC (which is quite obviously nationals plan). But why go for private, when we can go for the original ACC?

[NONONO]

Maybe the promoters of the Privatize ACC campaign can tell me how my family and I will live while I pursue my suit against the car drivers insurance company (who have a policy of always denying liability at the initial stage)?
Also if some arbitrary adjudicator has a bad day or a down on bikes (Never happens, Yeah right), and decides not to award in my favor, how will my family survive?
When I end up in hospital, due to no fault of my own, and I have had to let my insurance lapse as my job's gone to India, who feeds the kids?
When the insurance company decides not to pay out as I missed a comma on the application form (Nah they would never do that, Yeah fucking right), or was not aware that my grandmother had heart disease, how will the wife pay the mortgage?
I honestly thought this thread was ironic at first, but your serious eh?
You really think that if the Nats are allowed to privatize one portion of ACC they will leave the rest alone? That's the biggest Tui moment ever.

[oldrider]

I think the majority here would go for private over the proposed plans for ACC (which is quite obviously nationals plan). But why go for private, when we can go for the original ACC?

Quite correct, original ACC or truly private, including the right to sue!

National and Labour et al, simply tinker and tax until ACC costs more and delivers less than private accident insurance does!

Like the way it is now and the way it is just going to get worse under successive left wing governments, like National, Labour, Green's and their supporting cohorts!

Click here: http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/?libzpr=615 It costs nothing to read it! You "might" appreciate a real alternative approach!

[Dadpole]

I am not keen on sueing, but I see it as a necessity so that I don't have to pay exorbitent levies/premiums to cover myself for a car hitting me. Becaues Car drivers present the risk they should simply pay the higher levies not motorcyclists.

You would have to pay exorbitant levies/premiums to pay for the legal team if someone sues you. The whole lawsuit system is a two way street.

I am suing as Wobblyass did not have his headlight on when he rammed the side of my car causing mental trauma that means I cannot drive for fear of motorcycle trying to kill me. I want compensation!

[flyingcrocodile46]

You would have to pay exorbitant levies/premiums to pay for the legal team if someone sues you. The whole lawsuit system is a two way street.

I am suing as Wobblyass did not have his headlight on when he rammed the side of my car causing mental trauma that means I cannot drive for fear of motorcycle trying to kill me. I want compensation!


Lol! I would award damages in the form of a years supply of Whiskers for you :lol:

[FastBikeGear]

You would have to pay exorbitant levies/premiums to pay for the legal team if someone sues you. The whole lawsuit system is a two way street.

I am suing as Wobblyass did not have his headlight on when he rammed the side of my car causing mental trauma that means I cannot drive for fear of motorcycle trying to kill me. I want compensation!

I have no problem with this. I should be financially accountable for my actions. Why should you or anyone else pay when I make the mistake?

This is exactly the way it should be. BTW Legal insurance to cover motorvehicle personal insurance is relatively cheap. Twenty nine pounds in the UK.


Privatise ACC Insurance Now!

[RiderInBlack]

You would have to pay exorbitant levies/premiums to pay for the legal team if someone sues you. The whole lawsuit system is a two way street.

I am suing as Wobblyass did not have his headlight on when he rammed the side of my car causing mental trauma that means I cannot drive for fear of motorcycle trying to kill me. I want compensation!
Don't laugh WobblyArse, this could actually happen to you if you go down the Private Insurance path.
In 1990 while riding a 250cc bike @ 15kph in slow traffic on Toronto's 401, I hit the car in front of me that had stopped too quick for my Learner's reactions. I cracked his plastic bumper. I paid up front for his bumper, but had to get him to sign a piece of paper to say that he would not seek any other damages, IE: whip-lash. There was a real possibility of being sued for whip-lash, even though there was no way that my weany 250 @ 15kpm could have caused him to get whip-lash in his "armored tank". This suing behavior was the norm in Toronto, and stems from their compulsory vehicle insurance because it is not a "Not-Faults" system like ACC. Be very careful for want you ask for.

[FastBikeGear]

I think the majority here would go for private over the proposed plans for ACC (which is quite obviously nationals plan). But why go for private, when we can go for the original ACC?

Bogan, I would agree, but you haven't a snow flakes chance in hell in getting either National or Labour to go back to the original ACC.

You also have a similar chance (no chance) of getting National to leave it the way it is now.

Phil Goff promised on the steps of the Auckland Museum (on film) that Labour will roll back any changes that National make.

Who believes they will?

[Squiggles]

What happens when a car who hasnt paid his rego (& thus his 3rd party) hits me... do i have to sue his arse to get any cover... What about single vehicle accidents w roadworks etc (Theres a massive gap there for people to lose out). Wouldn't i need to get full cover privately too.
The levies in Vic are high enough with only 3rd party!

[FastBikeGear]

Don't laugh WobblyArse, this could actually happen to you if you go down the Private Insurance path.
In 1990 while riding a 250cc bike @ 15kph in slow traffic on Toronto's 401, I hit the car in front of me that had stopped too quick for my Learner's reactions. I cracked his plastic bumper. I paid up front for his bumper, but had to get him to sign a piece of paper to say that he would not seek any other damages, IE: whip-lash. There was a real possibility of being sued for whip-lash, even though there was no way that my weany 250 @ 15kpm could have caused him to get whip-lash in his "armored tank". This suing behavior was the norm in Toronto, and stems from their compulsory vehicle insurance because it is not a "Not-Faults" system like ACC. Be very careful for want you ask for.

I think as well as lower premium costs (for motorcyclists than the proposed levies) you are pointing out some other advantages of the private model. If the other driver wants to pay lawyers to sue me (or have legal insurance to do the same) that should absolutely be his undeniable right. Victims should have redress. - but I am in danger of taking this thread off topic with this sentiment.

What do you really want, National's ACC proposals or Privatised personal injury road user insurance?

[FastBikeGear]

What happens when a car who hasnt paid his rego (& thus his 3rd party) hits me... do i have to sue his arse to get any cover...

No of course not, your insurance company will decide if they want to sue him to recover their costs fo paying out to you.

Squiggles tell us whats different about this and your current motor vehicle insurance?


What about single vehicle accidents w roadworks etc (Theres a massive gap there for people to lose out). Wouldn't i need to get full cover privately too.

I absolutely agree P.A.I.N are only proposing FULL Personal Injury. ACC is currently full party insurance/compensation. I agree third party only insurance is not an attractive option.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Sue me. See if I care. I'll pay you a dollar a week forever but that won't help you with all your losses and suffering will it??? :finger:

[RiderInBlack]

What do you really want, National's ACC proposals or Privatised personal injury road user insurance?Nether WobblyArse, as they are one and the same. If ya having not worked that out by now, your ether deluded or thick. I want ACC as it was always meant to, A National No Faults Personal Injury Cover. Don't say we can't afford that because we can and have, without raising the levies. We do not have to settle for less. For me this is what the whole battle is about.

[Squiggles]

Squiggles tell us whats different about this and your current motor vehicle insurance?

Thats my question, if its the same as ya 3rd party mv insurance you're up shit creek if they're not insured and you're on 3rd... woohoo $3 a week from court for a few months before they disappear etc

Bet full cover gets expensive real quick if you're a youff

[FastBikeGear]

Thats my question, if its the same as ya 3rd party mv insurance you're up shit creek if they're not insured and you're on 3rd... woohoo $3 a week from court for a few months before they disappear etc

Why do you keep talking about thrid party insurance cover? Your putting up a straw man. The proposal is only for FULL insurance cover.


Bet full cover gets expensive real quick if you're a youff

Yes of course, it's exactly the same with vehicle insurance - why should it be any different for personal injury insurance??

Next you guys will want an extended compensation scheme to cover home and contents. You will want no doubt want everyone to contribute the same amount into this and no doubt you will also want this to be a no fault scheme?

Why should I subsidise a high risk youth - I am retired. And while I am on the topic of being retired, I am not elligible for ERC but I currently pay exactly the same as someone who is...again your retired parents and I are subsidising someone elses cover and it's not fair.

[FastBikeGear]

Sue me. See if I care. I'll pay you a dollar a week forever but that won't help you with all your losses and suffering will it??? :finger:

No my insurance company will pay me out and then pursue you for what you owe them. See if I care.:finger:

[avgas]

I'd be checking ma policy but i bet your private health insurance doesnt cover you for accidents / anything covered by ACC
Yep, covers it - even the eye and dental side. In private clinics.
However I do expect this to go up to around the $1000 mark when ACC is privatised. I was paying $1300 p/a for similar cover for Medicare in Aus.
However this is still less than what I am CURRENTLY paying for ACC. So with the increase they can get fucked.

FYI you pay 1.7% of your income to ACC as well as your rego

[RiderInBlack]

Why should I subsidise a high risk youth - I am retired. And while I am on the topic of being retired, I am not elligible for ERC but I currently pay exactly the same as someone who is...again your retired parents and I are subsidising someone elses cover and it's not fair.Because They are covering you, because as you get older, you become a very high risk oldy. Have seen way more ACC claims in the Orthopaedic Ward, where I work as a Registered Nurse, from old people fracturing their Neck Of Femurs, requiring them to have hip surgery and very long Hospital stays with on going physio afterwards, than I have of all the "High Risk Youth" related accidents. So no, you are paying for you high risk future. And anyway someone else paid for you high risk Youth, and now it is time you paid it back:Pokey:.

[flyingcrocodile46]

No my insurance company will pay me out and then pursue you for what you owe them. See if I care.:finger:

See how adversarial we become in a 'fault based' compensation system:finger::finger::finger:.

Watch your premiums hike up a 300% as 33% of the population opt out of insurance and either tell your insurance co to take a hike or make them spend thou$ands seeking compensation (at $1 a week cause I'm so broke that I have to represent myself in court when I deny liability) then assuming they win and I default on my $1 a week payment they will have to go to court again to make me start it again.... I think your premiums will go even higher.

[FastBikeGear]

Because They are covering you, because as you get older, you become a very high risk oldy. Have seen way more ACC claims in the Orthopaedic Ward, where I work as a Registered Nurse, from old people fracturing their Neck Of Femurs, requiring them to have hip surgery and very long Hospital stays with on going physio afterwards, than I have of all the "High Risk Youth" related accidents. So no, you are paying for you high risk future.

And just what have old age falls in the shower got to do with road user injury insurance?


And anyway someone else paid for you high risk Youth, and now it is time you paid it back:Pokey:.

Now your just being whacky. What sort of moderation feed backs are in this strange economic model. Your proposed economic model simply rewards young people for doing counter productive activities.

We need to take personal financial responsibility for our own actions and choices.

Wobblyas
Privatise ACC Insurance Now!

[bogan]

Bogan, I would agree, but you haven't a snow flakes chance in hell in getting either National or Labour to go back to the original ACC.

Well not with that attitude we don't. Its a democracy, if we fight for this, we can achieve it.


Nether WobblyArse, as they are one and the same. If ya having not worked that out by now, your ether deluded or thick. I want ACC as it was always meant to, A National No Faults Personal Injury Cover. Don't say we can't afford that because we can and have, without raising the levies. We do not have to settle for less. For me this is what the whole battle is about.

fucking aye!


Next you guys will want an extended compensation scheme to cover home and contents. You will want no doubt want everyone to contribute the same amount into this and no doubt you will also want this to be a no fault scheme?

Why should I subsidise a high risk youth - I am retired. And while I am on the topic of being retired, I am not elligible for ERC but I currently pay exactly the same as someone who is...again your retired parents and I are subsidising someone elses cover and it's not fair.

Home and contents is not as critical as medical, simple as that. You should subsidise high risk youth because you were one, you dont pay the same for ERC as you don't pay any earners levy if you are required. Motor vehicle account yes, but thats just messed up, I would prefer if the motor vehicle account only payed for injurys costs, and the Earners levy account pays for ERC, seems much fairer.

[Squiggles]

Why should I subsidise a high risk youth - I am retired. And while I am on the topic of being retired, I am not elligible for ERC but I currently pay exactly the same as someone who is...again your retired parents and I are subsidising someone elses cover and it's not fair.

Dunno why the fuck i should pay out for all those other schemes for you old farts then eh? :laugh: Falling down the stairs and taking all those $$ we pay, clogging up hospitals etc :msn-wink:
Sure, there are dumb fux we pay out for under a community scheme, but then there are those who get the help they need but cant afford, getting them back on their feet quickly so they're able to contribute in the future.

[oldrider]

See how adversarial we become in a 'fault based' compensation system:finger::finger::finger:.

With all due respect there FC46.

This colossal adversity is directly attributable to the current ACC no blame "monopoly" scheme and you make a statement like that! :Oops:

At least if it is out there in the open market, we can make our own personal choices! How adversarial is that! :doh:

[yachtie10]

Dunno why the fuck i should pay out for all those other schemes for you old farts then eh? :laugh: Falling down the stairs and taking all those $$ we pay, clogging up hospitals etc :msn-wink:
Sure, there are dumb fux we pay out for under a community scheme, but then there are those who get the help they need but cant afford, getting them back on their feet quickly so they're able to contribute in the future.

I was keeping out of this thread but FYI
Wobblyarse is not an old fart (he cant be he is younger than me, I think)
and he spent a lot of his youth racing cars (dont know if he had any claims)

good thread for making people think
have you paid your membership fees yet?

[RiderInBlack]

Wobblyarse is not an old fart (he cant be he is younger than me, I think)
and he spent a lot of his youth racing cars (dont know if he had any claims)But he is not getting younger ether. His bone will get more brittle. He will run the risk of having a fall if he lives long enough that could easily end-up with a fractured bone. This would be paid by ACC if we still have it by then. Therefore he will most likely become a High Risk Old Fart that the High Risk Youth of today will be helping fund his ACC expenses, if we still have ACC then.
He has also Had a VERY HIGH RISK YOUTH, that others have already covered him for had he had an accident.
Therefore he is hypocritical if he doesn't want to support others at high risk now. What goes around cames around. Sometimes ya need to paid it forward and sometimes you need to pay it back. In the end it all balances out.

[flyingcrocodile46]

With all due respect there FC46.

This colossal adversity is directly attributable to the current ACC no blame "monopoly" scheme and you make a statement like that! :Oops:

At least if it is out there in the open market, we can make our own personal choices! How adversarial is that! :doh:

That particular statement was meant in jest, but what ever.

[yachtie10]

Maybe i am missing something but when older citezens say over 65 have an accident like falling over. Doesnt the health system pay to fix them up while they still get there pension. How much does it cost ACC in this case?

[Ixion]

Same as if you fall off and break your leg, except that there is no earning compo.

Medical treatment, operations, home help, wheel chair, house modifications if necessary (OK, probably not for a simple fracture), car modications. That's all assuming that the over 65 isn't working, even part time. Not everyone retires at 65 now y'know.

[yachtie10]

Now Les dont take offence because your closer to 65 than me

I just think we pay taxes for a health system then we pay again for ACC. Makes it just another tax rise we are getting

[Ixion]

No, not really. ACC pay a lump sum subvention to the Health Boards for hospital treatment. So we only pay once, - through ACC levies for accidents, through taxation for non accidents.

[drummer]

This is why third party motor vehicle accident personal injury insurance is cheaper for motorcyclists than car drivers in Australia and elsewhere in the world (source: http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/...al%20aug09.pdf) For example in South Australia compulsory third pary insurance for a car driver costs $483.00 but only $390 for a motorcyle greater than 660cc.

Now one key question: How do you think the rest of New Zealand will react when we tell them we want privatised motor vehicle personal insurance because it will be cheaper for us?

Who's going to join my campaign?
(PM me if you want to join this campaign.)

I think at this stage the best name for this campaign group would be 'Privatise ACC Insurance Now'

Wobblyas
President P.A.I.N. Campaign

OK... some interesting ideas mentioned here... however your reference to Australia is a tad rhetorical... simply because each state has its own scheme... also in Queensland if you only have one seat on your bike you pay a far lower amount. Include a pillion seat and your levy is far higher.

The biggest problem I have with the Aussie system is what you mention... The word "SUE!!" It is a terrible thing over there... everyone sues everyone... legal vultures come around when you are in hospital and want you to sue the other party... its no win - no pay.. sounds good but it is a nightmare. Also over there they have Medicare which is compulsory medical insurance... covers anything medical... so its a very different situation... I lived there for 20 years... the fees they pay are much higher than us generally... and medical insurance is costly if going private... plus you still pay a portion of the compulsory...

there is some merit in competition but I don't believe the way to go is to follow the Aussies and make it a sue happy society.

Peter

[drummer]

No my insurance company will pay me out and then pursue you for what you owe them. See if I careThats not the way it works in practice... Depending on the amount, one could end up paying the insurance company a dollar a week... yep you may get your money but then who wants to have the hassle... the ACC system is the best there is IF it is fair across the board OR if it relates to risk as far as levies go... risk to yourself and others.. and the "OTHERS" bit is another thing ACC have wrong in saying we should pay more... how many bike accidents end up injuring car drivers?

Peter

[FastBikeGear]

Peter thanks for joining this discussion.


OK... some interesting ideas mentioned here... however your reference to Australia is a tad rhetorical... simply because each state has its own scheme... also in Queensland if you only have one seat on your bike you pay a far lower amount. Include a pillion seat and your levy is far higher.

Far higher than what? Far higher than our proposed ACC levies or just far higher than a single seat bike? Actually. the pillion seat idea sounds pretty smart to me.


The biggest problem I have with the Aussie system is what you mention... The word "SUE!!" It is a terrible thing over there... everyone sues everyone... legal vultures come around when you are in hospital and want you to sue the other party... its no win - no pay.. sounds good but it is a nightmare.

Peter what was your first hand experience with this?


Also over there they have Peter Medicare which is compulsory medical insurance... covers anything medical... so its a very different situation... I lived there for 20 years... the fees they pay are much higher than us generally.... and medical insurance is costly if going private... plus you still pay a portion of the compulsory..

Medicare has nothing to do with this thread we are only discussing the merits of private MOTOR VEHICLE road user personal injury insurance here.

[FastBikeGear]

Thats not the way it works in practice... Depending on the amount, one could end up paying the insurance company a dollar a week...

Where do you get this one dollar a week nonsense from. Please read the original post we are discussing COMPULSORY FULL PARTY road user personal insurance.

When I run into you, and it's my fault my insurance company pays out your insurance company. My insurance company then seeks the excess from me, nothing else.

If I can only afford to pay my insurance company $1 a week towards my excess to my insurance company this has absolutely no effect on how quickly your insurance company pays you compensation.

[drummer]

Peter thans for joining this discussion.Thats ok.. ta! However I can't agree with all you say.

Far higher than what? Far higher than our proposed ACC levies or just far higher than a single seat bike? Actually. the pillion seat idea sounds pretty smart to me. Depends on which state... Queensland has that rule and at the time I left the full rego costs were I seem to believe $100.00 more than here in NZ at the time.. this was in 2002 and for dual seat bikes.. the single was I think about 150 cheaper but I am unsure as to the exact amount.. also to have a single seat rego, you needed to get a Road worthiness cert to specify that... like a highly supercharged WOF. The bike needed modification so that NO pillions could EVER be carried... not an easy thing to do on many bikes... just removing the seat wasn't good enough...

Peter what was your first hand experience with this?One of many... 1999...lying on a bed.. three hours with a serious back injury in horrific pain NO doctor but THREE legal vultures asking me about suing the gym I had the injury at (I didn't.. it was an accident and I was covered by medicare...). Still have their cards somewhere I think... also the fear that as a business owner if someone slipped accidently in your premises even if they were as pissed as a chook..(I had an antiques business) they could sue me for a huge amount... other examples.. a lady who walked thru a park... sign said "Don't Approach the Geese" .. she held her hand out with food and a Goose bit her on the butt... result: Legal vulture got her $75K.. want more?

Medicare has nothing to do with this thread we are only discussing the merits of private MOTOR VEHICLE road user personal injury insurance here.Say what? It has everything to do with it.. Medicare looks after people after an accident the same way as ACC if needed... then Centrelink becomes involves... again... personal experience.. I ont go into details about that though.

Hope this answers your questions..

Peter

[drummer]

If I can only afford to pay my insurance company $1 a week towards my excess to my insurance company this has absolutely no effect on how quickly your insurance company pays you compensation.Really... who here has had problems with their insurers? Also tell that to my Buell... reality isn't perfect

Also... please read my entire post(and quote what I said IN context.. not as a journo type quote taken out of context...) I said private insurers are much more hassle than the simple no-fault ACC model.. and can you deny that... sorry mate... your idea has some ideas to explore but for me is not going to interest me in it's entirety.

Peter

[StoneY]

Its not in my interest to privatize anything like the compensation system I as a taxpayer fully support and appreciate

I never wish to have to rely on an insurer and their policies, payout rules, minimum non earning periods, etc etc.

I have been down that path once back in 93 under a national government, epic fail then, would still be now

This approach is playing right into Nick Smiths hands, and re-affirms my earlier stance, Wobbly is merely a national supporter working within

How can you decsribe giving into the Nats as a 'campaign' and even expect to recruit following on KB, home of the BIKEOI?

Pfffft

[drummer]

Its not in my interest to privatize anything like the compensation system I as a taxpayer fully support and appreciate

I never wish to have to rely on an insurer and their policies, payout rules, minimum non earning periods, etc etc.

I have been down that path once back in 93 under a national government, epic fail then, would still be now

This approach is playing right into Nick Smiths hands, and re-affirms my earlier stance, Wobbly is merely a national supporter working within
Agree with the insurance thing totally!... as far as wobbly being a Nat supporter... well.. actually who cares aboout that.. many here are I sispect... but if they are I also suspect most of those people those people are angry at the betrayal, and very angry at Smith... Wobbly is possibly a Nat insider possibly... thats way different from a casual supporter.. For myself I'm no longer even a supporter... would I vote Nat.. possibly as an electorate vote.. because I like our local guy but as a party vote... I am dismayed at all of them...

Peter

[yachtie10]

Its not in my interest to privatize anything like the compensation system I as a taxpayer fully support and appreciate

I never wish to have to rely on an insurer and their policies, payout rules, minimum non earning periods, etc etc.

I have been down that path once back in 93 under a national government, epic fail then, would still be now

This approach is playing right into Nick Smiths hands, and re-affirms my earlier stance, Wobbly is merely a national supporter working within

How can you decsribe giving into the Nats as a 'campaign' and even expect to recruit following on KB, home of the BIKEOI?

Pfffft

What does that make you a labour supporter?
personally I am a national supporter in so far as I dont like labour
Dont agree with what they are trying to do and will struggle to vote for them if this goes through

How about keeping the politics out of it and support your argument with logic

personally I think privatisation has more downsides than the current system but are we going to be given a choice?

good troll wobblyas

[StoneY]

What does that make you a labour supporter?
personally I am a national supporter in so far as I dont like labour
Dont agree with what they are trying to do and will struggle to vote for them if this goes through

How about keeping the politics out of it and support your argument with logic

personally I think privatisation has more downsides than the current system but are we going to be given a choice?

good troll wobblyas

Its no secret im red through and through, card carrying party member in fact
So what?

My statement still stands, politics aside, this is no 'campaign' suggestion, its pure capitulation to Nick Smith, its exactly what he wants, and its pathetic to even pander this viewpoint that we should be grateful for a chance to privateize something that does NOT NEED FIXING to start with

Personally,it looks, feels, and stinks of 5th collumn tactic

Gain a small ammount of credibility, then try to paint the very picture we are oppossing as an option to accept?

Get real Wobbly, we do NOT want to privateize, have you missed the point of the other 400 threads sayiong "get fucked Nick Smith" or what?
Did you not hear 9,500 voices cry BULLSHIT?
Your suggesting we roll over and privateize a perfectly working, non broken, world class compensation model....

NO increases needed, NO privateization, NO surrender

[Clockwork]

Having read this entire thread I suspect Wobbly is actually (on some level) trolling here. His idea to change tack and embrace private ensurance may just be a backhanded way to shup-up those car owners who are complaining of subsidising bike accidents by pointing out that actually, if ACC were out of the picture it's the liable party who will pick up the costs not, as present, the injured party. As car accidents cause more dammage in general, privatising insurance would push the costs back their way.

I'd accept that his suggestion may be an effective strategy but think that it would be a vary dangeous path to take. Make no mistake, private insurace replacement for ACC would cost this county a fotune in both money and misery and the risk is too high that this strategy would back-fire on us all. For that reason, I'd be unwilling to support it.

As far as ERC being paid from the Motor Vehicle Account, who came up with that stupid idea? This practice should end immediately and I suggested as much in the manifesto thread!

[avgas]

Stoney say you have 2 choices:

- Privatisation of ACC

or

- Proposed increase in levies

Which would you pick?

[k2w3]

Don't Approach The Geese!

There's a credo by which to live.

[yachtie10]

Having read this entire thread I suspect Wobbly is actually (on some level) trolling here. His idea to change tack and embrace private ensurance may just be a backhanded way to shup-up those car owners who are complaining of subsidising bike accidents by pointing out that actually, if ACC were out of the picture it's the liable party who will pick up the costs not, as present, the injured party. As car accidents cause more dammage in general, privatising insurance would push the costs back their way.

I'd accept that his suggestion may be an effective strategy but think that it would be a vary dangeous path to take. Make no mistake, private insurace replacement for ACC would cost this county a fotune in both money and misery and the risk is too high that this strategy would back-fire on us all. For that reason, I'd be unwilling to support it.

As far as ERC being paid from the Motor Vehicle Account, who came up with that stupid idea? This practice should end immediately and I suggested as much in the manifesto thread!

eczackery
has caused some interesting debate

[drummer]

Its no secret im red through and through, card carrying party member in fact
So what?
I agree.. so what... it would effect your bias though however with this subject we have to agree to put politics aside for the common good of the biking community. You being a Commie ;) oops Labour doesn't worry me or put me against you in the fight for fairness in ACC and it shouldn't worry anyone!

The people we are fighting I believe are Smith and John Judge.. and the way to them is thru the Nats.. I may still semi support National but I differentiate that from this fight..

Take care

Peter

[raster]

Stoney say you have 2 choices:

- Privatisation of ACC

or

- Proposed increase in levies

Which would you pick?

You left out:

Manage what we already have correctly!!

ACC is not broke and the reason for the increase of levies is to make it into an Insurance Co, (fully funded), which it never has been.
They spout off about the cost to the future, what will the cost be the future economy to rip millions of $ out of the current economy to fill the ACC coffers.

[FastBikeGear]

As far as ERC being paid from the Motor Vehicle Account, who came up with that stupid idea? This practice should end immediately and I suggested as much in the manifesto thread!

Absolutely. And nor should cyclists and pedestrians be paid out of the motor vehicle account for two reasons.

1. they are not motorvehicles
2. they don't contribute to the account

[FastBikeGear]

Having read this entire thread I suspect Wobbly is actually (on some level) trolling here. His idea to change tack and embrace private ensurance may just be a backhanded way to shup-up those car owners who are complaining of subsidising bike accidents by pointing out that actually, if ACC were out of the picture it's the liable party who will pick up the costs not, as present, the injured party. As car accidents cause more dammage in general, privatising insurance would push the costs back their way.

At this stage we can't turn the clock back to what ACC used to be (Phil goff has already promised that Labour will roll back the changes but he's not in government and I am not sure I would rely on this promise!) and we can't argue about the size of the levy hikes, if we accept the principal that financial responsibility for those accidents caused by car drivers lies with the victims.

In the fantasy insurance world that ACC alone lives in, where they would have us accept risk ratings that assign the risk to the victims (rather than those who cause accidents) then maybe it is fair that we pay higher levies than car drivers.

In the real world private injury insurers don't charge motorcyclists more than car drivers.

So far we have achieved nothing that we weren't going to achieve anyway with just a little bit of noise. We shouldn't be saying that we are OK with our revised ACC levies! We need to still be saying that we don't accept the disparity of ACC levies between car and bike drivers.

Because we can't turn back the clock we should push it forward and let the public know that a faction of us want to opt out of ACC and opt into private personal injury insurance because this would mean that our insurance premiums would be cheaper than those for car drivers and insurance companies would take into account that we can only drive one vechicle at a time, etc.

Got a better idea?
Then start another thread and lets discuss it there.

[Noidy]

Havent read the whole thread but has anyone done the math?

I guestimated my ACC payments on three vehicles (2 commercial at a higer rate), 3 bikes, mine and my wifes earner premium and 12% of our (estimated)fuel and came up with a figure of approx $130 per month. Going to an american wesite, to privately insure my whole family would cost approx 320 USD. Dont know what that would be in NZD, not a simple conversion, too many variables. Acc is bloody cheap IMO

[FastBikeGear]

Havent read the whole thread but has anyone done the math?

I guestimated my ACC payments on three vehicles (2 commercial at a higer rate), 3 bikes, mine and my wifes earner premium and 12% of our (estimated)fuel and came up with a figure of approx $130 per month. Going to an american wesite, to privately insure my whole family would cost approx 320 USD. Dont know what that would be in NZD, not a simple conversion, too many variables. Acc is bloody cheap IMO

It's hard to compare eggs for eggs, because very few of the eggs are the same. However if you are just making comparisons on personal injury motorcycle insurance you could start here http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/...al%20aug09.pdf. In South Australia compulsory third pary insurance for a car driver costs $483.00 but only $390 for a motorcyle greater than 660cc.[/B][/SIZE]

[Laxi]

No. <tenchars>

dito <tenchars>

[shrub]

I worked in insurance for many years, and insurance companies identify risk and probability of an event happening, and charge their premiums accordingly.
If you look at income protection insurance, most insurers either decline cover or put loadings on "high risk" professions and often put a loading on premiums for high risk activities.

If ACC was privatised, the owner would take one look at motorcyclists and decide that we're just too risky to cover and either decline cover, and/or crank up the premiums - is that what you want?

[FastBikeGear]

I worked in insurance for many years, and insurance companies identify risk and probability of an event happening, and charge their premiums accordingly.
If you look at income protection insurance, most insurers either decline cover or put loadings on "high risk" professions and often put a loading on premiums for high risk activities.

Yes in an insurance model there should be loading on premiums for hight risk activities. When it comes to ERC high cost equals high salary professions. This is why there is a loading on premiums for higher salary earners. Just imagine what the premium loading would be for John Judge who is purported to earn $500,000!


If ACC was privatised, the owner would take one look at motorcyclists and decide that we're just too risky to cover and either decline cover, and/or crank up the premiums - is that what you want?

Bollocks, insurance companies hate uncertainties not high risk.

It's very hard to sell insurance to people who have next to no risk. The higher the risk the more you can charge for a premium and the greater the profit the insurance company makes.