It's true - you are next!

[R-Soul]

This exceprt from a response from ACC to my submissions:

"Q: Why doesn’t ACC collect levies from those who participate in sporting and other recreational activities, instead of just targeting motorcyclists?

A: ACC currently collects levies for non-work injuries from earners and from the Government. To date ACC has not been able to establish a cost-effective mechanism for levying high-risk, non-work activities, but there is on-going work in this area.
Note:
• The current ACC Earner levy proposals would collect $1,120 from a $40,000 wage earner to fund high-risk and other non-work injuries – far more than the proposed motorcycle levy.
• Professional sportspeople already pay significant levies (up to $8,000 per year) based on their earnings."

[bogan]

is that for real? Cos I would like to put that in a ACC protest flyer for this sat if it is

[StoneY]

Yes its for real

Ad to that with PROPOSED changes to the act you WILL have to use ALL your acrued Sick and Holiday leave BEFORE your entitlement to income loss compensation kicks in

Criminal....cant understand why the worker bees aint burning effigy's yet

[R-Soul]

is that for real? Cos I would like to put that in a ACC protest flyer for this sat if it is

Yes I just got it in an email from the ACC - send me your email addreess and I will forward it to you.

[R-Soul]

is that for real? Cos I would like to put that in a ACC protest flyer for this sat if it is

It looks like the future sport for this country is soccer then? :calm:

[bogan]

Yes I just got it in an email from the ACC - send me your email addreess and I will forward it to you.

nah your word is good enough for me:2thumbsup will just add the quote to the flyer

[ManDownUnder]

It looks like the future sport for this country is soccer then? :calm:

or widdly dinks... oh yay

[R-Soul]

Here is another stupid quote from their reply (hows this for governmentese?):

"Issue raised:
ACC is moving away from the no-fault principle in proposing increased levies for motorcycles. Motorcyclists are being penalised when car drivers are often at fault.

Answer: ACC is not moving away from a no-fault basis. ACC does not relate costs to accident cause, or try to assign fault. The proposed levy increases merely reflect the higher costs of treating/rehabilitating motorcyclists who are injured. This does not mean that your potential for having an accident is not taken into account when the levies are calculated. The information from the Ministry of Transport1 shows that over the same distance travelled motorcyclists are 18 times more likely to be killed or injured than occupants in a car.
The only information concerning fault is collected by NZ Police when they examine crash scenes. This information shows that in 26% of attended crashes the motorcycle is the only vehicle and in a further 25% the motorcyclist is primarily responsible for the crash. The proposed levies collect around 21% of the $302 million ACC estimates will be required to pay for the injuries sustained by motorcyclists in 2010/11."

So they are apparently not allocating fault, and charging us for close to our full costs regardless of fault, while at the same time removing our ability to sue to reduce our costs when its not our fault. We are fucked every which way we move.

We should insist on the right to sue to reduce our costs, or demand equal costs for all. Bring on privatisation then.

[bogan]

Put those two quotes together and they are clearly going to a victim pays scheme. WTF how can anyone think that is a good idea :angry2:

[R-Soul]

Here is the full document attached:

[R-Soul]

Put those two quotes together and they are clearly going to a victim pays scheme. WTF how can anyone think that is a good idea :angry2:

At least in a private scheme we can delegate our authority to sue to our insurer, and bring our premiums down that way.

If motorists could be privately sued, they might be a little more wide awake as well...

[Mikkel]

This exceprt from a response from ACC to my submissions:

"Q: Why doesn’t ACC collect levies from those who participate in sporting and other recreational activities, instead of just targeting motorcyclists?

A: ACC currently collects levies for non-work injuries from earners and from the Government. To date ACC has not been able to establish a cost-effective mechanism for levying high-risk, non-work activities, but there is on-going work in this area.
Note:
• The current ACC Earner levy proposals would collect $1,120 from a $40,000 wage earner to fund high-risk and other non-work injuries – far more than the proposed motorcycle levy.
• Professional sportspeople already pay significant levies (up to $8,000 per year) based on their earnings."

However, a motorcyclist who is earning $40,000 a year will still be paying $1,120. The ACC levy is not an insignificant amount compared to that.


Here is another stupid quote from their reply (hows this for governmentese?):

"Issue raised:
ACC is moving away from the no-fault principle in proposing increased levies for motorcycles. Motorcyclists are being penalised when car drivers are often at fault.

Answer: ACC is not moving away from a no-fault basis. ACC does not relate costs to accident cause, or try to assign fault. The proposed levy increases merely reflect the higher costs of treating/rehabilitating motorcyclists who are injured. This does not mean that your potential for having an accident is not taken into account when the levies are calculated. The information from the Ministry of Transport1 shows that over the same distance travelled motorcyclists are 18 times more likely to be killed or injured than occupants in a car.
The only information concerning fault is collected by NZ Police when they examine crash scenes. This information shows that in 26% of attended crashes the motorcycle is the only vehicle and in a further 25% the motorcyclist is primarily responsible for the crash. The proposed levies collect around 21% of the $302 million ACC estimates will be required to pay for the injuries sustained by motorcyclists in 2010/11."

So they are not allocating fault, and charging us for close to our full costs regardless of fault, while at the same time removing our ability to sue to reduce our costs when its not our fault. We are fucked every which way we move.

We should insist on the right to sue to reduce our costs, or demand equal costs for all. Bring on privatisation then.

Of course they are moving away from a no-fault basis. They are effectively saying "Shame on you for getting hurt - and we don't care who's fault it is!". What I mean is that they are placing the blame with the person getting injured - that's no different from saying that they are at fault.

It's all just bulshytt (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/18524) anyway.


Bulshytt: (1) In Fluccish of the late Praxic Age and early Reconstitution, a derogatory term for false speech in general, esp. knowing and deliberate falsehood or obfuscation. (2) In Orth, a more technical and clinical term denoting speech (typically but not necessarily commercial or political) that employs euphemism, convenient vagueness, numbing repetition, and other such rhetorical subterfuges to create the impression that something has been said. (3) According to the Knights of Saunt Halikaarn, a radical order of the 2nd Millennium A.R., all speech and writings of the ancient Sphenics; the Mystagogues of the Old Mathic Age; Praxic Age commercial and political institutions; and, since the Reconstitution, anyone they deemed to have been infected by Procian thinking. …

[StoneY]

We should insist on the right to sue to reduce our costs, or demand equal costs for all. Bring on privatisation then.

You mug, your playing into thier hands

Re-examine the information they provided you

Last year we cost 63 Million in claims...where does the 304 Million for the coming year come from?

Your falling for THIER propoganda mate, I will NOT accept privateization as a solution, and never will

Last time we 'privateized' ACC I was assessed on my medical history by the insurer...only thing they WERE willing to cover me for was my left leg, every other part of my body was excluded due to prior and historic injuries....

You may want private insurance, fine go get it
You may find its not the golden chalice you believe it to be

[Azi Dahaka]

yea i was just talking to a ex acc claims officer and she was saying last time the privitised it labour was able to put it back together this time they will prvitise it and put so many laws and what not to make it next to impossible to put it back together we dont want to let them privitise the work account because it will create no ends of problems

[R-Soul]

You mug, your playing into thier hands

Re-examine the information they provided you

Last year we cost 63 Million in claims...where does the 304 Million for the coming year come from?

Your falling for THIER propoganda mate, I will NOT accept privateization as a solution, and never will

Last time we 'privateized' ACC I was assessed on my medical history by the insurer...only thing they WERE willing to cover me for was my left leg, every other part of my body was excluded due to prior and historic injuries....

You may want private insurance, fine go get it
You may find its not the golden chalice you believe it to be

But having this situation of not being privatised, but not being treated equally is also not ideal.

[bikemike]

Yeah I just popped in here to see what folks' reaction was.

Pretty much same.

How inane to mention a handful of professional sports people earning enough to pay $8,000 levies. How much of a proportion of the claiming, playing public is that?
Professional sportspeople already pay significant levies (up to $8,000 per year) based on their earnings.

Others' paying through the work account. Well so are we, but they aren't paying for us...!
ACC currently collects levies for non-work injuries from earners and from the Government.

On avoiding cross subsidisation within the motorcycle group -motorcycles (e.g. commuter bikes vs. high performance bikes).
One, I commute, tour, fang and ride out on my bike. Two, I am probably most at risk on the commute - regardless of the size of my bike. What are they getting at?
The idea behind the different subclasses is to reduce the degree of cross subsidisation between different types of motorcycles (e.g. commuter bikes vs. high performance bikes).

Oh, and don't be pushing for paying once per person and not per bike, because then you'd be paying even more. So that kind of fear-mongering and cross-subsidisation is OK then...?

Annual collections from drivers/riders would require an additional collection process from each individual, and would ultimately mean increased collection costs which would have to be passed on

usual

[mashman]

So they are not allocating fault

Yes they are. They are using probability calculations to justify levy rises and hence they are assigning "fault" for the future... it just so happens that they're blaming all motorcyclists this time round... "Who's Next?".

[Pixie]

How inane to mention a handful of professional sports people earning enough to pay $8,000 levies. How much of a proportion of the claiming, playing public is that?



And how does earning more money make you a bigger risk?

[mashman]

And how does earning more money make you a bigger risk?

take a look at any gobmint minister... :whistle:

[R-Soul]

Yes they are. They are using probability calculations to justify levy rises and hence they are assigning "fault" for the future... it just so happens that they're blaming all motorcyclists this time round... "Who's Next?".

Yup its called sarcasm..

[R-Soul]

Yes they are. They are using probability calculations to justify levy rises and hence they are assigning "fault" for the future... it just so happens that they're blaming all motorcyclists this time round... "Who's Next?".

When you think about it, they are actually not allocating fault- they are just allocating blame and cost. They blame us for their costs, regardless of whose fault it is. And they stop us from getting our costs back by sueing, which would even the payments closer to if they actually allocated fault.

Having said that, according to LTNZ, about half the accidents bikes are involved in are our own fault. So paying half the risk costs, which by my reckoning is about what we are paying now, is similar to what the private insurance companies would charge us.

But screw $750 a pop!!

[StoneY]

And they stop us from getting our costs back by sueing, which would even the payments closer to if they actually allocated fault.

But screw $750 a pop!!

Your so intoxicated with this 'right to sue' shit
Go live where people HAVE to sue to get thier righteous entitlements
You will find $750 a pop is nothing
Even IF the whole levy increase had gone through, we were still better off then private and the right to sue

When I last had to get 'private cover' as a self employed entity, and had 2 staff as well, I was forced to keep up ACC levy's on all 3 of us as WELL as pay Private Cover, because ACC became a limited cover system.
The bullshit hybrid forced on us by Jim Bolger in 93, and that lasted till 98/99 when Labour got back in and returned it to almost what it should be

I had NO cover for 80% of my physical being under the private cover and STILL paid the full fuckin premium, exempted was everyting exept my left leg due to past sports, work, and marshal arts injuries (note no motor vehicle claims)

So I had to remain under ACC for everything they had already covered in my history, as did BOTH my workers, and we had to have a private policy to cover the rest...

Double dip, double fees, and less cover than ever before as well as when I did have an accident (left leg, knee, dislocated in fall at work) the ACC said "no thats under your private policy" and the private insurer said "we only start paying income loss after 3 months" and ACC said "No we dont cover that its your private policy" and the visous circle went round and round

Leave ACC alone, never return the right to sue, and wake the hell up to realise what we have WORKS, is NOT BROKEN, and shouldnt be fucked with anymore than they already tried

[avgas]

You mug, your playing into thier hands
You may want private insurance, fine go get it
Very true, however you do also have to consider the other side.
If its not privatised - they ask, you pay. You can't go elsewhere. If they wanted to charge 20% of income, you can jump up and down all you want - but it is compulsory and you will have to pay.

Privatised, there is competition (already). And there is no overhead infrastructure (unlike the telecom bs). If you don't like what they are charging you can go elsewhere. If you think its unfair - you can go the commerce commission (which is what happened to the cell phone providers). You don't have these rights if its a 1-man govt band.

Swings and roundabouts. I would rather it was not privatised, but I also do not like corporate dictatorship.

[R-Soul]

Your so intoxicated with this 'right to sue' shit
Go live where people HAVE to sue to get thier righteous entitlements
You will find $750 a pop is nothing
Even IF the whole levy increase had gone through, we were still better off then private and the right to sue

When I last had to get 'private cover' as a self employed entity, and had 2 staff as well, I was forced to keep up ACC levy's on all 3 of us as WELL as pay Private Cover, because ACC became a limited cover system.
The bullshit hybrid forced on us by Jim Bolger in 93, and that lasted till 98/99 when Labour got back in and returned it to almost what it should be

I had NO cover for 80% of my physical being under the private cover and STILL paid the full fuckin premium, exempted was everyting exept my left leg due to past sports, work, and marshal arts injuries (note no motor vehicle claims)

So I had to remain under ACC for everything they had already covered in my history, as did BOTH my workers, and we had to have a private policy to cover the rest...

Double dip, double fees, and less cover than ever before as well as when I did have an accident (left leg, knee, dislocated in fall at work) the ACC said "no thats under your private policy" and the private insurer said "we only start paying income loss after 3 months" and ACC said "No we dont cover that its your private policy" and the visous circle went round and round

Leave ACC alone, never return the right to sue, and wake the hell up to realise what we have WORKS, is NOT BROKEN, and shouldnt be fucked with anymore than they already tried

I am not "intoxicated" by it. I am saying that a half-assed arrangement with ACC being half privatised and (inaccurately and lazily) allocating blame instead of fault (not like a private insurance corp) puts us between a rock and hard place, much teh same as being to pay "double dip" payments for BOTH private and ACC payments.

I am saying that you should either go one or the other. Not half arsed hybrid crap. Full competitiveness without a greed, lazy inefficient government corp behind it, or full cover regardless of risk or blame.

[mashman]

When you think about it, they are actually not allocating fault- they are just allocating blame and cost. They blame us for their costs, regardless of whose fault it is.


In my eyes that's exactly what they are doing... as a group we are being held responsible for a portion of cost. You can't do that unless you apportion blame and by default, fault. They're saying that it's the motorcyclists fault that their levies are so high and therefore we carry the blame, as a group, for that fault and should financially reimburse ACC. I can't read it any other way than that. Completely flies in the face of the no-fault system, otherwise everyone would have had the same levy hike.

750 is small potatoes in comparison to the insurance premiums you will have to buy to get the same cover as the ACC can provide. The exclusions on insurance policies will become unaffordable for the recurrence of an injury... it will follow exactly the same logic as house insurance. You'll get 1 claim per "incidence" i.e. if your roof blows off, you're only ever going to be covered once for a roof blowing off... after that you're on your own or you'll have to pay an extortionate premium for it.

Read what StoneY has said about his leg and how he couldn't get true cover for existing injuries... that's how insurance works, risk based premiums. If there's an existing risk, make 'em pay hard for it as it's a guarenteed HIGH risk... Insurance will cripple any health service as the money goes to insurance companies instead of into doctors/nurses pockets where it should be going...