ACC shafts the little guy

[tigertim20]

found this. dunno if repost.
enjoy anyway.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63yzgu6D9k

[Robert Taylor]

found this. dunno if repost.
enjoy anyway.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63yzgu6D9k

Get used to it, the longest sufferers of big ACC levies are employers. It seems we are subsidising sporting injuries because people are largely not prepared to pay into private cover for their often dangerous pursuits.

[oldrider]

Get used to it, the longest sufferers of big ACC levies are employers. It seems we are subsidising sporting injuries because people are largely not prepared to pay into private cover for their often dangerous pursuits.

To be fair, they can't relinquish their ACC levies in order to take on private cover and I don't think employers are any different either!

We are "all" stuck with the ACC monopoly ..... like it or not .... socialism doesn't like competition! :mellow:

[DR650gary]

One of the tenants of ACC that I have issue with is the "no fault" part.

If motorcyclists are to blame, then they would be sued and their insurance would have to stump up the dollars so insurers would probably charge a bit more than they do now. When they were not at fault, however, the motorcyclist would be entitled to recover from the driver's insurance and that would be a nice chunk of change as we generally get pretty fucked up in car vs m/cycle whereas normally the driver is just a bit bruised and pissed off. So....what would the size of the pool of funds be in either direction.

If there is "no fault" we are denied recovery so therefore should not have to bear any greater burden of the cost than any other party to this equation.

Bit of a ramble I know, but does it make any sense?

[FJRider]

To be fair, they can't relinquish their ACC levies in order to take on private cover and I don't think employers are any different either!


I dont think he was refering to employers relinquishing their levies in favour of private cover ... but on MOST job application forms ... you WILL be asked for your ACC history, or permission to ASK ACC for that information. Also asked for is any criminal convictions ...

Way down the list of things that are asked ... funily enough ... is YOUR job history. (At the very least ... WHY you left your last employment)

[HenryDorsetCase]

One of the tenants of ACC that I have issue with is the "no fault" part.

If motorcyclists are to blame, then they would be sued and their insurance would have to stump up the dollars so insurers would probably charge a bit more than they do now. When they were not at fault, however, the motorcyclist would be entitled to recover from the driver's insurance and that would be a nice chunk of change as we generally get pretty fucked up in car vs m/cycle whereas normally the driver is just a bit bruised and pissed off. So....what would the size of the pool of funds be in either direction.

If there is "no fault" we are denied recovery so therefore should not have to bear any greater burden of the cost than any other party to this equation.

Bit of a ramble I know, but does it make any sense?

No, it does not. And you mean "tenets" not "tenants".

At its simplest, ACC is a very large risk-pooling activity. No fault is the most fundamental part of that. What ACC does. or should do, is to focus on outcomes, fix those consequences, and get people back to work, so they can contribute to the pool to cover others. It is a cheap shot to label it "socialism" though of course in its broadest sense, it is a societal good.

What Woodhouse said, in the report that was the precursor to, and template for, the ACC scheme in its earliest form. was simply this: "Ignore HOW shit happened, its happened, lets fix it. Lets not worry about whether you have any recourse against the party who caused (in a legal sense) the harm you've suffered. Lets just get you fixed up, and back earning, so that the lottery of whether you get hit by some rich prick in a bentley who can pay, or some 17 year old student driver in a clapped out Corolla does not apply. In exchange for the promise that we'll look after you, you give up your right to sue.

In the intervening period, the attacks have been varied, and ideologically driven: So we have the separation in to various categories of harm, and the ever finer "user pays" rhetoric that sees an attempt to, for example, tax motorcycles out of existence.

I thnk ACC in its original form is one of the triumphs of post world war 2 New Zealand government. And this death by a thousand cuts by hatchet faced fucktards like Key and his lumpy minions is shameful, and disgraceful.

But thats just me, it appears

[HenryDorsetCase]

interesting reading here:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of-acc/introduction-to-acc/ABA00003

read the Woodhouse report here:

http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/data/woodhouse/

[Usarka]

Get used to it, the longest sufferers of big ACC levies are employers. It seems we are subsidising sporting injuries because people are largely not prepared to pay into private cover for their often dangerous pursuits.

Those employees are cunts eh...

But in the thing called reality private insurance makes absolutely no difference to the ACC spending so it has nothing to do with evil-doing good for nothing layabout employees.

If your employee has income protection insurance and breaks his neck playing rugby then ACC will pay him. His insurance may "top up" payments or benefits but ACC doesn't treat him any different to someone without private insurance.

[dmc]

I thnk ACC in its original form is one of the triumphs of post world war 2 New Zealand government. And this death by a thousand cuts by hatchet faced fucktards like Key and his lumpy minions is shameful, and disgraceful.

But thats just me, it appears

I think neither National or Labour have got a clue on ACC and vehicle levies, I reckon they should charge ACC levies against your license and not in rego then you pay ACC levies according to the vehicles you are licensed to operate and not the number of vehicles you own, if you own a car and a couple of bikes it costs you a fortune but you could drive professionally for a living in a company owned vehicle and because you don't do the rego you pay nothing.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I think neither National or Labour have got a clue on ACC and vehicle levies, I reckon they should charge ACC levies against your license and not in rego then you pay ACC levies according to the vehicles you are licensed to operate and not the number of vehicles you own, if you own a car and a couple of bikes it costs you a fortune but you could drive professionally for a living in a company owned vehicle and because you don't do the rego you pay nothing.

My view is that IF you accept that the accident hit rate (usually measured in deaths per hundred thousand kilometres) is the basis on which contribution to the scheme is made (I do agree with this, others do not), THEN you pretty much have to charge on the basis of what gets you those hundred thousand kilometres. You got it. take off all the levies from motor registration, no road user charges through petrol, and tax petrol and diesel the same, and say an extra 25c a litre.

no extra compliance costs, "fair" sharing: the more k's you drive the more ACC levy you pay.

Oh wait, I hear you say: what about trains and transport and stuff? easy fix with an exemption for Kiwirail (one customer, ten people max to police the rebate): easy peasy lemon squeezy

[DR650gary]

No, it does not. And you mean "tenets" not "tenants".



Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Sorry i can't assist you with comprehension but i believe actions should have consequences. ACC removed those for all parties involved so we snowballed into the current scenario where we fund counselling under ACC.

My point was, ACC wants to expand the pool used to rehabilitate injured motorcyclists and they want us to fund it at a higher level. That means we fund the results of the accidents we cause and the accidents we don't. When a bike hits a car, the motorcyclist is likely to cause little injury to the driver and passengers so there is little to recover if suit was the settlement basis. When a car hits a motorcyclist, generally the motorcyclist has serious injuries so the recovery through suit would be larger. The pool funded through car levies paid for motorcyclist injuries I think would be larger than the pool for car drivers injured by motorcyclists.

Easy point for me to see but obviously a hard one to communicate.

[Ocean1]

Oh wait, I hear you say: what about trains and transport and stuff? easy fix with an exemption for Kiwirail (one customer, ten people max to police the rebate): easy peasy lemon squeezy

And shiping.

And earthmoving contractors.

Still a good idea. Fair,(ish) and cheap to administer. Some places, (UK for one) have a dye in "road tax free" AGO. Getting caught with green dye in your truck's fuel filter was a bad thing.

[dmc]

My view is that IF you accept that the accident hit rate (usually measured in deaths per hundred thousand kilometres) is the basis on which contribution to the scheme is made (I do agree with this, others do not), THEN you pretty much have to charge on the basis of what gets you those hundred thousand kilometres. You got it. take off all the levies from motor registration, no road user charges through petrol, and tax petrol and diesel the same, and say an extra 25c a litre.

no extra compliance costs, "fair" sharing: the more k's you drive the more ACC levy you pay.

Oh wait, I hear you say: what about trains and transport and stuff? easy fix with an exemption for Kiwirail (one customer, ten people max to police the rebate): easy peasy lemon squeezy

Same deal really, I'd happily pay a licensing ACC levy or a single levy in fuel, either way is much fairer than the current system and either would probably not be anymore expensive than what I pay now, but I could own more bikes which would be good :shifty:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Sorry i can't assist you with comprehension but i believe actions should have consequences. ACC removed those for all parties involved so we snowballed into the current scenario where we fund counselling under ACC.

My point was, ACC wants to expand the pool used to rehabilitate injured motorcyclists and they want us to fund it at a higher level. That means we fund the results of the accidents we cause and the accidents we don't. When a bike hits a car, the motorcyclist is likely to cause little injury to the driver and passengers so there is little to recover if suit was the settlement basis. When a car hits a motorcyclist, generally the motorcyclist has serious injuries so the recovery through suit would be larger. The pool funded through car levies paid for motorcyclist injuries I think would be larger than the pool for car drivers injured by motorcyclists.

Easy point for me to see but obviously a hard one to communicate.

No, I understand your point. I think you're wrong.

Because the ability to sue someone does not equate to money in the bank. You need to fund it, you need to win in court then once you have a judgment you need to enforce it, i.e. collect. What you are advocating is in effect the American system. Know who gets rich out of that? lawyers and insurance companies.

the basis of the ACC system is that all road users bear the risk, so all road users should pay. Fair enough, but whats screwing with it is the micro focus on certain groups. Conceptually it is very little different to say "motorcycles are more dangerous per km travelled than cars" to "motorcycles are so dangerous: ban them entirely"... or at least tax them to the point where the numbers drop away to almost nothing.

[Robert Taylor]

Those employees are cunts eh...

But in the thing called reality private insurance makes absolutely no difference to the ACC spending so it has nothing to do with evil-doing good for nothing layabout employees.

If your employee has income protection insurance and breaks his neck playing rugby then ACC will pay him. His insurance may "top up" payments or benefits but ACC doesn't treat him any different to someone without private insurance.

The reality is that I treat my employees well and they respond in kind. I was making no such crude criticism of employess that you insinuate. I make the point that if anyone is involved in hazardous sporting activities in their own time then it should be their responsibility to arrange their own cover should the worst happen, rather than expecting the state ( taxpayers ) to fund the cost of healthcare etc. And many of those taxpayers bear a disproportionate load. User pays.

[warewolf]

I make the point that if anyone is involved in hazardous sporting activities in their own time then it should be their responsibility to arrange their own cover should the worst happen, rather than expecting the state ( taxpayers ) to fund the cost of healthcare etc. And many of those taxpayers bear a disproportionate load. User pays.Except that risk-taking sportspeople are better for the community because they are healthier long-term and more entrepreneurial than couch potatoes who are a drain on the taxpayer with their chronic health issues. You can't just look at one part of the economics and ignore the rest.

[tigertim20]

Except that risk-taking sportspeople are better for the community because they are healthier long-term and more entrepreneurial than couch potatoes who are a drain on the taxpayer with their chronic health issues. You can't just look at one part of the economics and ignore the rest.

yes he can, this is KB:violin:

sit at home, youll get lazy fat eat shit food and have health concerns paid for by tax dollars.
be outgoing, youll get hurt, abd youll live longer, providing more years in which you can injure yourself and again cost the tax payers.

Maori are more prone to a variety of health concerns - which the tax payer has to fund, should we euthanise them all?

[pritch]

But thats just me, it appears

No, that's about how I see it too. The original idea was good. The political tinkering that has gone on and the way it has been run, basically since day one, have meant it never really functioned as it should.

[MSTRS]

The reality is that I treat my employees well and they respond in kind. I was making no such crude criticism of employess that you insinuate. I make the point that if anyone is involved in hazardous sporting activities in their own time then it should be their responsibility to arrange their own cover should the worst happen, rather than expecting the state ( taxpayers ) to fund the cost of healthcare etc. And many of those taxpayers bear a disproportionate load. User pays.

Employees do pay a levy for leisure-time injuries.
It's just that everyone pays the same per $100 earned, regardless of the activities they might indulge in. The collective covers the individual. As ACC was intended.
Which is precisely why so many of us were (and still are) so upset over Nick the Prick's shenanigans with the motor fund.

[Swoop]

Get used to it, the longest sufferers of big ACC levies are employers. It seems we are subsidising sporting injuries because people are largely not prepared to pay into private cover for their often dangerous pursuits.
Many moons ago... Where I worked had quite a few people who played thugby onn the weekend. Come Monday morning, around 8.30-9.30, these people strangely injured themselves and proceeded to the clinic for treatment of injuries which appeared to be a couple of days old...

Hopefully that rort has ceased nowadays.

[oneofsix]

Many moons ago... Where I worked had quite a few people who played thugby onn the weekend. Come Monday morning, around 8.30-9.30, these people strangely injured themselves and proceeded to the clinic for treatment of injuries which appeared to be a couple of days old...

Hopefully that rort has ceased nowadays.

yep now they don't have to wait until Monday. Visit an A&E on Saturday to see them. But the clubs do pay ACC as do they so I guess the 'rort' has ended.

Interesting how horse riding is the big ACC cost but they don't have rugby clubs to be charged ACC.

[Ocean1]

Hopefully that rort has ceased nowadays.

I suspect even more moons ago, in London I watched as workmates carried a comatose guy past the timeclock and down the stairs, where they laid him gently on the floor.

He'd had a wee run in with one of the Kray boys the night before. He was off work for three months.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Interesting how horse riding is the big ACC cost but they don't have rugby clubs to be charged ACC.

source please.

[PrincessBandit]

..... I make the point that if anyone is involved in hazardous sporting activities in their own time then it should be their responsibility to arrange their own cover should the worst happen, rather than expecting the state ( taxpayers ) to fund the cost of healthcare etc. And many of those taxpayers bear a disproportionate load. User pays.

My mum said back in the day (when she was heavily involved in sports as a young person - quite a while back now... :dodge: ) you had to show you had medical insurance before being able to sign up. Pretty sure that's what she said.
Nowadays my own example is that despite asking for my own medical insurance to cover my treatment (and surgery) when I came off my bike I was told "no, it has to be through ACC".

[oldrider]

My mum said back in the day (when she was heavily involved in sports as a young person - quite a while back now... :dodge: ) you had to show you had medical insurance before being able to sign up. Pretty sure that's what she said.
Nowadays my own example is that despite asking for my own medical insurance to cover my treatment (and surgery) when I came off my bike I was told "no, it has to be through ACC".

You have a choice with medical insurance, shop around if you are not satisfied with their performance!

ACC is a state own monopoly absolutely no competition, they can charge you whatever they like!

Original Woodhouse ACC worked well but the politicians can't have it both ways, either it is insurance or it is not!

It's their (All party politicians) deception and duplicity about ACC that is unbearably disgusting! IMHO anyway.

[MSTRS]

My mum said back in the day (when she was heavily involved in sports as a young person - quite a while back now... :dodge: ) you had to show you had medical insurance before being able to sign up. Pretty sure that's what she said.
Nowadays my own example is that despite asking for my own medical insurance to cover my treatment (and surgery) when I came off my bike I was told "no, it has to be through ACC".

Nothing stopping you from having medical insurance. Many people do. But it will do you no good in the event of accident, as any/all injuries you sustain are covered by ACC. Even years later, if you develop a medical condition that can be traced to the accident - your private cover will be no good, ACC is still in force. But if ACC tell you to take a hike, then you're screwed...

[Ocean1]

Nothing stopping you from having medical insurance. Many people do. But it will do you no good in the event of accident, as any/all injuries you sustain are covered by ACC. Even years later, if you develop a medical condition that can be traced to the accident - your private cover will be no good, ACC is still in force. But if ACC tell you to take a hike, then you're screwed...

However, if you are covered by ACC, but you're on a waiting list that'll see you dead or crippled before you get treated then private cover can be very handy.

[Robert Taylor]

Except that risk-taking sportspeople are better for the community because they are healthier long-term and more entrepreneurial than couch potatoes who are a drain on the taxpayer with their chronic health issues. You can't just look at one part of the economics and ignore the rest.

Fair point, I was just quoting one fairly well realised example and to illustrate that user pays has merit.

[dmc]

However, if you are covered by ACC, but you're on a waiting list that'll see you dead or crippled before you get treated then private cover can be very handy.

Thats ok if you have the injury after you have the insurance, I found out when I had insurance they exempt any cover for any part of you thats had an ACC claim even if it was a full recovery, can't blame them for major stuff but it did rule out half my body so was kind of pointless in the end.

[Magnum Noel]

Bit of a ramble I know, but does it make any sense?

Sure does. Agree whole heartedly. I write to [Hon] Nick Smith every so often reminding him motorcyclists are being wrongly punished.

[Ocean1]

Thats ok if you have the injury after you have the insurance, I found out when I had insurance they exempt any cover for any part of you thats had an ACC claim even if it was a full recovery, can't blame them for major stuff but it did rule out half my body so was kind of pointless in the end.

I've never seen a policy that didn't specifically exclude pre-existing conditions.

In fact I don't have private health cover that'd help in that regard anyway. Any form of insurance is more expensive than simply paying for the fix yourself, you've just got to be able to stump up with the readies at the time.

[Robert Taylor]

Bit of a ramble I know, but does it make any sense?

Sure does. Agree whole heartedly. I write to [Hon] Nick Smith every so often reminding him motorcyclists are being wrongly punished.

I dont think that is 100% correct. While there is more than ample justification in the argument that motorcyclists as a group are being targeted there is a strong counter argument that many irresponsible motorcyclists neither help our image or the adverse statistics.
I certainly dont regard this one issue as something that would 100% influence who I am voting for in November either. Its a big wider world out there

[oldrider]

I dont think that is 100% correct. While there is more than ample justification in the argument that motorcyclists as a group are being targeted there is a strong counter argument that many irresponsible motorcyclists neither help our image or the adverse statistics.
I certainly dont regard this one issue as something that would 100% influence who I am voting for in November either. Its a big wider world out there

True!

Totally agree! .... I just wish they would stop tinkering with things that adversely effect my retired life style! :shifty: (selfish, yes I know) :mellow:

[zelto]

I dont think that is 100% correct. While there is more than ample justification in the argument that motorcyclists as a group are being targeted there is a strong counter argument that many irresponsible motorcyclists neither help our image or the adverse statistics.
I certainly dont regard this one issue as something that would 100% influence who I am voting for in November either. Its a big wider world out there

But the acc scheme had at its core, 'no fault', it didnt want to take into account 'irresponsible motorcyclists' 'or the adverse statistics' .It didnt want to judge groups or individuals, thats why it was called a social contract.A promise to all new zealanders that we have got each others backs, no matter how young or old or stupid you are.We go through stages in our lives from crazy fresh licence holders to brittle bone oldies.It was an acceptance that we are real people and not perfect, yet we are still worthy of cover.I think its a brilliant scheme, a very nz one, that we could be proud of.Accepting all nzrs at all stages of their lives, not just when you are a high levy paying, low claiming bright economic unit.

Thats why the increase in bike fees goes so against the spirit of acc.Of course these days, there are many aspects of acc that have gone against the original intent.Case managers getting kpi points/money for exiting claimants that are unable to return to work.Favoured specialists, that consistently get so many assessments sent their way, because acc can be sure of the return to work outcome etc..

Even in the user pays days we live in, i believe there is still a place for a true acc scheme.The beast we have today is more like an insurance company, concerned with profit and loss, with a job that is described as a loss adjuster.It isnt a social contract anymore.If you were ever unlucky enough to be a long term claimant you would agree i am sure.For short term injuries they do an excellent job, but if you exceed the 'injury profile' time frame , you are the enemy.

[davereid]

I While there is more than ample justification in the argument that motorcyclists as a group are being targeted

Motorcyclists are being targeted. But its not actually that ACC are out to get motorcyclists. Its simply that

(1) Any normal insurer considers LIABILITY. Who caused the crash. Who should pay. Even if we cause 50% of accidents and therefore should be responsible for 50% of first party injuries, , motorcycle V car seldom injures the motorcar driver. So as a group our total liability is very low. However ACC by its design is NO FAULT. So ACC use this as a reason NOT to consider liability.

(2) Vulnerability. As a group we are VULNERABLE, as are pedestrians, cyclists, elderly people, and drivers of smaller older cars. ACC can see a way here to reduce their exposure to cost. While they cant (yet) charge cyclists or pedestrians, motorcyclists were sitting ducks, as we were an identifiable group within existing ACC categories and we already paid ACC.

My Bet ?

ACC will seek to expand vulnerability charging. And users of older cars, cars with low safety ratings, no airbags, or ABS will soon be picked off, and charged higher ACC levies. We were just the easy first pickings.

[Pseudonym]

So if we where to get a small electronic device that buzzed out at a frequency that triggered the closest airbag sensor if it got within, say, 150mm of us, it would:
1. Alert the driver.
2. Injure them.
But as it’s them that are having bits of phone removed from their faces, it’s now them that carry the risk, e.g. they are vulnerable
The fact that a motorcyclist caused the injury is inconsequential.
And as it’s often the wider airbag storing pillars that hide us so well from the blind, it’s only fair that that’s where the sudden explosive alert comes from.

I’m just pissed off at the wholesale reaming that we got.
Maybe the next protest we should just line up on the motorways and stop?
Not that it helped the truck drivers…

It’s so nice to see that both the National and the Labour party can work together for consistency.
Neither of them gives a flying fuck what we want once they have control.

[warewolf]

If you were ever unlucky enough to be a long term claimant you would agree i am sure.For short term injuries they do an excellent job, but if you exceed the 'injury profile' time frame , you are the enemy.Yep, I've seen this first hand with a close personal friend. She is an intelligent, strong-willed, independent and very active person. She had a nasty fall and suffered injuries to her head, face (teeth), pelvis and more. ACC just made it so difficult for her to deal with them that she all but gave up going to them for assistance... yet she still was not ready to return to work or even go out in public. Dealing with ACC added to her woes; caused not just extra stress but also physical pain when she withdrew from the fight and just suffered in silence. Their behaviour quite disgusted me, and makes me fear for myself should I require any serious assistance from them.

She had injuries to various parts of her body that were being treated by different, unrelated, uncoordinated teams. At one stage she was receiving a letter a day due to the paperwork generated by the various teams. They would schedule appointments at conflicting times (without her input), and when she tried to reschedule them their attitude was not to listen but to say, "well if you can't be bothered coming in we'll strike you off our list and recommend further treatment is denied." Cocks.

[Usarka]

Yep, I've seen this first hand with a close personal friend. She is an intelligent, strong-willed, independent and very active person. She had a nasty fall and suffered injuries to her head, face (teeth), pelvis and more. ACC just made it so difficult for her to deal with them that she all but gave up going to them for assistance... yet she still was not ready to return to work or even go out in public. Dealing with ACC added to her woes; caused not just extra stress but also physical pain when she withdrew from the fight and just suffered in silence. Their behaviour quite disgusted me, and makes me fear for myself should I require any serious assistance from them.

She had injuries to various parts of her body that were being treated by different, unrelated, uncoordinated teams. At one stage she was receiving a letter a day due to the paperwork generated by the various teams. They would schedule appointments at conflicting times (without her input), and when she tried to reschedule them their attitude was not to listen but to say, "well if you can't be bothered coming in we'll strike you off our list and recommend further treatment is denied." Cocks.

Philip Schimdt - ACC Lawyer.