John Key - bikers' friend?

[aum108]

I'm not a National voter, but I can see the ironic possibility of John Key doing something nice for bikers.

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

[yachtie10]

I'm not a National voter, but I can see the ironic possibility of John Key doing something nice for bikers.

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

somehow I doubt that

If they assesed like insurance maybe but with acc being the backstop and way they do things I doubt a private insurance company would be cheaper
No claims bonus migh make things better for some (like me)

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm not a National voter, but I can see the ironic possibility of John Key doing something nice for bikers.

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

:laugh:... Oh, oh god... you actually believe things would get cheaper :confused::facepalm:

Um I don't know how to tell you this but insurance companies are in it more for profit then ACC is

[SMOKEU]

Don't believe anything that JK says.

[shrub]

I'm not a National voter, but I can see the ironic possibility of John Key doing something nice for bikers.

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

Very, very, very unlikely. Many years ago I worked for an insurance company and they hate paying claims. We are such a small percentage of the market that cost a lot of money to fix, so if anything changes there will be exclusion or limitations on cover for what the actuaries see as dangerous pursuits like riding motorcycles.

[sleemanj]

Private cover will not in any way be cheaper, ESPECIALLY not for motorcyclists.

ACC does not exist to create a profit, they have an effective monopoly meaning high amortization of claims across the sector, they have good investments.

A private insurer exists to make a profit, they have only a share of a market meaning small local amortization of claims in the sector, and they probably don't invest as well as ACC because not many do.

A private insurer may benefit a few people (generally, the people who own insurance companies). But most people are much better off with ACC as the one-and-only.

[Winston001]

I am absolutely against National introducing competition for ACC cover and I say that as a (sometimes) rightish wing voter .

National tried this in 1998 but fortunately Labour reversed it 2 years later. One thing I do remember from that time is although our employment premiums at work became cheaper, the insurance company we were with went into liquidation in 2003. I assume ACC had to pick up their clients on claim.

Private insurance companies are not interested in covering granny and your kids, or motorcyclists. They will be sensible and pick the best categories to offer policies for. Low risk white collar jobs. Yes they will be cheaper than ACC but they won't approve claims quickly like ACC do.

We've had a generation of ACC and consequently forgotten the cold hard world of personal injury insurance.

[davereid]

One thing I do remember from that time is although our employment premiums at work became cheaper, the insurance company we were with went into liquidation in 2003. I assume ACC had to pick up their clients on claim.
Private insurance companies are not interested in covering granny and your kids, or motorcyclists. They will be sensible and pick the best categories to offer policies for. Low risk white collar jobs. Yes they will be cheaper than ACC but they won't approve quickly claims like ACC do.
We've had a generation of ACC and consequently forgotten the cold hard world of personal injury insurance.

Yes. ACC needs sorting. It has to start becoming a well manged transparent organisation that actually performs, and appreciates it is accountable to the public.

But private companies will merely cherry pick the easy profits, leaving the hard stuff to ACC.

And it will be a cold day when the private insurer goes broke, while you are still hoping for another 40 years of cover for the spinal injuries you got when that uninsured drunk driver hit you.

[NONONO]

I'm not a National voter, but I can see the ironic possibility of John Key doing something nice for bikers.

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

What a lame arse:laugh:

[RDJ]

:laugh:... Oh, oh god... you actually believe things would get cheaper :confused::facepalm:

Um I don't know how to tell you this but insurance companies are in it more for profit then ACC is

Yes, insurance compamnies are in it for profit. Why is profit a dirty word? Without profits, no-one could afford to pay taxes to finance all those people who love to spend OPM (Other People's Money) on their favorite people and charities, sometimes amounting to the same thing... Right Minister Turia?

Premiums could be a lot cheaper for many of us as insurers assess individual actuarial risk and charge premiums accordingly. ACC does not do this - indeed as we all know, lately has demonstrated what amounts to vindictiveness in assessing motorcyclists' charges (as under the terms of the Woodhouse no-blame concept, people at higher risk from their own or others' actions should be treated no differently).

Last but certainly not least - you can change providers with private insurers and you can negotiate premiums with insurance companies. You can't do either with ACC...

[oneofsix]

Yes, insurance compamnies are in it for profit. Why is profit a dirty word? Without profits, no-one could afford to pay taxes to finance all those people who love to spend OPM (Other People's Money) on their favorite people and charities, sometimes amounting to the same thing... Right Minister Turia?

Premiums could be a lot cheaper for many of us as insurers assess individual actuarial risk and charge premiums accordingly. ACC does not do this - indeed as we all know, lately has demonstrated what amounts to vindictiveness in assessing motorcyclists' charges (as under the terms of the Woodhouse no-blame concept, people at higher risk from their own or others' actions should be treated no differently).

Last but certainly not least - you can change providers with private insurers and you can negotiate premiums with insurance companies. You can't do either with ACC...

"Without profits, no-one could afford to pay taxes to finance all those people who love to spend OPM (Other People's Money) on their favorite people and charities" :rofl:
profits don't get taxed all that much, talk to Gareth Morgan. Wage and salary earners pay the taxes foool.

Profit is a dirty word because since "greed is good" profit has meant excesses. Yes there are issues with ACC, mainly politicians not following the designers plan and being influenced by those that want to get their greedy hands in.

Did you read where NZ is now looking attractive to the like of Lloyds due to the Chch earthquake because they can how hike the premiums which immediately implies above actual risk. Before the earthquake the risk wasn't great enough for them to profiteer out of NZ, we were seen as too safe.

[RDJ]

[QUOTE=oneofsix;1130258344]"Without profits, no-one could afford to pay taxes to finance all those people who love to spend OPM (Other People's Money) on their favorite people and charities" :rofl: profits don't get taxed all that much, talk to Gareth Morgan. Wage and salary earners pay the taxes foool./QUOTE]

Wages and salaries get paid by profitable companies... and even unprofitable ones if lack of profitability does not continue too long. Government has no money it does not get from others and employs people to regulate more than it does to produce, whereas companies mostly employ people to add value to their product. No employment, no wages and salaries...

...but judging by the "foool" in your response your mind is made up and not about to be swayed by reason.

[Zedder]

ACC going private? I certainly hope not but wouldn't trust John Key at all because it's probably pretty much signed up now behind the scenes.

Here's the likely scenario: They'll fleece everyone with their premiums for as long as possible and when the time comes to pay out in a major crisis they'll just do an AMI "Sorry gone broke, please JK and NZ bail us out".

[slowpoke]

Sorry RDJ, you aren't thinking about the big picture. Like it or not motorcyclists are high risk clients, it's just a simple fact. At the moment, even with the higher costs imposed recently we are still subsidised by the lower risk "normal" people. If ACC was privatised into a purely commercially driven insurance market they'd assign premiums based purely on individual risk and we'd be absolutely, royally and completely arse fucked.

You can argue all you like about being a responsible rider but the bottom line is that when things go wrong for motorcyclists they go wrong in a big way so the inherent risk to the insurer remains high, as will your premium.

[Scuba_Steve]

Premiums could be a lot cheaper for many of us as insurers assess individual actuarial risk and charge premiums accordingly. ACC does not do this - indeed as we all know, lately has demonstrated what amounts to vindictiveness in assessing motorcyclists' charges (as under the terms of the Woodhouse no-blame concept, people at higher risk from their own or others' actions should be treated no differently).

Last but certainly not least - you can change providers with private insurers and you can negotiate premiums with insurance companies. You can't do either with ACC...

If you think bikes are expensive now just wait till the Govt decides to go private... The whole increase as it were, was to make insurance attractive to overseas companies & they won't be reducing any costs that's for sure, the whole model doesn't allow for it.
It might be worth you researching just what the US insurance system is like, start with "Sicko" that should at-least balance out this Govt propaganda your buying into (unless of course you work for insurance company which would explain the stance)

[shrub]

If you think bikes are expensive now just wait till the Govt decides to go private... The whole increase as it were, was to make insurance attractive to overseas companies & they won't be reducing any costs that's for sure, the whole model doesn't allow for it.
It might be worth you researching just what the US insurance system is like, start with "Sicko" that should at-least balance out this Govt propaganda your buying into (unless of course you work for insurance company which would explain the stance)

There's a popular ideology that if it's private, it's cheaper and more efficient because of "market forces" and "competition", but there is little credible evidence to support that. In almost every instance I am aware of, the private model is more expensive to consumers, and that will be especially the case with motorcyclists. The insurance companies would be quite glad to see the back of us and will charge as high a premium as they want because if it discourages us from riding then it reduces their costs from our excessive claims. They won't compete for our market because it's a very small and unattractive market.

State owned ACC is the best option for us in every way.

[Scuba_Steve]

See nothings getting cheaper by going private
The Government plans to open ACC's work account to competition from private insurers from October.
ACC Futures Coalition spokeswoman Hazel Armstrong said today papers obtained under the Official Information Act showed former ACC minister Nick Smith was looking at making the corporation charge a ''top up'' on its premiums so private insurers could compete on a level playing field. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6436289/ACC-levies-may-climb-again)

[RDJ]

Seriously - the Govt does it better / cheaper? really?

Examples - Education? &..

Remember New Zealand Snailways?

Remember posting items before couriers?

Remember telephones before Telecom?

etc. etc.

[oneofsix]

Seriously - the Govt does it better / cheaper? really?

Examples - Education? &..

Remember New Zealand Snailways?

Remember posting items before couriers?

Remember telephones before Telecom?

etc. etc.

Yep I have personal memories of all those except Snailways and don't have to rely on other peoples biased opinions. I also remember roads when they were maintained by the Ministry of Works.

[RDJ]

I started riding with a motorcycle licence on NZ roads in 1970... dunno why you assume I don't also have personal experience of what I wrote about.

The major troubles with Govt being involved in too many parts of our lives are
1. When it makes mistakes - big ones - it never goes out of business.
2. When it makes mistakes - big ones - people are rarely personally accountable.
3. When it makes mistakes - big ones - policymakes use that as en excuse to grow Govt some more.
4. Govt adds no value, simply redistributes what we earn, enriching many - not all - of its "servants" along the way.
5. You have no choice but to buy the Govt's services. Govt can compel you to do so under threat of fines, jail, or worse.

Private sector is prone to the same first 2 issues BUT much more often firms go out of business and people are accountable personally and / or financially. 3 and 4 and 5, the private sector does not do.

[Scuba_Steve]

I started riding with a motorcycle licence on NZ roads in 1970... dunno why you assume I don't also have personal experience of what I wrote about.

The major troubles with Govt being involved in too many parts of our lives are
1. When it makes mistakes - big ones - it never goes out of business.
2. When it makes mistakes - big ones - people are rarely personally accountable.
3. When it makes mistakes - big ones - policymakes use that as en excuse to grow Govt some more.
4. Govt adds no value, simply redistributes what we earn, enriching many - not all - of its "servants" along the way.
5. You have no choice but to buy the Govt's services. Govt can compel you to do so under threat of fines, jail, or worse.

Private sector is prone to the same first 2 issues BUT much more often firms go out of business and people are accountable personally and / or financially. 3 and 4 and 5, the private sector does not do.

wrong, the only one the private doesn't do is 3 the rest are all in private sector too.
If you think accident cover will get cheaper by privatizing, I feel sorry for you. Especially given it's just been released ACC will have to raise prices to allow for private competition i.e. private is more expensive!

[pritch]

I'm not a National voter, but I can see the ironic possibility of John Key doing something nice for bikers.

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

Well his mate Nix Smith single handedly, & virtually overnight, created a non-riding season in this country where previously we rode all year round.

John Key might lengthen the off season but that's about all?

[RDJ]

wrong, the only one the private doesn't do is 3 the rest are all in private sector too.
If you think accident cover will get cheaper by privatizing, I feel sorry for you. Especially given it's just been released ACC will have to raise prices to allow for private competition i.e. private is more expensive!

No need to feel sorry for me. I believe in safety nets not hammocks - and paying proportionately. Perhaps you should feel sorry for yourself; y'all are running out of other people's money quite quickly...

[Scuba_Steve]

No need to feel sorry for me. I believe in safety nets not hammocks - and paying proportionately. Perhaps you should feel sorry for yourself; y'all are running out of other people's money quite quickly...

Your arguments don't stack up. "Safety net"??? incase you haven't noticed Govt's are the "safety net". You like to be screwed over financially for a lifestyle choice :weird: as for running out of other peoples money??? :blink: What???

[mashman]

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

ACC needs to be made more expensive first so that insurance companies can compete. Changing the give way right might give them the excuse they need. At the end of the day johnny boy can do what the fuck he wants, we'll pay up :yes:

[RDJ]

Your arguments don't stack up. "Safety net"??? incase you haven't noticed Govt's are the "safety net". You like to be screwed over financially for a lifestyle choice :weird: as for running out of other peoples money??? :blink: What???

Let me try again for you. You want more Govt involvement and control, means you want Govt employees spending more of other people's - that's yours and his and hers and mine - money on things they decide they should spend it on... removing choice from the people who work for that money, adding value with thie time and skills (not something Govt employees do well). Now if that is still not comprehensible for you... then let's agree to disagree.

[Scuba_Steve]

Let me try again for you. You want more Govt involvement and control, means you want Govt employees spending more of other people's - that's yours and his and hers and mine - money on things they decide they should spend it on... removing choice from the people who work for that money, adding value with thie time and skills (not something Govt employees do well). Now if that is still not comprehensible for you... then let's agree to disagree.

I don't want more Govt involvement & control, I want less. What I do want tho is affordable health care something private will NOT give, I want to actually be able to use the health care should I need it something private trys not to give.
Yes, it's the running of Govt's like private businesses that is screwing things up, but incase you aint noticed private businesses are run like private businesses even more-so.
You are opting for a system that'll cost more & give less... I have no idea why anyone would want that, unless of-course they were set to make $$$ off it. So, I guess we will have to disagree

[NONONO]

Let me try again for you. You want more Govt involvement and control, means you want Govt employees spending more of other people's - that's yours and his and hers and mine - money on things they decide they should spend it on... removing choice from the people who work for that money, adding value with thie time and skills (not something Govt employees do well). Now if that is still not comprehensible for you... then let's agree to disagree.
Nope, that's a very old financial/political argument.
Went out of date immediately that governments and corporations decided on the new model of;
Socialise the debt
Privatise the profit.
Works really well in terms of insurance and investment.

[Winston001]

Went out of date immediately that governments and corporations decided on the new model of;
Socialise the debt
Privatise the profit.


Well no. Lets be honest about this. As a result of the Great Depression in 1929 governments have accepted the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes who said that governments have the ability and the responsibility to intervene in their economies and spend money when times are rough.

In the 1980s Keynesiasm faded and the Chicago School of Classical Economics was in the ascendant. I agreed with it. Today however I accept Keynes was right and the best economic framework lies somewhere in the middle.

Whatever - letting finance companies and banks fail harms many members of our society including a large number of the retired who have spent sod all and put their meagre savings in these institutions.

[NONONO]

Well no. Lets be honest about this. As a result of the Great Depression in 1929 governments have accepted the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes who said that governments have the ability and the responsibility to intervene in their economies and spend money when times are rough.

In the 1980s Keynesiasm faded and the Chicago School of Classical Economics was in the ascendant. I agreed with it. Today however I accept Keynes was right and the best economic framework lies somewhere in the middle.

Whatever - letting finance companies and banks fail harms many members of our society including a large number of the retired who have spent sod all and put their meagre savings in these institutions.

"The Chicago Boys" raped and plundered sovereign states and supported some of the worst dictators in history, have a look at what Friedman's minions did in Chile and the lives it cost, and you agreed with it? Wow.
It is not about letting banks and companies fail, it is about how and why they are set up and who gains from their activities. Please don't pull the old "mum and dad investor" trick, even Key can't get away with that one anymore.
Friedman must be laughing in his grave when even the most right wing governments are utilizing basically Stalinist economic policy disguised as free enterprise.
Anytime investors lose, joe public wears the cost "too big to fail"? Really?
Anytime investors win, joe public gains nothing as the profits go offshore or creative accountants stop any tax due.
ACC in the form that Woodhouse envisaged, was the most far reaching, world beating, economically sound system in the world. What's left of it is now to be divided up to the gambling fraternity. And again, joe public loses.

[oldrider]

I am absolutely against National introducing competition for ACC cover and I say that as a (sometimes) rightish wing voter .

National tried this in 1998 but fortunately Labour reversed it 2 years later. One thing I do remember from that time is although our employment premiums at work became cheaper, the insurance company we were with went into liquidation in 2003. I assume ACC had to pick up their clients on claim.

Private insurance companies are not interested in covering granny and your kids, or motorcyclists. They will be sensible and pick the best categories to offer policies for. Low risk white collar jobs. Yes they will be cheaper than ACC but they won't approve claims quickly like ACC do.

We've had a generation of ACC and consequently forgotten the cold hard world of personal injury insurance.

Not quite correct there Winston ... prior to ACC, there was no personal injury insurance in NZ, insurance companies wouldn't touch it!

Prices will not reduce but there could be choice and individual incentive plans, the competition "might" just hold ACC in check though! :shutup:

I prefer original ACC without the interference of politicians ..... Yea right! :wait: Never ever going to happen! :facepalm:

[st00ji]

frankly i blame labour for the shit arsed mess we will be in in four or five years, if they had some actual policies of note and a bit of personality somewhere, anywhere, they might have swung enough votes to knock national of its perch.

not that they are really any better than national, but at least their approach is not SO bald faced 'sell public down the river, drink expensive whiskey with private sector cronies after extensive profiteering'

[breakaway]

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

Yeah, because privatising this sort of thing has workred out so well for other countries right?

[RDJ]

One could also say with equal snark and truth that the government running insurance services and state owned enterprises has worked out just so well for the taxpayer hasn't it? Yeah, right.

[breakaway]

You could, but at least with a government system, incomptetence is the only barrier. With a private system, there is incompetence, greed AND corruption. It's a net loss.

You are naive if you think that private healthcare will end make 'the taxpayer' wealther, much like how many people believed that increasing GST and reducing income tax by 0.00000000000000000001% was a good idea.

[RDJ]

A greedy, incompetent and corrupt private provider will sooner or later crash - we've seen it over and over again. The problem with the present system is that we suffer from the mistakes of people who would bail out the offending private companies, and since the government bailed them out with your and my taxes, it's a bottomless pit. Also, there have been more than enough greedy incompetent and corrupt instances of government malfeasance in New Zealand that you should easily be able to recall them. And let's face reality, government greed incompetence and corruption is always bailed out by raising taxes...

A better solution would be to reduce the element of moral hazard by making the people who gamble with other people's money, including politicians, pay up when they fail due to corruption or incompetence. We've just had a good example of how this can work with the ex-politicians being found guilty as negligent company directors. As for greed, it is self-correcting often enough, if you charge too much we will go to a cheaper but equally efficient provider.

And private healthcare is not about making anybody wealthy, it's about stopping people like you from taking others money to pay for your feelgood ideas. Public health care should be a safety net not a hammock, just like the domestic purposes benefit should be a safety net and not a comfort cocoon so (a substantial number of the people receiving it) can live a lifestyle exactly as they please while they literally laugh at those of us who set out to work every day.

[baptist]

See nothings getting cheaper by going private
The Government plans to open ACC's work account to competition from private insurers from October.
ACC Futures Coalition spokeswoman Hazel Armstrong said today papers obtained under the Official Information Act showed former ACC minister Nick Smith was looking at making the corporation charge a ''top up'' on its premiums so private insurers could compete on a level playing field. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6436289/ACC-levies-may-climb-again)

Shows what a snivelling scheming little weasel he really can be....


I started riding with a motorcycle licence on NZ roads in 1970... dunno why you assume I don't also have personal experience of what I wrote about.

The major troubles with Govt being involved in too many parts of our lives are
1. When it makes mistakes - big ones - it never goes out of business.
2. When it makes mistakes - big ones - people are rarely personally accountable.
3. When it makes mistakes - big ones - policymakes use that as en excuse to grow Govt some more.
4. Govt adds no value, simply redistributes what we earn, enriching many - not all - of its "servants" along the way.
5. You have no choice but to buy the Govt's services. Govt can compel you to do so under threat of fines, jail, or worse.

Private sector is prone to the same first 2 issues BUT much more often firms go out of business and people are accountable personally and / or financially. 3 and 4 and 5, the private sector does not do.

Private sector companies most certainly do enrich many of their servants (and shareholders), and they very often screw over the people at the bottom of the pile.


A greedy, incompetent and corrupt private provider will sooner or later crash - we've seen it over and over again. The problem with the present system is that we suffer from the mistakes of people who would bail out the offending private companies, and since the government bailed them out with your and my taxes, it's a bottomless pit. Also, there have been more than enough greedy incompetent and corrupt instances of government malfeasance in New Zealand that you should easily be able to recall them. And let's face reality, government greed incompetence and corruption is always bailed out by raising taxes...

A better solution would be to reduce the element of moral hazard by making the people who gamble with other people's money, including politicians, pay up when they fail due to corruption or incompetence. We've just had a good example of how this can works with the ex-politicians being found guilty as company directors. As for greed, it is self-correcting often enough, if you charge too much we will go to a cheaper but equally efficient provider.

And private healthcare is not about making anybody wealthy, it's about stopping people like you from taking others money to pay for your feelgood ideas. Public health care should be a safety net not a hammock, just like the domestic purposes benefit should be a safety net and not a comfort cocoon so (a substantial number of the people receiving it) can live a lifestyle exactly as they please while they literally laugh at those of us who set out to work every day).

Private sector healthcare will be about making people money (look at the USA), very few companies go into business with the ethical idea of helping society and not making a good return.

I accept that there are people out there who fleece the system, I am not dumb enough to doubt it at all, however I work with a lot of people who really do need the help of government benefits, people in New Zealand do actually live below the OECD poverty line ( families living in cars or other peoples garages etc, and it more common than you may think) and NZ is not a cheap country to live in actually. I cannot accept a wealth gap like we have that just keeps growing and growing, palming everything off to the private sector will help to grow that gap. Sadly even if the buy in for shares is around $1000 many Kiwis will not be able to afford it (I know I will not be able to). And I used to have a very well paid private sector job, contracting to government departments, we were not cheaper but we were some else who blame and responsibility could be laid on when needed, I gave that up to help people like those I used to shaft.

NZ needs to focus a little more on ethics and a little less on making money. We would all be better off for it.

Rant over.