ACC campaign, are we barking up the wrong tree?

[Drunken Monkey]

...
what I would rather see is that we pay on a Kilowatt basis instead of ...

Bah, piffle. Just like the people who keep pointing the finger at sports injuries.

If ACC is truly no fault, the only fair answer is a small and even increase to all ACC income sources, including earner payments, employer premiums and ALL Road users - not stinging single points.

If you want to sting 'stand out' users, we might as well chuck the whole system and start litigating US style.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

First thing the core issue "No fault"... Do we want a true no fault system, no blame etc... if we do then we need to make a no fault and it should not ever matter what you drive, ride, play sport, or what ever as long as we all put in an equal share... this price hike is a finger point and goes against a no fault system and is ponting the finger... This is how ACC and what it was orginally designed for.

If we have this I will stop complaining about the stupid thing people do and get ACC if they stop complaining about me riding a motorcycle... We all pay an even share... no fault no blame

Or

Do we want to go back to a blame you i fucked up, I pay system... suing and the only people that get ricjh is the lawyers

Or

A part no fault and part blame... which is where we are at now (as technically ACC is still no fault on the fron cover) and we just lump it and take it on the chin... This is where I will complain about car surfers, and idiots on the road blah blah blah cars hitting pedistrians, not looking

[Mikkel]

How can it be considered reasonable that one has to pay extra for ACC cover as a participant at a motorsports event - but not as, let's say, a participant at a rugby match, downhill skiing competition, mountain bike race or pub quiz?

If some recreational activities are exempt why then aren't others? Surely it can not come down to the risks involved because then you'd be paying more for the mountain bike race than for the bucket race.

A substantial ACC levy increase will only palatable insofar the entire levy collection model is sound and reasonable, which it is not.

[NinjaNanna]

can somebody please inform me as to the intended meaning of "no fault" as it pertains to ACC.

It seems to be a few different understandings are floating around.

BTW I'm not asking what you think the mean should be but the actual meaning of the phrase

[marioc]

Just another way of recouping the old tax cuts

[howdamnhard]

So who is the national representative of motorcyclists in N.Z. ? As has been said we are the minority and if we are to stand any chance we need to present a smart , informed united front.
We need access to all the information as to how the " government " has come up with this decision. So that it can be checked for accuracy and any flaws highlighted.We need accurate statistics of just how many accidents involved cars being at fault so that cars can bare their fair share of increases. The present idea seems to penalise and unfairly lay all the blame at the bikers feet(yes we are not totally blameless but neither are they).

We need workable alternative solutions. They have to be easy enough to apply as Mr Beaurocrat is lazy .
We will probably all end up paying more, but if we can make it fairer to all that would be good.
Many have come up with good points and ideas.1) Such as levies based on the individuals risk and past history(like insurance does) instead of how many vehicles that person owns.(best idea) ,2) On power output as opposed to cc rating( if they must charge each vehicle), etc.
We need a representative that is recognised by the government who can get all the required info together and come up with a plausible argument and a workable solution. We as the general biking community can support this representative body by providing the info, arguments and ideas and most most important of all ,backing.
I want fight this , I don't mind paying more but I beleive in fairness. Who is our national representative so that I can support them in fighting this decision before we are all priced off the road ?

[Tunahunter]

This sums it up

http://www.customink.com/designs/aid...te=designfront

[Brian d marge]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

Its the spin put on by national

we don't know how much it is there is a figure of 9 billion BUT they have made a profit this year and are looking good for next year ( so thats why people are asking for a break down of the costs)

Jk openly stated they will privatize ACC and they are doing it

Stephen

[dogsnbikes]

Bah, piffle. Just like the people who keep pointing the finger at sports injuries.
.

Not at all......why should people be hit hard on CC rating when they dont all give the same power output...
for example is it fair that someone with a bike that only has 60hp pay the same as me for my triumph that has 147hp even if both bikes are over a stated CC rating

[Drunken Monkey]

for example is it fair that someone with a bike that only has 60hp pay the same as me for my triumph that has 147hp even if both bikes are over a stated CC rating

Yes, in a supposed non-fault system like ACC, that is completely fair.

[MacD]

As I understand it, ACC's problems are largely paper based.

Investments have tanked leading up to and during the recesssion leading to a massive defecit, on paper.

The thing is, these investments are long term, they are not intended for paying the current claims, they are for future claims.

Investments will recover over time, the economy is already turning around in my opinion faster than most people expected, this was a pretty brief recession is you ask me.

Yes, what Nick Smith keeps calling a loss is actually just an increase the gap between current assets and predicted liabilities.

This gap has arisen mainly for two reasons:
1. the global recession reducing the current value of investments. However this is likley to be a relatively short term problem (years to decades).

2. the move to a fully-funded system from a pay-as-you-go system, which is how ACC historically operated. Under a PAYG system, funds collected within a year are used to pay for costs associated with that year. In a fully funded system funds collected within a year must meet all future costs of liabilites that arise within that year.

This change is a purely political decision and arguably has been made as a precurser to privatisation, partial or otherwise, of ACC as it is the basis on which private insurance companies operate.

I believe that National is using this for political mileage, the huge increases are just not justified except so that they can say in a couple years "hey look how great we are, we saved ACC", instead of smaller increase and a modest 10 years while the investments recover.

ACC costs have been increasing, just as other medical costs have been increasing. People expect much higher levels of medical intervention and rehabilitation support than even a decade ago.

Rather than just raising prices for cover and reducing coverage, a more important debate is whether a no fault system such as ACC should move to a fully-funded model or not.

Rod Orams's article quoted above summarises quite nicely the scaremongering that Nick Smith is indulging in regarding ACC:

[cs363]

Yes, in a supposed non-fault system like ACC, that is completely fair.

What isn't fair is having to pay multiple levies for a number of vehicles that one might own. The levy should be applied to the person, not the vehicle.

I could probably live with paying $700 or $800 a year for medical cover for accidents if it was applied like that. I just don't see why owners of multiple vehicles should be penalised compared to single vehicle owners, when it is patently obvious that you cannot use all vehicles simultaneously.

[Highlander]

What isn't fair is having to pay multiple levies for a number of vehicles that one might own. The levy should be applied to the person, not the vehicle.

I could probably live with paying $700 or $800 a year for medical cover for accidents if it was applied like that. I just don't see why owners of multiple vehicles should be penalised compared to single vehicle owners, when it is patently obvious that you cannot use all vehicles simultaneously.

When I write my letter to my MP and Nack Smith and Mr Key, I intend to suggest a mileage based system similar to the road user charges paid for Diesels. That is the only way I can think of that how much you pay is determined by how much you use the road.

Still does nothing to close the gap between registered road users and un registered ones (eg cyclists) though.

[Rayray401]

Meh, the nature of ACC is fine. but govt just doesnt know how to manage it. if you start making NZers actually saving for their own retirement, and cut superannuation by 50%, problem solved. Yet they are wondering why the young smart ones are leaving NZ, because NZ old people benefits are great, so NZers dont need to save for their own retirement. Govt funds heaps into stuff like pension, retirement funds, superannuation, old people get free money from what they havnt worked for when they were younger. ACC being in deficit is not surprising (because of this no fault system), but the govt is simply allocating the wrong amount of resources to wrong places. If the govt starts decreasing superannuation expenses, sure the old people will cry and bitch about it, but it will work more of an incentive for people to actually save when they start working, and not just retire at 65 with nothing and eat off the govt.

[Genestho]

can somebody please inform me as to the intended meaning of "no fault" as it pertains to ACC.

It seems to be a few different understandings are floating around.

BTW I'm not asking what you think the mean should be but the actual meaning of the phrase

What does 'no fault' mean? From ACC's FAQ's

‘No fault’ means that no matter what you were doing when you were injured – whether your actions caused the injury, or were illegal or dangerous – you will be covered by ACC, so long as the injury falls within the parameters of ACC’s legislation.