Why is ACC on our rego..

[Quasievil]

Explain to me how ACC could be run privately, deliver the same level of service, and cost less.

Easily increase the size of the catchment, more paying a smaller amount as opposed to the few paying alot.
And ulimately user pays..........eith via Insurance (ACC Card as I said earlier) or have nothing and sue.......sue capability means lower ACC numbers as less accidents as everyone is more careful because they are shit scared of getting done

The problem is administration of such cards i.e. checking them. I would be pissed off if I was an organisation that now has to check someone's card. You could easily collect an ACC levy on most of what you suggest without resorting to cards.

- You need a lift pass for skiing - %age of that can go to ACC (same with season passes because they'll be skiing more with a risk of assing off more - maybe)
- You need to pay subs to play rugby, netball, tennis, squash. I think they already pay some to ACC but this could be increased.
- Cycling. This is the biggest issue since the main enjoyers don't compete, you could charge a certain amount on sale of new bikes. The amount collected would be small but it would help. Those competing would pay a levy on club subs or entry fee for events.

I would be in for a pretty hefty bill since I do all the "daring" sports (snowboarding, wakeboarding, MT biking) but if it spreads the love, then why not?

Out of all sports, I would say cyclist's are the only ones that get a free-ride with respect to ACC, since it's a social thing mostly and can't be 'taxed' easily.

The bottom line is, it has to be simple to administer.

I cant see what would be so hard to administer its nothing harder than say Australias med card system.

In NZ its going towards user pays for everything, but with ACC its certainly not, as many subsidize the few and clearly this doesnt work as the cash in is less than the cash out..........it needs a revamp and unless we land a million more immigrants the catchment demographic must increase.

[rainman]

Easily increase the size of the catchment, more paying a smaller amount as opposed to the few paying alot.

OK, perhaps I need to be clearer - your "solution" is just re-distribution; the same cost spread thinner, so less impact on you. This is a common misunderstanding - it's the "I'm all right Jack, screw you" approach (so regularly embraced by the right wing). But this does not make ACC cost less, it just makes ACC cost you less. (In fact it would probably make ACC cost more, overall).

Can you see the difference?

[rainman]

I should also point out in case it's not bleedin' obvious:

ALL insurance is collective in nature - the risk is spread across a pool of policyholders, and even if there is an individually-calculated premium based on individual behavioural factors, it's still shared risk that underpins the scheme. The ultimate "user-pays" insurance would be fully self-funded - so no farkin' use at all!

[Squiggles]

Too many changes to legislation is my bet... I'd be in favour of having classes then paying the levy to have them active etc... if they werent active for a certain period then you need to retest etc

[PrincessBandit]

and not on our drivers license. That way everybody pays, and only once.

'cos they wont get as much money if we only pay once, associated with our drivers license, silly! Why on earth would they want to get money of each person's license when they can hit them up for every vehicle they own?

[Quasievil]

OK, perhaps I need to be clearer - your "solution" is just re-distribution; the same cost spread thinner, so less impact on you. This is a common misunderstanding - it's the "I'm all right Jack, screw you" approach (so regularly embraced by the right wing). But this does not make ACC cost less, it just makes ACC cost you less. (In fact it would probably make ACC cost more, overall).

Can you see the difference?

yes and this is good.

Whats your idea ??

[quickbuck]

Or, why is it not on fuel completely - that'll get dirtbikes, and the like, and will make those who do more miles (and therefore more likely to get injured) pay extra without penalising those who use more than one form of transport?

Any thoughts on that?

Yup.... A good idea...
The only problem is that those big trucks that cart all our goods will cost a lot more to run... so the price of food and other goods will increase...

Thing is though, at least we won't be stung should we happen to own a diesel version of a ute because it is apparently more likely to be taken off road....
And of course the proposed bike levy increase, so we will have more in our pocket for paying such an increase.

[PrincessBandit]

Yup.... A good idea...
The only problem is that those big trucks that cart all our goods will cost a lot more to run... so the price of food and other goods will increase...

Put it on rail? I for one would be delighted to have less big rigs on the road.
(Sorry to those who drive them for a living....oops.)

[rainman]

yes and this is good.

Whats your idea ??

I don't think there's a major problem with ACC remaining as it is. I'd defer the deadline for full funding until sometime later - hey if it's good enough for our climate obligations, it's good enough for our accident cover obligations. I'd have a general review of cover and entitlements (from a whole of government perspective - so not pushing ACC costs to the health system). But otherwise I'd leave it much as it is.

Then again, I'm not trying to manufacture a crisis so that I can privatise ACC for the benefit of the insurance industry, while screwing over the taxpayers I'm meant to be serving...

Oh, and don't you think your approach is a bit selfish?

Put it on rail? I for one would be delighted to have less big rigs on the road.

Yeah +1!!

[jafar]

Put it on rail? I for one would be delighted to have less big rigs on the road.
(Sorry to those who drive them for a living....oops.)

We had a rail monopoly & it was a failure, best keep this for another thread

[MikeL]

I don't think there's a major problem with ACC remaining as it is. I'd defer the deadline for full funding until sometime later - hey if it's good enough for our climate obligations, it's good enough for our accident cover obligations.

See the opinion piece in the Herald this morning by the man who started it all (he's now 92, and if anyone suggests that means he must be senile and not know what he's talking about it I will personally seek you out and come round in the dead of night and stuff a ferret up your back passage...)
He likens the full-funding argument to a suggestion that as soon as a child turns 5 and starts school, all costs for education up to and including university should be immediately payable. I'm not an accountant and like a lot of people I can easily be impressed and therefore confused by accountant-speak, which often seems to make some sort of sense in a vague way but doesn't necessarily have anything behind it but the rigid sclerotic accountant's mind.
The agenda is clear and for obvious reasons. Rich, greedy people resent the fact that their opportunities for becoming even richer are hindered by the state's unreasonable claim that some things should be owned by the people and not private corporations. They can't say this of course, so they impress and confuse the people with accountant-speak, and talk of free markets and efficiencies, when in reality it's all about profits to shareholders. By all means toss out ACC and go fully private, but don't whinge when your private insurer hits you with unaffordable premiums at the age of 60 because you're now at greater risk of breaking your bones when you fall down the stairs...

[FJRider]

'cos they wont get as much money if we only pay once, associated with our drivers license, silly! Why on earth would they want to get money of each person's license when they can hit them up for every vehicle they own?

No ... just every vehicle they have registered ...

[Skyryder]

See the opinion piece in the Herald this morning by the man who started it all (he's now 92, and if anyone suggests that means he must be senile and not know what he's talking about it I will personally seek you out and come round in the dead of night and stuff a ferret up your back passage...)
He likens the full-funding argument to a suggestion that as soon as a child turns 5 and starts school, all costs for education up to and including university should be immediately payable. I'm not an accountant and like a lot of people I can easily be impressed and therefore confused by accountant-speak, which often seems to make some sort of sense in a vague way but doesn't necessarily have anything behind it but the rigid sclerotic accountant's mind.
The agenda is clear and for obvious reasons. Rich, greedy people resent the fact that their opportunities for becoming even richer are hindered by the state's unreasonable claim that some things should be owned by the people and not private corporations. They can't say this of course, so they impress and confuse the people with accountant-speak, and talk of free markets and efficiencies, when in reality it's all about profits to shareholders. By all means toss out ACC and go fully private, but don't whinge when your private insurer hits you with unaffordable premiums at the age of 60 because you're now at greater risk of breaking your bones when you fall down the stairs...

I heard much the same arguement from John Judge on the radio coming home from work. He was explaining how the funding worked. He used the example that if a child was incapacitated for life their funding for their entire life was required for that year. In other words each accident for each year needed complete funding for the entirety that the person was to be on ACC from the year of the accident. That as far as I can work out is the meaning of fully funded.
As you say an analogy can be drawn by means of a parent who wants to enroll their child at a private school. Under Smiths proposals of a fully funded ACC system that parent would be required to pay the entire school fees for the period of time that they were enrolled in the school……………..at the time of enrollment. Under this system some schools would require thirteen years of fees………….up front at enrollment time.

That I suspect, if any private school tried this approach would no doubt go down the gurgler faster than a rat up a drain pipe with a cat slashing at its rectum. And this is the model that Smith is proposing............and saying to boot that we can not afford not to.

Skyryder

[MikeL]

And this is the model that Smith is proposing............and saying to boot that we can not afford not to.

The fear factor. Unfortunately it may well work.
Why, I wonder, does the phrase "we can't afford not to" never get trotted out when investment in projects of real importance, such as a decent public transport system for Auckland, or mitigating climate change, are discussed??

By judicious use of statistics and distortion of facts the privatisation camp will thoroughly discredit the current system until the public is made to see that there is only one alternative.
I see a parallel in the campaign to discredit school examinations in the 1990s which destroyed School Certificate and Bursary and introduced the abomination which is NCEA. The fact is that there was nothing wrong with the previous qualification system that some fine-tuning would not have set right. For years it had been administered efficiently by state servants in the Education Ministry and the Universities. Reform was driven by ambitious but empty-headed yuppies who created the monstrosity that is NZQA (after complaining about government bureaucracy in the Education Department!) and were rewarded with richly-paid short-term contracts, creating a mess that they left for the teachers to clean up. The public bought into because of a relentless publicity campaign to convince them that the previous system was failing their kids.
Frightening us into thinking that ACC is basically broken, or broke, is the first stage in a devious plot to replace what we have now with a system that will produce profits for private companies.

[Ixion]

Why is ACC charged on rego?

Well, the philosophical why may be debated

But the practical why is just a matter of history.

Before ACC we had compulsory third party insurance. And like most insurance it was based on the vehicle. And the compulsary bit was collected when you licensed the vehicle (that was quite different then, you actually got a new set of number plates each year, different colour each year, unlicensed vehicles stood out like a dogs bollocks) . When ACC came along it just inherited that system. It was never really thought about much.