Excess is fairer than a levy

[jboy]

What guts me the most is that in over 14 years of motorcycling I have made no ACC claims relating to motorcycle accidents. I am a mature and experienced rider who prefers to commute on a high-torque 120cc v-twin.

So why should I be expected to subsidise higher risk riders? I hear car drivers bleating about subsidising "all you motorcyclists", but fuck-it ... they're not subsidising me.

My preference? Leave the ACC levy where it is (or increase it only marginally) and FLAT, but impose an excess for motorcycle related claims.

IF I have an accident that is my fault, I'll gladly pay the excess because I was probably being a dick anyway. If it's not my fault then my insurance company can recover the excess from the other party.

Best of all, I don't have to subsidise other riders whose risk profile is higher than mine.

Read on for more rationale behind this opinion ....

[Coldrider]

OK, you pay a flat fee then, then pay some excess because you have an off, where does the balance come from?

[jboy]

The balance? The excess IS the balance.

I'm saying you recover costs from those who actually HAVE an accident, not from those who MIGHT have an accident.

i.e. Just like how "normal" insurance works.

[Pixie]

Excess is a good idea to minimise spurious claims on ACC - like the several million $ they pay out on bee stings every year

[Coldrider]

The balance? The excess IS the balance.

I'm saying you recover costs from those who actually HAVE an accident, not from those who MIGHT have an accident.

i.e. Just like how "normal" insurance works.

OK you have an accident, costs $19,000 to repair you, you have paid a levy of $250, and have to pay an excess of what say $500.
Where does the balance $18,250 come from, considering motorcyclists are the funders of the motorcycla account.
You have already stated why should not have to subsidise another group, so who is going to subsidise you?

[jboy]

I'd be unsurprised if half the physio industry was out of a job should they introduce an excess on such claims.

Another group I "subsidise" ... sports/recreational injuries which require expensive physio.

[jboy]

Hey Coldrider, I think yo misunderstood me. That's not even how insurance works.

As I understand it there is a shortfall in the "premiums" collected from the motorcycle fraternity to cover their costs. The proposal is to increase everyone's premiums (by varying amounts - that I postulate are an unfair distribution of the cost of that risk) in order to recoup some of that uncollected cost. I'm not even sure whether the aim of ACC is to recover ALL the uncovered cost, or just a portion.

What I am saying is that the proposed mechanism for recouping costs is unjust. That a modest, and flat, increase in the levy across ALL engine capacities, with the addition of an excess would serve a similar end result. Especially if one considers that one of the side effects of an excess is reducing the number of small claimants.

Now admittedly I haven't provided a balance sheet to show that the excess method would recoup as much cost as the levy method, but i'm not even sure it would need to. The stated goal of ACC's current revamping is to reduce their long term exposure to claims.

An excess would do that just as well as an increase in levies, but it would be financially more liberal (a goal I would have expected from a right of centre government).

Note: I would take this argument further and support there being some varying excess on ALL types of claim. e.g. it might be $500 for a motorbike accident, but $50 for an organised sports accident and $3000 for an alcohol-related zipper accident.

[Coldrider]

I understand that motorcyclists would have to contribute $62million across all rego'd motorcycles, however which way it is distrubuted as levies and or premiums.
Your line reverts back to ACC as it was set up originally set up.

If you got a quote from an insurance company for ACC equivalent, I would be very interested in knowing their premium,as might a few others to put things in perspective.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

The 62 million is this years plus previous years pay outs. there have been no increased costs or claims for the last 2 years... and there is over all no short fall in money... there is more than enough to pay for the claims that have presently be made.

The only reason they are putting the levies up is so they can be fully funded by XYZ date (2014) so we are paying for past, present and future predicted claims...