The unpopular view

[Grahameeboy]

Where did I say that?

I have no problem paying a levy on the off-chance that I have an accident.

But to increase my levy when I haven't claimed off ACC for over 20 years is morally unjust.

So you don't insured your home, contents etc.....

[Grahameeboy]

I never said they were.

"It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting."

It must be very subtle which is unlike you Sir

[Katman]

"It is a scheme whereby I'm being expected to pay more to fix up habitual idiots.

That's why I'm protesting."

It must be very subtle which is unlike you Sir

Not subtle at all Graham.

I'm happy for my levy to go towards fixing those who are injured when they are not primarily at fault or when an accident occurs which wasn't a result of stupidity.

I begrudge paying to fix up those who ride irresponsibly and/or don't learn from their stupid mistakes.

[Grahameeboy]

Not subtle at all Graham.

I'm happy for my levy to go towards fixing those who are injured when they are not primarily at fault or when an accident occurs which wasn't a result of stupidity.

I begrudge paying to fix up those who ride irresponsibly and/or don't learn from their mistakes.

I see....I cannot take that view...it's the smokers argument reversed..we pay more in taxes so should get equal treatment...

[Ixion]

"No Fault" means "No Blame" in the compensation/damages sense. However it does not mean "No Risk".

So.......if you choose a risky occupation then you pay more ACC. The problem arises in the context of non-work injuries. At present there is no distinction or levy imposed for high risk activities.

Personally I'm happy for that to continue and support the protest actions.

Yes, risky occupations do pay more.

But I believe I can distinguish the two cases of occupational (workplace) levies and road user levies.

In the case of workplace levies *all* workplaces are assessed for risk, and their levies adjusted accordingly. In the case of road user levies *only* motorcycles are singled out.

If the ACC were to assess the risk factor for *all* road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) , and charge accordingly, I would consider that fair on an insurance basis. Of course, I would then expect that, like any other insurance scheme, they would offer people like me , who have never claimed, a no claims bonus. Oh, and return to me the right to sue those whose negligence or default harms me.

But that's NOT the case. Only motorcyclists are singled out. And moreover, the basis upon which the risk loadings are made in workplace levies is very open and transparent and contestable. That assigning higher levies to motorcycles certainly is not.

At a higher level though, I would still object to setting road users levies by a risk factor, since , as I noted above , that would , in fact, be turn ACC into an insurance scheme. Which it is not and never was supposed to be.

And, as it is the National government are tryi ng to have a bob each way. Treat motorcyclists as if it were an insurance scheme, and leave it as a compensations cheme for everyone else

[FJRider]

I'll back my chances of staying upright.

I take that as a yes ...

Don't know. How many have you had?

Another "Don't know" reply from you, to a question I've asked you. Thats getting to be seen as habbitual ...

And I've had two requiring (qualifying for) ACC assistance ... in the time ACC has been in existance. Prior to that, my OWN health insurance covered me. And still does.

[Grahameeboy]

Yes, risky occupations do pay more.

But I believe I can distinguish the two cases of occupational (workplace) levies and road user levies.

In the case of workplace levies *all* workplaces are assessed for risk, and their levies adjusted accordingly. In the case of road user levies *only* motorcycles are singled out.

If the ACC were to assess the risk factor for *all* road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) , and charge accordingly, I would consider that fair on an insurance basis. Of course, I would then expect that, like any other insurance scheme, they would offer people like me , who have never claimed, a no claims bonus. Oh, and return to me the right to sue those whose negligence or default harms me.

But that's NOT the case. Only motorcyclists are singled out. And moreover, the basis upon which the risk loadings are made in workplace levies is very open and transparent and contestable. That assigning higher levies to motorcycles certainly is not.

At a higher level though, I would still object to setting road users levies by a risk factor, since , as I noted above , that would , in fact, be turn ACC into an insurance scheme. Which it is not and never was supposed to be.

And, as it is the National government are tryi ng to have a bob each way. Treat motorcyclists as if it were an insurance scheme, and leave it as a compensations cheme for everyone else

It is better than an insurance scheme....

[Grahameeboy]

I take that as a yes ...

This is how he stays upright

[Katman]

So you don't insured your home, contents etc.....

I don't recall our insurance company ever saying "Hey, you haven't claimed in 20 years - we're tripling your premium".

[Grahameeboy]

I don't recall our insurance company saying "Hey, you haven't claimed in 20 years - we're tripling your premium".

No but you will find that your premium has more than that in 20 years but premiums do go up because of the general claims experience...NZI have just announced the 3rd rate rise and higher standard excesses this year for people who have no claims because of the whole experience.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

No but you will find that your premium has more than that in 20 years but premiums do go up because of the general claims experience...NZI have just announced the 3rd rate rise and higher standard excesses this year for people who have no claims because of the whole experience.

but ACC isn't insurance

[Grahameeboy]

but ACC isn't insurance

The reality is that it is.........it's an underwritten fund....but my point was replying to KTM's point about Insurance

[FJRider]

The Government is betraying its citizens and breaking (explicitly breaking) a social compact that was formed 34 years ago and is intrinsic to the identity of this nation.

ACC is a 24/7 NO FAULT accident COMPENSATION scheme set in place so that the citizens of New Zealand should not be financially disadvantaged in the event of injury. In return for universal coverage of this compensation we forwent the ability to sue anyone who might have been deemed to have been liable for the injury

This is only marginally about bikes, basically they are doing it to us because they think that they can.

For me this protest is to show the goverment that they cannot.

As much as I agree with most of what you said, and why. There seem to be a few points I must disagree with.

Never have I seen, at the time of the original implmentation of ACC compensation being made available, that levys/fee's would not rise. EVER.

No fault is all persons in the event of an accident, are eligible for compensation. Not ... those in high risk activities would not be expected to pay a higher levy for that privilege.

As I understand it, under the current system/laws, the Goverment Legally can. And only requires the ministers signature to make it happen. The political repercussions of such an action however, are another story.

My personal dislike of the proposal, is based more what I percieve as an unfair method of determining from who, and how those extra fees are gained ...

This is not the first time the ACC levy has gone up in recent years, with little more than a murmur of protest.

The precedent was set then.

[FJRider]

This is how he stays upright

A pussy in a helmet .... apt ...

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Because the have seperated the accounts into seperate accounts it makes it look a lot worse than it really is... It was never intended to operate that way