Reply from ACC

[yachtie10]

No it's called Life Insurance now....it used to be "Assurance" as you are assured of dieing and they changed it to Insurance....same thing because you are insuring for an event.

bollocks
I quote
"Insurance vs Assurance


The specific uses of the terms "insurance" and "assurance" are sometimes confused. In general, in these jurisdictions "insurance" refers to providing cover for an event that might happen (fire, theft, flood, etc.), while "assurance" is the provision of cover for an event that is certain to happen. "Insurance" is the generally accepted term, however, people using this description are liable to be corrected. In the United States both forms of coverage are called "insurance", principally due to many companies offering both types of policy, and rather than refer to themselves using both insurance and assurance titles, they instead use just one."

If you have an accident you are guaranteed of payment....

Huh? what is your point

We are singled out because we are a higher risk...so in essence we actually single ourselves out....no different to Workplace levies....or say Commercial Insurance where you pay higher premiums if you are a higher risk...so that's the way it is and we are not singled out...

If you chose to ride a bike you are a higher risk...no argument...if you are say a self employed welder you will pay more for Public Liability insurance...

My point is it is not even handed. Motorcyclists are being singled out because its easy to bill us. I'm not arguing we don't have higher costs. So do other groups but they are harder to bill.

[Grahameeboy]

bollocks
I quote
"Insurance vs Assurance


The specific uses of the terms "insurance" and "assurance" are sometimes confused. In general, in these jurisdictions "insurance" refers to providing cover for an event that might happen (fire, theft, flood, etc.), while "assurance" is the provision of cover for an event that is certain to happen. "Insurance" is the generally accepted term, however, people using this description are liable to be corrected. In the United States both forms of coverage are called "insurance", principally due to many companies offering both types of policy, and rather than refer to themselves using both insurance and assurance titles, they instead use just one."

That is what I said....


Huh? what is your point

That ACC pays out

My point is it is not even handed. Motorcyclists are being singled out because its easy to bill us. I'm not arguing we don't have higher costs. So do other groups but they are harder to bill.

So are high risk occupations, businesses....they pay more for Insurance etc....why do motorcyclists always claim they are singled out...

...................

[James Deuce]

Graham, FFS. The only Road Users singled out for ever increasing ACC levies are motorcyclists. ACC was never meant to have an account basis. The accounts were setup prior to the last round of attempted privatisation. Motorcycle registation is the only part of the motor vehicle account that can be have levies increased independently of any other ACC levy, EXCEPT for the hazardous occupations account that employers fund. Again, they shouldn't be paying more either. There's no need. ACC makes money, largely thanks to its investment team

If ACC is replaced by insurance Natalie will not be able to get Insurance cover and will not get anything like the care she gets now. 2 of my kids woul dbe uninsurable as well.

I'm not going to say again, because you're either trolling, unbelieveably dense, or blissfully incapable of understanding the implications of removing a no fault compensation scheme and replacing it with liability insurance.

ACC is not Insurance. It was never meant to be Insurance. It is ONLY the National Party and latterly ACT that have decided to present it as Insurance. The commission that created ACC went to great pains to create legislation that separated ACC from insurance.

Either get on board Graham or fuck off. Seriously.

[Mystic13]

I would read this guys....

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...le/DG_10012524

To be honest I would prefer to pay more ACC levy to ensure that my riskier pastime means I get top treatment when I need it.

$700....and it will end up being less is less that $70 a month...I pay Southern Cross $70 a month and that covers less than what ACC covers which includes income protection.

Even allowing for petrol etc ACC is still a pretty good deal. Would you rather not have it and be like the UK and USA...

I agree that the increase is unfair..however, all the Govt are doing is going high knowing that some fuss will be made and it will be reduced...basic haggling which is what happens with all new Bills.

That's my levies worth



Cyclists pay ACC via cars, petrol and work and some have motorbikes so they have the same argument that Kbers put out so they are paying their dues....

I think you're getting bogged down in detail and missing the big picture. ACC made a $1 Billion surplus last year. They want to create a fund that has some $23 Billion in it. They need a further $12 Billion. They want to get that in 5 years. So they propose a huge hike to do it. If they spread that out over 15 years then no increase is required. Why the need to create the surplus in such a short timeframe.

Beyond that there is much misquoted facts.

So I'm with BRONZ. The Motorcycle levy should be reduced to the same level as cars.

Further in excess off 99% of motorcycle riders own a car. So that means we're already paying twice.

If I was insured privately I'd be insured on my higher risk profile. ACC want to get me on my bike, then on my car and then on my other bikes. That is in no way fair. They need to be getting one premium from each person and the only way that you can do that is to tag it onto fuel. Then we pay proportionally for the time we're out on the road.

Of course Uncle Keith from ACC has already commented in his report on this. He noted that motorcycles use less fuel which gives them a discount and beyond that he thought motorcycls should pay a huge premium over cars forgetting that we already pay a huge premium by owning a car and bike.

There are so many miss-stated details and facts that you can get bogged down arguing the detail. Don't lose sight of the big picture. ACC does not have a problem, they don't need the money and Keith hates motorcyclists.

[Mystic13]

had a reply to an email I sent quoting an outside stats expert.
Their own comments vary - now it's 16 times more likely!

Right from their first release they've said 16 times more likely? There comments have been this figure consistently.

[Grahameeboy]

Graham, FFS. The only Road Users singled out for ever increasing ACC levies are motorcyclists. ACC was never meant to have an account basis. The accounts were setup prior to the last round of attempted privatisation. Motorcycle registation is the only part of the motor vehicle account that can be have levies increased independently of any other ACC levy, EXCEPT for the hazardous occupations account that employers fund. Again, they shouldn't be paying more either. There's no need. ACC makes money, largely thanks to its investment team

If ACC is replaced by insurance Natalie will not be able to get Insurance cover and will not get anything like the care she gets now. 2 of my kids woul dbe uninsurable as well.

The only constant is change...ACC started at one level and has evolved...that's what happens...

I agree that levies should be gained from petrol..user payers...however, in essence I don't mind paying more for my bike levies and it will probably end up being closer to $500 anyway which is not that bad...that is simply what I am saying

I'm not going to say again, because you're either trolling, unbelieveably dense, or blissfully incapable of understanding the implications of removing a no fault compensation scheme and replacing it with liability insurance.

ACC is not Insurance. It was never meant to be Insurance. It is ONLY the National Party and latterly ACT that have decided to present it as Insurance. The commission that created ACC went to great pains to create legislation that separated ACC from insurance.

Either get on board Graham or fuck off. Seriously.

I have not said remove ACC Jim..show where I have said this....I have just said it is a good thing...

The Insurance issues is just semantics...

As for Facts...Nats is not under ACC...leave that one with you?

I don't have to get on board Jim...I am allowed to see things the way I do...funny thing is that if I have got on board Nats would not have half the things she has now..some firsts in NZ...getting on board is safe...not my style.

And no I would fuck off (you should know better than that..lol).....do I tell you to do that....I express my view...we just see things different and you are allowing your "rage" to even get facts wrong like thinking Nats is under ACC...

[Grahameeboy]

I think you're getting bogged down in detail and missing the big picture. ACC made a $1 Billion surplus last year. They want to create a fund that has some $23 Billion in it. They need a further $12 Billion. They want to get that in 5 years. So they propose a huge hike to do it. If they spread that out over 15 years then no increase is required. Why the need to create the surplus in such a short timeframe.

Beyond that there is much misquoted facts.

So I'm with BRONZ. The Motorcycle levy should be reduced to the same level as cars.

Further in excess off 99% of motorcycle riders own a car. So that means we're already paying twice.

We will just have to see things differently

If I was insured privately I'd be insured on my higher risk profile. ACC want to get me on my bike, then on my car and then on my other bikes. That is in no way fair. They need to be getting one premium from each person and the only way that you can do that is to tag it onto fuel. Then we pay proportionally for the time we're out on the road.

Of course Uncle Keith from ACC has already commented in his report on this. He noted that motorcycles use less fuel which gives them a discount and beyond that he thought motorcycls should pay a huge premium over cars forgetting that we already pay a huge premium by owning a car and bike.

There are so many miss-stated details and facts that you can get bogged down arguing the detail. Don't lose sight of the big picture. ACC does not have a problem, they don't need the money and Keith hates motorcyclists.

We will just have to see things differently............