Don't fall for Nick Smith's bullshit

[Stan]

Our gripe, and our remit is with ACC levies on motorcycles. primarily, the unjustifiable increase, secondarily , how that are assessed and charged.

This is not a party political issue.

If the National government agree to cancel the increases and in future put us on the same levy as cars, hten they will be Official Good Bastards too.

Anything other than motorcycle levies is an issue for another time and place.

I don't agree. Sure we can take the narrow, selfish view, and just whine about how it affects our pockets. But that ignores the big picture which is that this government are determined to degrade the ACC. In the long term that will mean less cover and higher costs for all of us.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

I don't agree. Sure we can take the narrow, selfish view, and just whine about how it affects our pockets. But that ignores the big picture which is that this government are determined to degrade the ACC. In the long term that will mean less cover and higher costs for all of us.

It is not practical to take on the entire ACC system and expect to win anything. We as bike riders must deal with the problems we have. And as I understand it, it is the way the costs are allocated.
Small, well thought out and researched steps will win the battle and in time win the war. If I thought for a minute the cost we are being asked to pay were the actual cost we as riders are responsible for I would say “ shut up and pay up”, but they are not.


And by answering this I have done what I asked others not to do I rest my case..........

[Winston001]

....But that ignores the big picture which is that this government are determined to degrade the ACC. In the long term that will mean less cover and higher costs for all of us.

With respect I don't think the government has any desire to degrade ACC for the simple reason that the government has to pick up the pieces.

I do agree about higher costs but those costs are for paying physiotherapists and rehabilitation. Just like healthcare, these costs can be endless as technology provides ever increasing answers to accident consequences.

[short-circuit]

It is not practical to take on the entire ACC system and expect to win anything.

I don't think Stan is advocating for this. The changes proposed to ACC are politically engineered and ideologically driven. The only thing that hurts political parties is lost votes and or the threat of this.

[MacD]

For anybody who thinks that this issue isn't political, have a look at this Herald article from 2007 in which the briefing papers from ACC to the then new minister, Maryan Street, note that (my bold):

The papers also deal with cross-subsidisation between road users.

They say about one third of new serious injury claims in the Motor Vehicle Account were by motorcyclists and pillion passengers.

"The average cost of motorcycle injuries per year is $1500 per registered motorcycle.

"At present motorcyclists pay approximately $204.66 in registration and a limited petrol levy due to motorcycle efficiency," the papers say.

"In the existing process, other road users are cross-subsidising motorcyclists."

However, ACC has no plans to change that because, it says, charging the full cost to motorcyclists would introduce an affordability and fairness issue.

"It is accepted that they are involved in high-cost serious injuries but they are not always at fault."

Somewhat different to the direction the ACC is taking under the new Nick Smith appointed Chair and board.

[Wasp27]

It is not practical to take on the entire ACC system and expect to win anything. We as bike riders must deal with the problems we have. And as I understand it, it is the way the costs are allocated.
Small, well thought out and researched steps will win the battle and in time win the war. If I thought for a minute the cost we are being asked to pay were the actual cost we as riders are responsible for I would say “ shut up and pay up”, but they are not.


And by answering this I have done what I asked others not to do I rest my case..........

Steve, as you know I'm an avid proponent for thinking outside the square and as such... when I read some of the posts in this and other ACC threads I'm beginning to think that maybe..... just maybe the Red Coats have a point. Instead of concentrating all our efforts on just One Main Issue.... perhaps we should use lots of different unrelated side issues which would allow more R/Cs to express their hopes and dreams of the next Labour Government....... sorry,
I think their idea of lighting lots of different fires all over the place will indeed confuse the enemy...... namely that bastard Nick Smith and that poxy National Government has merit.........NOT!!!

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Can you not see that what your doing is dividing this whole issue with the real potential to destroy this most worthwhile campaign.... please think about it. In fact if you cant contribute anything positive... just stay away... simple. Rant over

[Stan]

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
Can you not see that what your doing is dividing this whole issue with the real potential to destroy this most worthwhile campaign.... please think about it. In fact if you cant contribute anything positive... just stay away... simple. Rant over

I think you're taking this a bit personally. I'm not trying to confuse the issue but if you think the only problem here is your increased ACC levy, you're kidding yourself.

Also, if (as Les suggested) you decide that Nick Smith is a 'good bastard' because he gets the new ACC levy down from $750 to saaaay, $500 then you're seriously deluded.

The ONLY reason the levy is going up is because Nick Smith wants it to.

As for the redcoat comment, I didn't vote for Labour at the last election so don't be tarring me with that brush.

[Ixion]

Of course the issue is political.

But our IMMEDIATE problem is levies.

Focus on the BALL folks. Damn the levies.

BTW nobody should assume that Nov 17th is the end of the campaiggn. Or that we will necessarily stop at stopping the levy increase.They'll just come back next year for another go

[StoneY]

I see Nov 17th simply as the opening volley in a long fight

Its simply a show of force so the powers that be get a feel for how many voter age Kiwi's theyre pissing off

I like that that Herald story at the very least ended with the fact that not ALL our injuries are our fault...its a start compared to the other 'conservative' media to date

[wingrider]

My 2c worth.

In the Dom-Post Monday 2/11/2009, in the Business section, there is an article entitled "Face It, ACC has always been a Mistake" written by Roger Kerr, Executive Director NZ Business Roundtable.

The whole tone (in my opinion) of his article is to convince people that ACC should be scrapped and we go back to the old days of "Right to Sue".

People would be compelled to have Private medical insurance and a bloody fat wallet to pay their lawyers. You would also have to have a bloody good bank balance to finance yourself whist on the mend awaiting your turn in court to recover costs.

The whole concept of ACC was a No Fault No Blame whereby those injured regardless of fault or circumstance, had access to medical facilities and compensation for loss of income whilst recovering.

As a person who was affected by the OLD SYSTEM, I fully remember the financial hardship this put on my parents and the long wait until I was awarded compensation. I dont want that happening for my kids.

Since its inception, ACC has cost the Insurance Industry loss of income.

The National party has always been influenced by Business Roundtable who want a Government that will implement it's recommendations so as to bolster the personal profits of its members and shareholders. They are not worried about the likes of their customers so long as they continue to pay their premiums. And we would be compelled because they would bring in the likes of compulsory insurance to ensure we do.

ACC is not without its faults, but it is fair. and would have been even better had all of its conceptions been implemented.

Whats not fair is when one contributing factor is expected to fund all those groups who are labeled as NON-Contributors and to also amend the errors that the appointed staff have made when they were allowed to make unsound business decisions in respect of investing taxpayers money in risky investments. Again they expect us ( the workers) to bail out them ( the bosses) for their incompetence, and make out it was our fault all along.

If we revert back to the OLD WAY, how much of a tax-cut can we expect to get as a method to pay for personal medical insurance and as an incentive to save should the need arise for us to finance ourselves whilst in recovery?
NOT BLOODY LIKELY.

If proposed taxcuts were used to help fund injuries to those NON-Contibuting groups, I feel would go a long way. Thats not to say that there are groups who should never pay their way. A basic commonsense approach needs to put in place to collect a revenue from these persons.

I have no problems with contributing by way of my taxes to ensure that my children have access to compensation should they be injured. I know that in turn their time will come when they will contribute to their own children.

We are KIWI's. able to think clearly and rationally in most circumstances. Dont allow the idiots to turn us into another pawn of Uncle Sam's idioligy.

In the best KIWI tradition and in respect of the proposed increase lets paraphrase one of uncle Sams sayings

IN RESPECT OF MOTORCYCLE LEVY INCREASES

THE BUCK STOPS HERE!

[davereid]

More Bullshit

hell, there is bullshit coming at us from all corners now !

[Winston001]

My 2c worth.

In the Dom-Post Monday 2/11/2009, in the Business section, there is an article entitled "Face It, ACC has always been a Mistake" written by Roger Kerr, Executive Director NZ Business Roundtable.

The whole tone (in my opinion) of his article is to convince people that ACC should be scrapped and we go back to the old days of "Right to Sue".

People would be compelled to have Private medical insurance and a bloody fat wallet to pay their lawyers. You would also have to have a bloody good bank balance to finance yourself whist on the mend awaiting your turn in court to recover costs.

While I agree with your general views its worth explaining that accident insurance covers the cost of lawyers. Essentially these cases become arguments between insurance companies.

However I do think ACC is a fine scheme and can be fixed. I do not want to see the return of the right to sue.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

However I do think ACC is a fine scheme and can be fixed. I do not want to see the return of the right to sue.

True... but ACC is not insurance and never should be classed as that, it never was set up to be accident insurance...

The day the seperated the accounts was the day ACC scheme fell apart.... the biger the pool of money means the more cross subsidising and possibly lower levy's are required

seperated (virtual) accounts as we are means smaller pools of money and higher levy's ACC was never intended to work this way and needs to go back to its true orgins of the scheme

[Brian d marge]

My 2c worth.

In the Dom-Post Monday 2/11/2009, in the Business section, there is an article entitled "Face It, ACC has always been a Mistake" written by Roger Kerr, Executive Director NZ Business Roundtable.

THE BUCK STOPS HERE!

Mr Kerr, Gibbsy and the others were the original business round table idiots who advised Labour to introduce those cuts back in the day and National and later ACT took to heart ,,,,,,,

Roger Douglas was another

These people are Idealites with their own interest at heart ..

not yours

Stephen

[Voltaire]

I finally got my arse into gear and put my submissions in.

One for every one of my three bikes registered as its the bikes that count not the rider.

I also found a nice A4 size calculator to send to Mr Smith accompanied by Mr Reids summary of ACC figures ( ta).

I have another one to send to Mr Judge so he does not have to rely on his fingers and toes to come up with numbers.

Booked up accomodation in Welly and the Toaster is ready to roll.