Remind me – what is everyone protesting against?

[mashman]

I am fighting for being a Kiwi. Us all being able to have a go, to do what we want (within reason) and help each other when it goes wrong.

You want to paint your own house? I'll help you if you fall off your ladder.

You like your kids to help in the kitchen? I'll help you if they cut themselves.

You like playing rugby? I'll help you when the scrum collapses on your neck.

You like cycling? I'll help you when the car "didn't see you".

I like riding my bike. Will you help me, if I need it?

(And don't get all "absolutist" on me. I am not advocating "complete freedom"; e.g. I think reasonable speed limits and a ban on drink driving are fine. I'm happy that even that VF Valiant, mentioned above, needs to pass a W.O.F. inspection. I don't mind being told to wear a motorcycle helmet, and I even wonder why gloves are not mandatory.)

I completely agree

[XP@]

Again forget the numbers - they are a smoke screen for the real issues at hand.

The deadline for the levy increases has passed but they still need to pass the bill to make them possible. And this is only one part of the bill! We need to attack the change in principal which will allow them to separate the motor vehicle account further on a risk basis.

It is not bad enough that you loose your job because you cannot work any more but they want to use any outstanding holiday pay used to cover weekly entitlements.

Are you then willing to stand back and give ACC the ability to force you back in to a job for at minimum wage 30 hours per week, even though you were earning $1000 a week before your accident.

These are only the tip of the iceberg it is this bill which will cripple the country NOT the dollar increase in bike levies!

[Winston001]

Personally I am fighting to keep NZ free from private insurance companies and lawyers.

What we end up with is a system like in the UK or worse the USA where the health care companies and the lawyers rule supreme.

Essentially I agree with you. However when the Workers Account was opened to insurance companies in 1998, there was no right to sue introduced. So your perfectly reasonable concern can be allayed.

This isn't such a surprise. Life insurance carries on happily without any right to sue. Medical insurance (which I'll bet a lot of KBs have) doesn't include a right to sue. Loss of income insurance which is very common does not have a right to sue.

So we can relax on that score.

[Ixion]

I beg to differ.

All that means is that we end up with the worst of all worlds.

No effective compensation AND no recourse to the courts.

When the Workers Account was handed over to Insurance Companies , the workers were the ones that suffered.

A worker is injured , because (for the sake of argument) , his employer does not properly maintain a machine.

In other jurisdictions, the worker would sue (or at least make noises about it) the employer. Who would call in his insurance company. The insurance company represents the employer, so it is in its interest to shaft the worker. But it can't go TOO far down that road, because the worker can always have recourse to the courts. A poor recourse, and those who remember how that worked prior to 1972 will understand why ACC is worth fighting for. But, recourse none the less.

If the insurance company tell the worker "Piss off, we don't want to pay you money", the worker can take them to court.

Now compare this with privatised non-tort insurance scheme. (ie privatised ACC.

The worker is injured. He reports the injury. The employer doesn't want to know. If the injury is not serious that's probably as far as it goes. The worker bears the brunt.

If the injury is serious, the worker demands the insurance company be notified. The insurance company represents the employer, so it is in its interest to shaft the worker. And it can do so with impunity because the worker has NO effective recourse. The insurance company says "Piss off, we don't want to pay anyone anything". The employer says "Shut up and don't argue, I don't want my premiums to go up". And the worker has nothing at all he can do.

He can ask the insurance company for a review. So the insurance company reviews its own decision. We can tell how *that's* going to end up, can't we.

End result: the worker ends up on the sick or invalid benefit, the insurance company (and employer) laugh all the way to the (overseas) bank. And the taxpayer pays for it all.

Yep, we can relax all right.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I am a biker, I live in Auckland, I ride a 1200 Suzuki, I have never owned a car or held a car licence (I am 53 yo) unfortunately I cant say that I have never lane split.

cool I'm 41 never owned a car or even have a car license

but well yes I lane split every so often (but not all the time)

[jrandom]

... straw man technique

Chuckle. I'm with the others who've called the alter ego.

Your obsession with formal logical fallacies gives you away, Idle.

Absolutely superb effort here, though. I salute you!

(For what it's worth, since I started by stating that I was making a 'side point', and therefore implicitly not an attack on the validity of your central questions, I don't think my post did constitute a strawman argument.)

Edit: I wonder how many other 'sleeper' accounts you have waiting in the wings, you sly old dog.

[Winston001]

Now compare this with privatised non-tort insurance scheme. (ie privatised ACC)

The worker is injured. He reports the injury. The employer doesn't want to know. If the injury is not serious that's probably as far as it goes. The worker bears the brunt.

If the injury is serious, the worker demands the insurance company be notified........The insurance company says "Piss off, we don't want to pay anyone anything".....

Ix, your scenario is no different under ACC. Both they and the employer can deny the veracity of the injury right now. Indeed they do - as you'd expect if ACC is to be anything other than a rubber stamp for easy money.

There are rights to review and rights of appeal above that. There are a few lawyers who specialise in ACC cases so its not all slammed doors by any means. All of these rights still pertain under an insurance company cover - (something which incidentally I oppose).

[Ixion]

The difference is that ACC (until they started turning into an insurance company, anyway) have no real inherent reason to screw people. And if they started to do so, they are , in the end , accountable to a Minister. An elected representative.

An insurance company is accountable to no-one in NZ. And the people they are accountable to (head office in God Knows Where) are only interested in the same thing - making as much money as possible.

The right to review is somewhat dodgy under ACC- who have no vested interest in not being fair, except, sometimes, saving face.A right of review by an insurance company is meaningless. Why on earth would they ever find against their own company - it's going to cost them money.

And , by and large, under the present scenario, the employer has no vested interest in hiding an injury. Admitting "Joe got hurt" doesn't cost them anything. Under an insurance system , that admission costs them money.

[mashman]

Micro management

[Winston001]

And , by and large, under the present scenario, the employer has no vested interest in hiding an injury. Admitting "Joe got hurt" doesn't cost them anything. Under an insurance system , that admission costs them money.

Two points:

1. Some employers can currently get a non-claims discount on their levies if they have an accident free workplace.

2. Employees have been known to come to work and "trip" the moment they arrive. Their injury was actually sustained at home but that means a week with no pay. Much better for the employee if the injury happens at work.....on 80% pay immediately. Paid by the employer.

So there are good and valid reasons for the employer to occasionally doubt the injury....

Real life example - AFFCO: worker finished work, in the carpark, gets shot by a rival gang member. ACC successfully argued that AFFCO had to pay all of the compensation.

[Ixion]

And mechanisms exist unde rthe present (historical) scheme for employers to address those points.

ACC doesn't just automatically take the workers word for it.

But the point is that ACC is (reasonably) neutral. No axe to grind either way.

Whereas an insurance company is not.

You do realise that the employer has the SOLE decision what insurance company to run with ? Workers get no say at all. If Mr Gradgrind elects to insure with Chiseling & Bastard Insurance , that's what happens.

The insurance companies will be touting for business on the basis of "we're cheapest". They'll be paring down the premiums (especially at the start). And to recover the profits they believe they are entitled to, there's only one thing they can do. make sure that they don't pay out.

And when a claim is made, they are judge , jury, and appeal court. In their own case.

[MacD]

Essentially I agree with you. However when the Workers Account was opened to insurance companies in 1998, there was no right to sue introduced. So your perfectly reasonable concern can be allayed.

No it can't be, it is an almost inevitable long-term consequence of moving to a private insurance model. Primarily because if you introduce risk ratings without assigning fault, you produce the obvious anomalies that we are arguing against with the current proposals. For motorcyclists, they are to be charged premiums based on the total risk of motorcycling, while at least 40% of that risk should be attributed to the "at-fault" motorist.

At the political level, the Business Round Table has actively promoted a return to the right to sue for injury compensation for many years. The new Chair of ACC is a "alumnus" member of the BRT. In my opinion this is not coincidence, but part of a long-term agenda.

This isn't such a surprise. Life insurance carries on happily without any right to sue.

What do you mean by this? Injury resulting in loss of life is covered by ACC surely? Under what other circumstances would the right to sue be exercised regarding life insurance?

Medical insurance (which I'll bet a lot of KBs have) doesn't include a right to sue.

Again, because treatment injuries are covered by ACC.

Loss of income insurance which is very common does not have a right to sue.

Again I am confused by what you mean? There are many avenues for seeking compensation from employers for emplyment issues. If the loss of income is due to injury it is covered by ACC, hence you cannot sue for compensation.

So we can relax on that score.

In my opinion this is a very naive view in the long term.

Also your examples seem to be examples where ACC removes the right to sue, as in all these cases it would only likely be an injury caused by a third party that could result in an action being taken?

[Mikkel]

Now this is the first intelligent reply I've come across (still working my way through the responses though). This is what I was hoping would be typical of responses to my post. This kind of information is relevant and helpful in figuring out what is fair.

One very easy way of showing at least how the real ACC data could, realistically, be skewed in comparing motorcycles with cars is to consider the number of licensed (i.e. registered) vehicles versus the total number of vehicles as estimated by the LTSA.

This is the NZ motor vehicle registration statistics from 2008.

If we first consider Table 31 - Total licensed vehicles, by vehicle type, as at year end June 2008, we see the following number of licensed vehicles in 2008 by type:

Motorcycles: 55,180
Mopeds: 19,960
Cars: 2,287,697

If we then consider Table 37 - Fuel types: total vehicles as at year end 2008, by vehicle type and fuel type - which includes vehicles on exempt licenses, non-registered vehicles (e.g. race vehicles, farm bikes, etc.) and an estimate of the number of un-registered vehicles (i.e. vehicles driven on the road without registration) we see the following numbers for total vehicle numbers by type:

Motorcycles: 106,454
Mopeds: 30,939
Cars: 2,789,676

What we can conclude from that, is that registered motorcycles and mopeds constitute a much smaller proportion (51.8% and 64.5% respectively) of the total vehicle population compared to cars (82%). As a result each vehicle registration has to cover a larger proportion of their segment.
As an analogy - consider a society with an unemployment rate of 48.2% versus one with an unemployment rate of 18% - huge difference.

Based on this alone, it is clear that if you want to differentiate in regards to ACC levies it has to be made very clear in regards to payments whether the claim is related to a registered motorcycle or an un-registered motorcycle. Otherwise it can not be considered fair.

And nowhere has any evidence been supplied to suggest it is reasonable to distinguish as to engine capacity in regards to ACC levies.

Thanks for the links. I was only able to find one piece in there with actual numbers, but it didn't support the protester's cause. Essentially it said that the average car driver is paying an extra $77 to cover bike riders.

I don't know if Nick et Al has somehow gotten that figure twisted - that the reality is that each motorcycle registration levy is subsidised by $77 in stead of each car levy providing a $77 subsidy to motorcycles. Those numbers might make sense.

Anyway, that is not what they are claiming. What they claim is clearly fallacious. If each of the 2,287,697 registered cars in 2008 had paid a $77 subsidy towards motorcycles that would be $176,152,669.00 - about 2.8 times the $63 mil. that they claim all motorcycle claims costs per year.

The more realistic interpretation - which is contrary to what they claim - that each motorcycle levy was subsidised by $77 gives us, assuming that there was 55,180 registered motorcycles, a figure of $4,248,860.00 which comes to $1.86 per car registration - not quite so outrageous now is it?

I mean, that could make sense and I am sure no one would loose sleep over that. However... I really do dislike it when I get a feeling that public officials are lying to the public. And it further pisses me off when the media just nods their empty heads and shovels it down as being gospel!

...and this is without even considering what ACC is or is supposed to be. Fairness is not possible unless the ACC levy on vehicle registration becomes the same for all private registered vehicles, irregardless of type.

Sorry, I'm with Reflex on this one. Probablity and chance are effectively the same thing. Toss a die and the probability of getting a six is 1/6. The cahnce of getting a six is 1/6. There is no difference between probability and chance.

We've been over this I believe...

Probability is calculated. Chance is a static value of 50%... HUGE DIFFERENCE...

If you have 2 dice the Probability changes, Chance does not

...so, please, put the pipe down and drop the issue!

[FastBikeGear]

% of that risk should be attributed to the "at-fault" motorist.

At the political level, the Business Round Table has actively promoted a return to the right to sue for injury compensation for many years. The new Chair of ACC is a "alumnus" member of the BRT. In my opinion this is not coincidence, but part of a long-term agenda.

You raise something I meant to mention the other day. I spent a few minutes on the BRT site you can do asearch on ACC and some interesting discussion papers and presentations come up.

The BRT agenda for a long time has been to privatise ACC. They are not shy about it! They have been campaigning actively on this since the late 80's. Perhaps they now have a government that will listen to them.

I say privatise it. Bring back the right to sue and subrogation....and lets buy shares in the Australian insurance companies. Because their is 100's of millions of dollars up for profit.

My prediction:

In the next few months we are going to see a lot of insurance companies buying very expensive TV ads. Some of this advertising will be from inusrnace companies you have barely heard of before and who have never purchased TV ads in the past.

[Clockwork]

Real life example - AFFCO: worker finished work, in the carpark, gets shot by a rival gang member. ACC successfully argued that AFFCO had to pay all of the compensation.

IIRC this case was caused by the entry of private insurers into the workplace market. This was a dispute between ACC and AFFCO's insurer, each attempting to offload the claim onto the other. The employee was left stranded in the middle with NOTHING. This would never have happend if both employee and workplace cover were provided by ACC as they'd simply choose which account to assign it to.

To my mind this example perfectly illustrates why private insurers should not be allowed to compete with ACC in this way!

Actually I never heard what (if any) eventual outcome of this case was.


Edit: Sorry, AFFCO may not have used a private insurer, they may have chosen to self insure. Either way the net effect on the claimant was the same.