Proposed new ACC campaign association - a new direction

[candor]

OMG - evaded cops for 2 years - kinda shows how seriously they classed the HOMICIDE investigation.

I think it would have to be an option so people or workplaces have a choice to go private or with the State - as in ACC still offers a low cover level for the poor or high risk driver at a realistic price - and also has right to decline or price them off the road.

Sorry Mr (fill the gap with names of all thefamiliar killers) - you are not seen as an acceptable risk, catch the bus and have a nice day.

[Genestho]

but thats not what is happening, an unknown portion of motorcyclist thing privatisation is the way to go, and an unknown proportion think ACC should be kept but returned to its original principals. If you were to figure out the proportions before jumping the gun and saying this and that to the non motorcyclists some embarrassment could be avoided, (westfeild mall protest...).

If you want to take more time to weight the pro's and cons of each then that is a different matter, maybe start an ACC vs Private thread, get pros and cons (add to first post), then add a poll

Be an interesting poll, because not that long ago, I thought the original structure was the way to stay, but this week (after two submissions - doh, can't rescind either) I'm not so sure, especially on the proposed rises across the board, unless we can opt out. Which is possibly the point?

[Mully]

Is it really our place to be giving the Government alternatives to raping motorcyclists with Levy hikes?

To my mind, "our" position should be "these levy proposals are unacceptable" not "how about this instead?"

I'm in two minds about privatising the motor vehicle account - I just don't know.

[bogan]

Be an interesting poll, because not that long ago, I thought the original structure was the way to stay, but this week (after two submissions - doh, can't rescind either) I'm not so sure, especially on the proposed rises across the board, unless we can opt out. Which is possibly the point.

lets put the proposed increases aside for a bit, as we know the bike ones are BS, so the income etc ones probly are as well. And just compare the theoretical ACC with the theoretical Private insurance, after all, the grass is always greener...

Accidents are gonna happen regardless of whether it is fault or non fault based. Non fault based gives quicker payouts with less overall costs, which is good for the masses.
Cross subsidization means some people get much more value for their money than others, but I'm okay with that, I pay for people (some just lazy fuckers) to be on the dole so I'm happy to pay for peoples accidents.
Income compensation is one of the points I'm not overly happy about, but then, higher income people pay more to the scheme, and have probably worked hard to get to high income jobs, so they deserve to get more income compensation.

[FastBikeGear]

Income compensation is one of the points I'm not overly happy about, but then, higher income people pay more to the scheme, and have probably worked hard to get to high income jobs, so they deserve to get more income compensation.

Some nice points in your post but the last one is wrong.

ERC for motor vehicle accidents is paid out of the motorvehicle account.
Higher income people simply do not pay more into the motor vehicle account.
Those on higher incomes are getting a higher level of cover for the same price as low income contributors.
Low income contributors are subsidising people like John Judge who purportedly earns $500,000 per year.

[candor]

Ozzies post on third party shows per Oz your risk rated fee (ins payment or rego injury insurance component) would on average go down versus cars.

http://www.allianz.com.au/allianz/cict+sa.html
Took quick look at UK scheme and only cars require compulsory third - defined as having 4 wheels and being able to carry passengers + few other things http://www.autonetinsurance.co.uk/car-insurance/.

But for third party to work as a road safety measure it must be enforced. In the UK cameras detect drivers or rather cars on road whose owners lack 3rd as well as this being checked at vehicle stops.

Mandatory means a usable licence is earnt, and if you are an idiot risking self and others you pay for the "privilege" if you can afford to or bugger off the road.

[Pussy]

lets put the proposed increases aside for a bit, as we know the bike ones are BS, so the income etc ones probly are as well. And just compare the theoretical ACC with the theoretical Private insurance, after all, the grass is always greener...

Accidents are gonna happen regardless of whether it is fault or non fault based. Non fault based gives quicker payouts with less overall costs, which is good for the masses.
Cross subsidization means some people get much more value for their money than others, but I'm okay with that, I pay for people (some just lazy fuckers) to be on the dole so I'm happy to pay for peoples accidents.
Income compensation is one of the points I'm not overly happy about, but then, higher income people pay more to the scheme, and have probably worked hard to get to high income jobs, so they deserve to get more income compensation.

It is a curly subject, and I for one won't/don't pretend to know the answers.
I DO get the shits with mis-directed payouts, career ACC claimants (non-genuine ones) etc etc.... and the present intention to get raped with the proposed levies.
I'm not selfish, but find it difficult to provide a free lunch to those who don't want to take ANY responsibility for themselves

[bogan]

Some nice points in your post but the last one is wrong.

ERC for motor vehicle accidents is paid out of the motorvehicle account.
Higher income people simply do not pay more into the motor vehicle account.
Those on higher incomes are getting a higher level of cover for the same price as low income contributors.
Low income contributors are subsidising people like John Judge who purportedly earns $500,000 per year.

ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. Though the motor vehicle account is seperate from others, if one pays more to ACC in one form and gets more out in another does it really matter? im sure there are others who will subsidize in the other direction.

...
I'm not selfish, but find it difficult to provide a free lunch to those who don't want to take ANY responsibility for themselves

you talking bout the dole or ACC? I have far more objection to the dole than ACC, taking responsibility for oneself on ACC has an additional incentive in that most people don't want to get maimed, what the incentive for not going on the dole?

[raster]

Noticed a little addon after one of Judges statements in the herald, (if you can beleive it)

"The question I would have is whether the [regularly changing] Government is a good owner of a long-tail insurance scheme."

it should be the people that is the owner of the sceme!!!!

[FastBikeGear]

ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. Though the motor vehicle account is seperate from others, if one pays more to ACC in one form and gets more out in another does it really matter? im sure there are others who will subsidize in the other direction.

Unfortunately it just doesn't 'even out' or 'come out in the wash' at any point.


If he has an accident at work then his higher than average ERC comes out of the work account to which he contributes more than average and so this is fair. Effectiely he pays for and gets more coverage. In this instance he's not motorcyclists in anyway or vice versa.

Nick Smith points to the motor vehicle account and says that he as a car driver is subsidising motorcyclists. However the reality is we subsidise his much higher than average potential ERC liability from this account.

He wants a buck each way. I say he is bludging off the lower income earners and the retired people and he should come clean, shut up and pay what he should.

[bogan]

Unfortunately it just doesn't 'even out' or 'come out in the wash' at any point.


If he has an accident at work then his higher than average ERC comes out of the work account to which he contributes more than average and so this is fair. Effectiely he pays for and gets more coverage. In this instance he's not motorcyclists in anyway or vice versa.

Nick Smith points to the motor vehicle account and says that he as a car driver is subsidising motorcyclists. However the reality is we subsidise his much higher than average potential ERC liability from this account.

He wants a buck each way. I say he is bludging off the lower income earners and the retired people and he should come clean, shut up and pay what he should.

I mean people like me (student) or retirees..., who pay into the motor vehicle account, but if we are injured at places other than the road it come out of the other account, evening out (ish) the system. No income compensation, but people do pay into the motor vehicle account, and claim from the general account.

[FastBikeGear]

I mean people like me (student) or retirees..., who pay into the motor vehicle account, but if we are injured at places other than the road it come out of the other account, evening out (ish) the system. No income compensation, but people do pay into the motor vehicle account, and claim from the general account.

No this still doesn't add up.
Just because you make a claim from an insurance policy that you have not paid to have coverage from (work account insurance policy) it doesn't mean that it somehow precludes you making a claim from the motor vehicle insurance policy that you have paid for. An analogy to what you are saying is that I have a boat insurance policy that I have paid for but I also want to be covered if my house burns down even though I haven't paid for a house insurance policy?

With this approach we might as well throw the dice to decide what each individuals premium is or just charge high premiums from which ever group is easiest to collect from - hold on - isn't this the same as Nationals current ridiculous and absurd proposal?

[RiderInBlack]

Absolutely NOT interested in PRIVATION of ACC in any way, so NO ya plan SUCKS, and runs against the whole reason I went down to Wellington to join the BIKEOI.
You need to read Ixion's post here ( http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...07&postcount=5) all the way through to understand why you idea plays right in to Nick Myth's hands.

[bogan]

No this still doesn't add up.
Just because you make a claim from an insurance policy that you have not paid to have coverage from (work account insurance policy) it doesn't mean that it somehow precludes you making a claim from the motor vehicle insurance policy that you have paid for. An analogy to what you are saying is that I have a boat insurance policy that I have paid for but I also want to be covered if my house burns down even though I haven't paid for a house insurance policy?

With this approach we might as well throw the dice to decide what each individuals premium is or just charge high premiums from which ever group is easiest to collect from - hold on - isn't this the same as Nationals current ridiculous and absurd proposal?

but ACC isnt insurance, you dont need to pay for cover for specific things, the money is gathered through levies. The point i was making is that what goes around comes around, some pay more hear and claim more there, others the opposite, some dont pay much and claim lots, some pay lots and dont claim much.

[Squiggles]

and the low income most.

How? Will i even be able to afford the lawyer who'll help me sue the guy with no money???