It's true - you are next!

[bikemike]

Yeah I just popped in here to see what folks' reaction was.

Pretty much same.

How inane to mention a handful of professional sports people earning enough to pay $8,000 levies. How much of a proportion of the claiming, playing public is that?

Professional sportspeople already pay significant levies (up to $8,000 per year) based on their earnings.

Others' paying through the work account. Well so are we, but they aren't paying for us...!

ACC currently collects levies for non-work injuries from earners and from the Government.

On avoiding cross subsidisation within the motorcycle group -motorcycles (e.g. commuter bikes vs. high performance bikes).
One, I commute, tour, fang and ride out on my bike. Two, I am probably most at risk on the commute - regardless of the size of my bike. What are they getting at?

The idea behind the different subclasses is to reduce the degree of cross subsidisation between different types of motorcycles (e.g. commuter bikes vs. high performance bikes).

Oh, and don't be pushing for paying once per person and not per bike, because then you'd be paying even more. So that kind of fear-mongering and cross-subsidisation is OK then...?

Annual collections from drivers/riders would require an additional collection process from each individual, and would ultimately mean increased collection costs which would have to be passed on

usual

[mashman]

So they are not allocating fault

Yes they are. They are using probability calculations to justify levy rises and hence they are assigning "fault" for the future... it just so happens that they're blaming all motorcyclists this time round... "Who's Next?".

[Pixie]

How inane to mention a handful of professional sports people earning enough to pay $8,000 levies. How much of a proportion of the claiming, playing public is that?

And how does earning more money make you a bigger risk?

[mashman]

And how does earning more money make you a bigger risk?

take a look at any gobmint minister...

[R-Soul]

Yes they are. They are using probability calculations to justify levy rises and hence they are assigning "fault" for the future... it just so happens that they're blaming all motorcyclists this time round... "Who's Next?".

Yup its called sarcasm..

[R-Soul]

Yes they are. They are using probability calculations to justify levy rises and hence they are assigning "fault" for the future... it just so happens that they're blaming all motorcyclists this time round... "Who's Next?".

When you think about it, they are actually not allocating fault- they are just allocating blame and cost. They blame us for their costs, regardless of whose fault it is. And they stop us from getting our costs back by sueing, which would even the payments closer to if they actually allocated fault.

Having said that, according to LTNZ, about half the accidents bikes are involved in are our own fault. So paying half the risk costs, which by my reckoning is about what we are paying now, is similar to what the private insurance companies would charge us.

But screw $750 a pop!!

[StoneY]

And they stop us from getting our costs back by sueing, which would even the payments closer to if they actually allocated fault.

But screw $750 a pop!!

Your so intoxicated with this 'right to sue' shit
Go live where people HAVE to sue to get thier righteous entitlements
You will find $750 a pop is nothing
Even IF the whole levy increase had gone through, we were still better off then private and the right to sue

When I last had to get 'private cover' as a self employed entity, and had 2 staff as well, I was forced to keep up ACC levy's on all 3 of us as WELL as pay Private Cover, because ACC became a limited cover system.
The bullshit hybrid forced on us by Jim Bolger in 93, and that lasted till 98/99 when Labour got back in and returned it to almost what it should be

I had NO cover for 80% of my physical being under the private cover and STILL paid the full fuckin premium, exempted was everyting exept my left leg due to past sports, work, and marshal arts injuries (note no motor vehicle claims)

So I had to remain under ACC for everything they had already covered in my history, as did BOTH my workers, and we had to have a private policy to cover the rest...

Double dip, double fees, and less cover than ever before as well as when I did have an accident (left leg, knee, dislocated in fall at work) the ACC said "no thats under your private policy" and the private insurer said "we only start paying income loss after 3 months" and ACC said "No we dont cover that its your private policy" and the visous circle went round and round

Leave ACC alone, never return the right to sue, and wake the hell up to realise what we have WORKS, is NOT BROKEN, and shouldnt be fucked with anymore than they already tried

[avgas]

You mug, your playing into thier hands
You may want private insurance, fine go get it

Very true, however you do also have to consider the other side.
If its not privatised - they ask, you pay. You can't go elsewhere. If they wanted to charge 20% of income, you can jump up and down all you want - but it is compulsory and you will have to pay.

Privatised, there is competition (already). And there is no overhead infrastructure (unlike the telecom bs). If you don't like what they are charging you can go elsewhere. If you think its unfair - you can go the commerce commission (which is what happened to the cell phone providers). You don't have these rights if its a 1-man govt band.

Swings and roundabouts. I would rather it was not privatised, but I also do not like corporate dictatorship.

[R-Soul]

Your so intoxicated with this 'right to sue' shit
Go live where people HAVE to sue to get thier righteous entitlements
You will find $750 a pop is nothing
Even IF the whole levy increase had gone through, we were still better off then private and the right to sue

When I last had to get 'private cover' as a self employed entity, and had 2 staff as well, I was forced to keep up ACC levy's on all 3 of us as WELL as pay Private Cover, because ACC became a limited cover system.
The bullshit hybrid forced on us by Jim Bolger in 93, and that lasted till 98/99 when Labour got back in and returned it to almost what it should be

I had NO cover for 80% of my physical being under the private cover and STILL paid the full fuckin premium, exempted was everyting exept my left leg due to past sports, work, and marshal arts injuries (note no motor vehicle claims)

So I had to remain under ACC for everything they had already covered in my history, as did BOTH my workers, and we had to have a private policy to cover the rest...

Double dip, double fees, and less cover than ever before as well as when I did have an accident (left leg, knee, dislocated in fall at work) the ACC said "no thats under your private policy" and the private insurer said "we only start paying income loss after 3 months" and ACC said "No we dont cover that its your private policy" and the visous circle went round and round

Leave ACC alone, never return the right to sue, and wake the hell up to realise what we have WORKS, is NOT BROKEN, and shouldnt be fucked with anymore than they already tried

I am not "intoxicated" by it. I am saying that a half-assed arrangement with ACC being half privatised and (inaccurately and lazily) allocating blame instead of fault (not like a private insurance corp) puts us between a rock and hard place, much teh same as being to pay "double dip" payments for BOTH private and ACC payments.

I am saying that you should either go one or the other. Not half arsed hybrid crap. Full competitiveness without a greed, lazy inefficient government corp behind it, or full cover regardless of risk or blame.

[mashman]

When you think about it, they are actually not allocating fault- they are just allocating blame and cost. They blame us for their costs, regardless of whose fault it is.

In my eyes that's exactly what they are doing... as a group we are being held responsible for a portion of cost. You can't do that unless you apportion blame and by default, fault. They're saying that it's the motorcyclists fault that their levies are so high and therefore we carry the blame, as a group, for that fault and should financially reimburse ACC. I can't read it any other way than that. Completely flies in the face of the no-fault system, otherwise everyone would have had the same levy hike.

750 is small potatoes in comparison to the insurance premiums you will have to buy to get the same cover as the ACC can provide. The exclusions on insurance policies will become unaffordable for the recurrence of an injury... it will follow exactly the same logic as house insurance. You'll get 1 claim per "incidence" i.e. if your roof blows off, you're only ever going to be covered once for a roof blowing off... after that you're on your own or you'll have to pay an extortionate premium for it.

Read what StoneY has said about his leg and how he couldn't get true cover for existing injuries... that's how insurance works, risk based premiums. If there's an existing risk, make 'em pay hard for it as it's a guarenteed HIGH risk... Insurance will cripple any health service as the money goes to insurance companies instead of into doctors/nurses pockets where it should be going...