ACC bill passed!

[CrAzYMoFo]

pisses me off cause acc is a working system <<<( note i said working not perfect)

and they are just determined to f*** it up

[Ratti]

Like Gatch I have had cause to get ACC to pay for injuries. Like Gatch, mine were nothing to do with a motorcycle, but it cost ACC heaps in time off work, physio, docter visits and so on.( Don't tell anyone but I was drunk as anything when I fell off a pair of high heels.) How will people pay for that type of injury now? Or last week when my son had to go to AnE after being bashed at school. Who pays for that?

Acc is not perfect but the alternative makes me shudder.

[oldrider]

Its pretty simple for me. SRX is already on hold, FZR will go on hold when it expires.
The best way to stop a shark is to stop bleeding into the water. I want ACC gone now - and I think the rest of you once you have talked to private insurers will want them gone too. Would rather pay them another $200/year than ACC.

Generally, I like the idea of choice and competition but on this ACC crusade Nick Smith has lied through his teeth to try to achieve the dismantling (by deception) of the State controlled ACC "welfare" monopoly!

It is plainly obvious that Key and company are trying to pave the way for private ACCident insurance to establish it's self as the natural replacement for ACC welfare by falsely ratcheting up ACC costs!

The easiest and probably the best solution for "socialist" NZ currently, is to revert to the original (Woodhouse) no blame concept, ASAP!

I do not support the destruction of ACC in favour of private accident insurance when it means the first cab off the casualty rank is the "TRUTH"!

Nick Smith should be ashamed of himself and IMHO he is unworthy of his position.

I voted for the local National candidate and my party vote went to ACT because I wanted improvements and some consequence in Law and order, justice and corrections!

Fat chance of that ever happening with this lot, Key cancelled ACT out by focussing Rodney on "dysfunctional Auckland" a poison chalice, whatever the outcome!

Nick Smith did not have to lie, I could have respected his direction if he had just "told the truth", as it is he does not now fit my expectations of a cabinet minister, I would like to see him gone!

That is why I supported (and still do) StoneY on the rather disappointing Union driven ACC protest initiative!

I was personally not surprised at the dismal Union contribution but was and still am very impressed with the effort and contribution made by StoneY and the biker fraternity on the day!

[bogan]

Generally, I like the idea of choice and competition but on this ACC crusade Nick Smith has lied through his teeth to try to achieve the dismantling (by deception) of the State controlled ACC "welfare" monopoly!

It is plainly obvious that Key and company are trying to pave the way for private ACCident insurance to establish it's self as the natural replacement for ACC welfare by falsely ratcheting up ACC costs!

Thats it in a nutshell, they have to blatantly lie and tamper to make private seem better than ACC, so obviously ACC was better to begin with.

But it seems they have the numbers in parliament willing to dismantle ACC in favour of private (lets face it, thats what the bill is really about) so what can we do now? Keep up protests every now and then and make it an election issue is bout all I can think of, still have to pay a year or two of inflated rego though.

[avgas]

If you don't pay rego they send it to bay corp.. Been there..

Please elaborate. As far as rego is concerned they can not chase it up as outstanding. It is not a fee to use the road.
If rego is on hold, and you are caught you will be fined, but that is all they can do.

[avgas]

Generally, I like the idea of choice and competition but on this ACC crusade Nick Smith has lied through his teeth to try to achieve the dismantling (by deception) of the State controlled ACC "welfare" monopoly!

Very true - so why would you want to pay for something that this guy is essentially the director of.
Its very easy to talk the talk of wanting Nick out of this little pie - but the actions can only be dictated via cutting their revenue. This is a business decisions, and the shareholders (while angry) are still happy to pay for it apparently.

[YellowDog]

As always the ACC debate gets very heated and also at totally cross purposes. Pretty pointless really.

Whether ACC should or should not exist in its present form is a far larger issue. Maybe we should just concern ourselves with motorcycling for now.

How about all motor vehicles should have to be insured have a current WOF and Rego to be legitimate?

If you have an accident the motor insurance companies agree on the blame (or share it). The costs of the claim are paid for by the insurance company. This includes medical expenses should there be any.

Motor insurance companies cannot exclude you from cover on health grounds unless they are so acute that they impair your ability to use your vehicle safely; hence no one is unreasonably excluded.

If you don't have a claim, your premium goes down (no claims bonus). If you do, it goes up.

Insurance costs would of course be higher, but not as high as we are lead to believe. As there would be a lot more policies up for grabs, the insurance companies would have to be less profit hungry than they presently are. If they stay greedy, then others will take their business (Aussies/Yanks/Poms/) from them at a more competitive price.

Your annual rego goes down because there will be no or only a minimal ACC levy.

The ACC debate should be a totally separate debate and viewing something so broad and all encompassing purely from a motoring perspective will not result in a fairer system for all. Regardless of this point, the ACC changes are going to make claims tougher to get approved and also less generous. A comprehensive motor insurance policy sould be comprehensive!

Easy peasy problem solved. It works well in the very large majority or developed countries - why not in NZ?