ACC shafts the little guy

[tigertim20]

found this. dunno if repost.
enjoy anyway.

[Robert Taylor]

found this. dunno if repost.
enjoy anyway.

Get used to it, the longest sufferers of big ACC levies are employers. It seems we are subsidising sporting injuries because people are largely not prepared to pay into private cover for their often dangerous pursuits.

[oldrider]

Get used to it, the longest sufferers of big ACC levies are employers. It seems we are subsidising sporting injuries because people are largely not prepared to pay into private cover for their often dangerous pursuits.

To be fair, they can't relinquish their ACC levies in order to take on private cover and I don't think employers are any different either!

We are "all" stuck with the ACC monopoly ..... like it or not .... socialism doesn't like competition!

[DR650gary]

One of the tenants of ACC that I have issue with is the "no fault" part.

If motorcyclists are to blame, then they would be sued and their insurance would have to stump up the dollars so insurers would probably charge a bit more than they do now. When they were not at fault, however, the motorcyclist would be entitled to recover from the driver's insurance and that would be a nice chunk of change as we generally get pretty fucked up in car vs m/cycle whereas normally the driver is just a bit bruised and pissed off. So....what would the size of the pool of funds be in either direction.

If there is "no fault" we are denied recovery so therefore should not have to bear any greater burden of the cost than any other party to this equation.

Bit of a ramble I know, but does it make any sense?

[FJRider]

To be fair, they can't relinquish their ACC levies in order to take on private cover and I don't think employers are any different either!

I dont think he was refering to employers relinquishing their levies in favour of private cover ... but on MOST job application forms ... you WILL be asked for your ACC history, or permission to ASK ACC for that information. Also asked for is any criminal convictions ...

Way down the list of things that are asked ... funily enough ... is YOUR job history. (At the very least ... WHY you left your last employment)

[HenryDorsetCase]

One of the tenants of ACC that I have issue with is the "no fault" part.

If motorcyclists are to blame, then they would be sued and their insurance would have to stump up the dollars so insurers would probably charge a bit more than they do now. When they were not at fault, however, the motorcyclist would be entitled to recover from the driver's insurance and that would be a nice chunk of change as we generally get pretty fucked up in car vs m/cycle whereas normally the driver is just a bit bruised and pissed off. So....what would the size of the pool of funds be in either direction.

If there is "no fault" we are denied recovery so therefore should not have to bear any greater burden of the cost than any other party to this equation.

Bit of a ramble I know, but does it make any sense?

No, it does not. And you mean "tenets" not "tenants".

At its simplest, ACC is a very large risk-pooling activity. No fault is the most fundamental part of that. What ACC does. or should do, is to focus on outcomes, fix those consequences, and get people back to work, so they can contribute to the pool to cover others. It is a cheap shot to label it "socialism" though of course in its broadest sense, it is a societal good.

What Woodhouse said, in the report that was the precursor to, and template for, the ACC scheme in its earliest form. was simply this: "Ignore HOW shit happened, its happened, lets fix it. Lets not worry about whether you have any recourse against the party who caused (in a legal sense) the harm you've suffered. Lets just get you fixed up, and back earning, so that the lottery of whether you get hit by some rich prick in a bentley who can pay, or some 17 year old student driver in a clapped out Corolla does not apply. In exchange for the promise that we'll look after you, you give up your right to sue.

In the intervening period, the attacks have been varied, and ideologically driven: So we have the separation in to various categories of harm, and the ever finer "user pays" rhetoric that sees an attempt to, for example, tax motorcycles out of existence.

I thnk ACC in its original form is one of the triumphs of post world war 2 New Zealand government. And this death by a thousand cuts by hatchet faced fucktards like Key and his lumpy minions is shameful, and disgraceful.

But thats just me, it appears

[HenryDorsetCase]

interesting reading here:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overv...o-acc/ABA00003

read the Woodhouse report here:

http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/data/woodhouse/

[Usarka]

Get used to it, the longest sufferers of big ACC levies are employers. It seems we are subsidising sporting injuries because people are largely not prepared to pay into private cover for their often dangerous pursuits.

Those employees are cunts eh...

But in the thing called reality private insurance makes absolutely no difference to the ACC spending so it has nothing to do with evil-doing good for nothing layabout employees.

If your employee has income protection insurance and breaks his neck playing rugby then ACC will pay him. His insurance may "top up" payments or benefits but ACC doesn't treat him any different to someone without private insurance.

[dmc]

I thnk ACC in its original form is one of the triumphs of post world war 2 New Zealand government. And this death by a thousand cuts by hatchet faced fucktards like Key and his lumpy minions is shameful, and disgraceful.

But thats just me, it appears

I think neither National or Labour have got a clue on ACC and vehicle levies, I reckon they should charge ACC levies against your license and not in rego then you pay ACC levies according to the vehicles you are licensed to operate and not the number of vehicles you own, if you own a car and a couple of bikes it costs you a fortune but you could drive professionally for a living in a company owned vehicle and because you don't do the rego you pay nothing.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I think neither National or Labour have got a clue on ACC and vehicle levies, I reckon they should charge ACC levies against your license and not in rego then you pay ACC levies according to the vehicles you are licensed to operate and not the number of vehicles you own, if you own a car and a couple of bikes it costs you a fortune but you could drive professionally for a living in a company owned vehicle and because you don't do the rego you pay nothing.

My view is that IF you accept that the accident hit rate (usually measured in deaths per hundred thousand kilometres) is the basis on which contribution to the scheme is made (I do agree with this, others do not), THEN you pretty much have to charge on the basis of what gets you those hundred thousand kilometres. You got it. take off all the levies from motor registration, no road user charges through petrol, and tax petrol and diesel the same, and say an extra 25c a litre.

no extra compliance costs, "fair" sharing: the more k's you drive the more ACC levy you pay.

Oh wait, I hear you say: what about trains and transport and stuff? easy fix with an exemption for Kiwirail (one customer, ten people max to police the rebate): easy peasy lemon squeezy

[DR650gary]

No, it does not. And you mean "tenets" not "tenants".

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Sorry i can't assist you with comprehension but i believe actions should have consequences. ACC removed those for all parties involved so we snowballed into the current scenario where we fund counselling under ACC.

My point was, ACC wants to expand the pool used to rehabilitate injured motorcyclists and they want us to fund it at a higher level. That means we fund the results of the accidents we cause and the accidents we don't. When a bike hits a car, the motorcyclist is likely to cause little injury to the driver and passengers so there is little to recover if suit was the settlement basis. When a car hits a motorcyclist, generally the motorcyclist has serious injuries so the recovery through suit would be larger. The pool funded through car levies paid for motorcyclist injuries I think would be larger than the pool for car drivers injured by motorcyclists.

Easy point for me to see but obviously a hard one to communicate.

[Ocean1]

Oh wait, I hear you say: what about trains and transport and stuff? easy fix with an exemption for Kiwirail (one customer, ten people max to police the rebate): easy peasy lemon squeezy

And shiping.

And earthmoving contractors.

Still a good idea. Fair,(ish) and cheap to administer. Some places, (UK for one) have a dye in "road tax free" AGO. Getting caught with green dye in your truck's fuel filter was a bad thing.

[dmc]

My view is that IF you accept that the accident hit rate (usually measured in deaths per hundred thousand kilometres) is the basis on which contribution to the scheme is made (I do agree with this, others do not), THEN you pretty much have to charge on the basis of what gets you those hundred thousand kilometres. You got it. take off all the levies from motor registration, no road user charges through petrol, and tax petrol and diesel the same, and say an extra 25c a litre.

no extra compliance costs, "fair" sharing: the more k's you drive the more ACC levy you pay.

Oh wait, I hear you say: what about trains and transport and stuff? easy fix with an exemption for Kiwirail (one customer, ten people max to police the rebate): easy peasy lemon squeezy

Same deal really, I'd happily pay a licensing ACC levy or a single levy in fuel, either way is much fairer than the current system and either would probably not be anymore expensive than what I pay now, but I could own more bikes which would be good

[HenryDorsetCase]

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Sorry i can't assist you with comprehension but i believe actions should have consequences. ACC removed those for all parties involved so we snowballed into the current scenario where we fund counselling under ACC.

My point was, ACC wants to expand the pool used to rehabilitate injured motorcyclists and they want us to fund it at a higher level. That means we fund the results of the accidents we cause and the accidents we don't. When a bike hits a car, the motorcyclist is likely to cause little injury to the driver and passengers so there is little to recover if suit was the settlement basis. When a car hits a motorcyclist, generally the motorcyclist has serious injuries so the recovery through suit would be larger. The pool funded through car levies paid for motorcyclist injuries I think would be larger than the pool for car drivers injured by motorcyclists.

Easy point for me to see but obviously a hard one to communicate.

No, I understand your point. I think you're wrong.

Because the ability to sue someone does not equate to money in the bank. You need to fund it, you need to win in court then once you have a judgment you need to enforce it, i.e. collect. What you are advocating is in effect the American system. Know who gets rich out of that? lawyers and insurance companies.

the basis of the ACC system is that all road users bear the risk, so all road users should pay. Fair enough, but whats screwing with it is the micro focus on certain groups. Conceptually it is very little different to say "motorcycles are more dangerous per km travelled than cars" to "motorcycles are so dangerous: ban them entirely"... or at least tax them to the point where the numbers drop away to almost nothing.

[Robert Taylor]

Those employees are cunts eh...

But in the thing called reality private insurance makes absolutely no difference to the ACC spending so it has nothing to do with evil-doing good for nothing layabout employees.

If your employee has income protection insurance and breaks his neck playing rugby then ACC will pay him. His insurance may "top up" payments or benefits but ACC doesn't treat him any different to someone without private insurance.

The reality is that I treat my employees well and they respond in kind. I was making no such crude criticism of employess that you insinuate. I make the point that if anyone is involved in hazardous sporting activities in their own time then it should be their responsibility to arrange their own cover should the worst happen, rather than expecting the state ( taxpayers ) to fund the cost of healthcare etc. And many of those taxpayers bear a disproportionate load. User pays.