John Key - bikers' friend?

[shrub]

If you think bikes are expensive now just wait till the Govt decides to go private... The whole increase as it were, was to make insurance attractive to overseas companies & they won't be reducing any costs that's for sure, the whole model doesn't allow for it.
It might be worth you researching just what the US insurance system is like, start with "Sicko" that should at-least balance out this Govt propaganda your buying into (unless of course you work for insurance company which would explain the stance)

There's a popular ideology that if it's private, it's cheaper and more efficient because of "market forces" and "competition", but there is little credible evidence to support that. In almost every instance I am aware of, the private model is more expensive to consumers, and that will be especially the case with motorcyclists. The insurance companies would be quite glad to see the back of us and will charge as high a premium as they want because if it discourages us from riding then it reduces their costs from our excessive claims. They won't compete for our market because it's a very small and unattractive market.

State owned ACC is the best option for us in every way.

[Scuba_Steve]

See nothings getting cheaper by going private
The Government plans to open ACC's work account to competition from private insurers from October.
ACC Futures Coalition spokeswoman Hazel Armstrong said today papers obtained under the Official Information Act showed former ACC minister Nick Smith was looking at making the corporation charge a ''top up'' on its premiums so private insurers could compete on a level playing field.

[RDJ]

Seriously - the Govt does it better / cheaper? really?

Examples - Education? &..

Remember New Zealand Snailways?

Remember posting items before couriers?

Remember telephones before Telecom?

etc. etc.

[oneofsix]

Seriously - the Govt does it better / cheaper? really?

Examples - Education? &..

Remember New Zealand Snailways?

Remember posting items before couriers?

Remember telephones before Telecom?

etc. etc.

Yep I have personal memories of all those except Snailways and don't have to rely on other peoples biased opinions. I also remember roads when they were maintained by the Ministry of Works.

[RDJ]

I started riding with a motorcycle licence on NZ roads in 1970... dunno why you assume I don't also have personal experience of what I wrote about.

The major troubles with Govt being involved in too many parts of our lives are
1. When it makes mistakes - big ones - it never goes out of business.
2. When it makes mistakes - big ones - people are rarely personally accountable.
3. When it makes mistakes - big ones - policymakes use that as en excuse to grow Govt some more.
4. Govt adds no value, simply redistributes what we earn, enriching many - not all - of its "servants" along the way.
5. You have no choice but to buy the Govt's services. Govt can compel you to do so under threat of fines, jail, or worse.

Private sector is prone to the same first 2 issues BUT much more often firms go out of business and people are accountable personally and / or financially. 3 and 4 and 5, the private sector does not do.

[Scuba_Steve]

I started riding with a motorcycle licence on NZ roads in 1970... dunno why you assume I don't also have personal experience of what I wrote about.

The major troubles with Govt being involved in too many parts of our lives are
1. When it makes mistakes - big ones - it never goes out of business.
2. When it makes mistakes - big ones - people are rarely personally accountable.
3. When it makes mistakes - big ones - policymakes use that as en excuse to grow Govt some more.
4. Govt adds no value, simply redistributes what we earn, enriching many - not all - of its "servants" along the way.
5. You have no choice but to buy the Govt's services. Govt can compel you to do so under threat of fines, jail, or worse.

Private sector is prone to the same first 2 issues BUT much more often firms go out of business and people are accountable personally and / or financially. 3 and 4 and 5, the private sector does not do.

wrong, the only one the private doesn't do is 3 the rest are all in private sector too.
If you think accident cover will get cheaper by privatizing, I feel sorry for you. Especially given it's just been released ACC will have to raise prices to allow for private competition i.e. private is more expensive!

[pritch]

I'm not a National voter, but I can see the ironic possibility of John Key doing something nice for bikers.

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

Well his mate Nix Smith single handedly, & virtually overnight, created a non-riding season in this country where previously we rode all year round.

John Key might lengthen the off season but that's about all?

[RDJ]

wrong, the only one the private doesn't do is 3 the rest are all in private sector too.
If you think accident cover will get cheaper by privatizing, I feel sorry for you. Especially given it's just been released ACC will have to raise prices to allow for private competition i.e. private is more expensive!

No need to feel sorry for me. I believe in safety nets not hammocks - and paying proportionately. Perhaps you should feel sorry for yourself; y'all are running out of other people's money quite quickly...

[Scuba_Steve]

No need to feel sorry for me. I believe in safety nets not hammocks - and paying proportionately. Perhaps you should feel sorry for yourself; y'all are running out of other people's money quite quickly...

Your arguments don't stack up. "Safety net"??? incase you haven't noticed Govt's are the "safety net". You like to be screwed over financially for a lifestyle choice as for running out of other peoples money??? What???

[mashman]

If he does open up ACC to competition, we could see the entry of one or more providers who charge sane premiums for bikers.

ACC needs to be made more expensive first so that insurance companies can compete. Changing the give way right might give them the excuse they need. At the end of the day johnny boy can do what the fuck he wants, we'll pay up

[RDJ]

Your arguments don't stack up. "Safety net"??? incase you haven't noticed Govt's are the "safety net". You like to be screwed over financially for a lifestyle choice as for running out of other peoples money??? What???

Let me try again for you. You want more Govt involvement and control, means you want Govt employees spending more of other people's - that's yours and his and hers and mine - money on things they decide they should spend it on... removing choice from the people who work for that money, adding value with thie time and skills (not something Govt employees do well). Now if that is still not comprehensible for you... then let's agree to disagree.

[Scuba_Steve]

Let me try again for you. You want more Govt involvement and control, means you want Govt employees spending more of other people's - that's yours and his and hers and mine - money on things they decide they should spend it on... removing choice from the people who work for that money, adding value with thie time and skills (not something Govt employees do well). Now if that is still not comprehensible for you... then let's agree to disagree.

I don't want more Govt involvement & control, I want less. What I do want tho is affordable health care something private will NOT give, I want to actually be able to use the health care should I need it something private trys not to give.
Yes, it's the running of Govt's like private businesses that is screwing things up, but incase you aint noticed private businesses are run like private businesses even more-so.
You are opting for a system that'll cost more & give less... I have no idea why anyone would want that, unless of-course they were set to make $$$ off it. So, I guess we will have to disagree

[NONONO]

Let me try again for you. You want more Govt involvement and control, means you want Govt employees spending more of other people's - that's yours and his and hers and mine - money on things they decide they should spend it on... removing choice from the people who work for that money, adding value with thie time and skills (not something Govt employees do well). Now if that is still not comprehensible for you... then let's agree to disagree.

Nope, that's a very old financial/political argument.
Went out of date immediately that governments and corporations decided on the new model of;
Socialise the debt
Privatise the profit.
Works really well in terms of insurance and investment.

[Winston001]

Went out of date immediately that governments and corporations decided on the new model of;
Socialise the debt
Privatise the profit.

Well no. Lets be honest about this. As a result of the Great Depression in 1929 governments have accepted the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes who said that governments have the ability and the responsibility to intervene in their economies and spend money when times are rough.

In the 1980s Keynesiasm faded and the Chicago School of Classical Economics was in the ascendant. I agreed with it. Today however I accept Keynes was right and the best economic framework lies somewhere in the middle.

Whatever - letting finance companies and banks fail harms many members of our society including a large number of the retired who have spent sod all and put their meagre savings in these institutions.

[NONONO]

Well no. Lets be honest about this. As a result of the Great Depression in 1929 governments have accepted the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes who said that governments have the ability and the responsibility to intervene in their economies and spend money when times are rough.

In the 1980s Keynesiasm faded and the Chicago School of Classical Economics was in the ascendant. I agreed with it. Today however I accept Keynes was right and the best economic framework lies somewhere in the middle.

Whatever - letting finance companies and banks fail harms many members of our society including a large number of the retired who have spent sod all and put their meagre savings in these institutions.

"The Chicago Boys" raped and plundered sovereign states and supported some of the worst dictators in history, have a look at what Friedman's minions did in Chile and the lives it cost, and you agreed with it? Wow.
It is not about letting banks and companies fail, it is about how and why they are set up and who gains from their activities. Please don't pull the old "mum and dad investor" trick, even Key can't get away with that one anymore.
Friedman must be laughing in his grave when even the most right wing governments are utilizing basically Stalinist economic policy disguised as free enterprise.
Anytime investors lose, joe public wears the cost "too big to fail"? Really?
Anytime investors win, joe public gains nothing as the profits go offshore or creative accountants stop any tax due.
ACC in the form that Woodhouse envisaged, was the most far reaching, world beating, economically sound system in the world. What's left of it is now to be divided up to the gambling fraternity. And again, joe public loses.