Public perception.

[discotex]

You ride a motorcycle, you're at risk of getting hurt, you pay more premium, kthxbye.

So far so good. Well apart from plenty of other people who engage in high risk sports don't pay a higher premium. Rugby injuries anyone?

Life's never perfectly fair, and grumbling about the extra ACC premiums for motorcycles (I mean, it's an extra $50 a year or so, FFS; you and I probably spend that much on takeout lattes every fortnight) smells to me like someone's trying far too hard to feel discriminated against.

Fair enough... Until you own a cage and several bikes. Then it's starting to add up.

ACC being levied per vehicle is as stupid as the old TV license system. It makes much more sense to fund ACC through general tax as we all get the same cover. Plus it simplifies the administration.

[jrandom]

ACC being levied per vehicle is as stupid as the old TV license system. It makes much more sense to fund ACC through general tax as we all get the same cover. Plus it simplifies the administration.

Does it, now... so how are you going to do that? A yearly premium charged to driver's licence holders? Try that, and watch all the people who have a licence but don't own a vehicle turn purple with apoplectic rage.

There really is no workable solution which is perfectly fair, other than scrapping nationalised accident insurance and letting everyone purchase private policies as required.

And there are plenty who would advocate that. But you only have to look at the state of healthcare in the USA to see where that seductive but fallacious line of laissez-faire capitalist reasoning leads.

[MadDuck]

And it's the motorcyclists that get hurt, isn't it? You ride a motorcycle, you're at risk of getting hurt, you pay more premium.

Actually funny enough when I looked at reviewing my income protection it turns out I would have to pay a higher premium not because of riding a motorcycle but because I regularly do what the insurance company consider as higher risk.

SCUBA diving to depth (more than 30 metres) despite being trained to do so.

[jrandom]

Actually funny enough when I looked at reviewing my income protection it turns out I would have to pay a higher premium not because of riding a motorcycle but because I regularly do what the insurance company consider as higher risk.

Yes, when I first took out private health, life and disability insurance back in the day (I'm with Sovereign) I was surprised to find that riding a motorcycle on the road didn't affect my premiums.

But then I realised that, well, duh, why would it - that shit's already covered by ACC, innit?

And, like I said earlier, I can guarantee y'all that you are paying far less in extra registration than you'd have to pay your health insurer if ACC wasn't there to cover the cost of medical treatment when you bin.

Stop whinging, guys, and be grateful that we have a system which benefits motorcyclists so much.

[Ixion]

The New Zealand Blazon of arms

Arms: Quarterly, Azure and Gules on a Pale Argent three Lymphads Sable. Four Mullets in cross of the last each surmounted by a Mullet of the second ; A Fleece; A Garb ; Two Mining Hammers in Saltire all Or.


Crest: On a Wreath of the Colours a demi-Lion rampant guardant Or supporting a flag-staff erect proper thereon flying to the sinister the Union Flag.



Supporters: On the dexter side, a female figure proper vested Argent supporting in the dexter hand a Flag-staff proper, hoisted thereon the Ensign of the Dominion of New Zealand, and on the sinister side a Maori Rangatira vested proper holding in his dexter hand a Taiaha all proper.

[jrandom]

The New Zealand Blazon of arms

How appropriate that it has a mullet.

[discotex]

Does it, now... so how are you going to do that? A yearly premium charged to driver's licence holders? Try that, and watch all the people who have a licence but don't own a vehicle turn purple with apoplectic rage.

Nah nothing complex like that. That was the problem with the TV license. Just fund ACC through general tax. Plain and simple.

There really is no workable solution which is perfectly fair, other than scrapping nationalised accident insurance and letting everyone purchase private policies as required.

That's actually the fairest option but it has it's own problems. If we as a nation want ACC and we accept it as no-fault then the premiums should be absorbed equally.

And there are plenty who would advocate that. But you only have to look at the state of healthcare in the USA to see where that seductive but fallacious line of laissez-faire capitalist reasoning leads.

Well that's a little extreme. Much of the developed world doesn't have nationalised accident insurance and copes much better than the US. Hell, plenty of places have better healthcare than NZ. If I remember correctly even Iraq did before the US took out Saddam.

[Quartermile]

have you seen the countrys coat of arms, have a good look at the two people on it, ones a maori and the others a female, what does that tell ya

Interesting perspective, as you could also say one is White and the other a Male...

And as a white, heterosexual, non-religious male, I am the only person allowed to be discriminated against now.

Although I don't disagree with this statement whatsoever.

[jrandom]

Just fund ACC through general tax. Plain and simple.

And what about all the non-taxpayers? The visitors to NZ who are covered by the scheme, the people who aren't in employment, the people whose income is entirely absorbed by LAQCs?

That's the problem with any such nationalised system - there will always be people paying to subsidise cover for others. There is no way around it.

You'll never please everyone when it comes to who should pay and how much, regardless of how you arrange it. That's the simple and unavoidable nature of a nationalised accident insurance scheme.

And since road crashes form such a large part of ACC claims, it seems reasonable enough to me to add a specific tax to vehicle registration fees, and to increase that levy for vehicles which are grossly over-represented in crash and injury statistics. At least that way there is a modicum of 'user pays' in the premium costs.

Much of the developed world doesn't have nationalised accident insurance and copes much better than the US. Hell, plenty of places have better healthcare than NZ. If I remember correctly even Iraq did before the US took out Saddam.

Those are rather, er, broad and sweeping statements. I'm sure we can agree on the parlous state of public accident and injury healthcare in the USA, but can you be more specific with sources for your other claims?

[discotex]

And what about all the non-taxpayers? The visitors to NZ who are covered by the scheme, the people who aren't in employment, the people whose income is entirely absorbed by LAQCs?

Visitors shouldn't be covered. Period. That's what travel insurance is for.

Tax avoidance could be solved by zeroing income tax and increasing GST.

That's the problem with any such nationalised system - there will always be people paying to subsidise cover for others. There is no way around it.

Agree. It's very difficult to make it fair which is where user-pays has an advantage.

You'll never please everyone when it comes to who should pay and how much, regardless of how you arrange it. That's the simple and unavoidable nature of a nationalised accident insurance scheme.

And since road crashes form such a large part of ACC claims, it seems reasonable enough to me to add a specific tax to vehicle registration fees, and to increase that levy for vehicles which are grossly over-represented in crash and injury statistics. At least that way there is a modicum of 'user pays' in the premium costs.

Interested to know what the proportion is. Anyone have an ACC claim pie chart handy?

Those are rather, er, broad and sweeping statements. I'm sure we can agree on the parlous state of public accident and injury healthcare in the USA, but can you be more specific with sources for your other claims?

Can't be more specific sorry so we'll call it hearsay. Of course that's always admissible in forum debates

Just remember reading an article that showed pre war (probably pre Gulf war) stats for OECD countries vs Iraq. It was quite an eye opener.

Some interesting stats for OECD health spending (broken into private vs public):
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/44/39616601.pdf

What I can't link it to is which countries spend on private vs public and their health outcomes for the general population.

It's probably buried in here to some degree but I haven't read it properly yet

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=V...ummary_r&cad=0

[Boob Johnson]

What people think of me is none of my business.

I have no idea what people think of motorcyclists because I have never cared to ask.

I think motorcyclists should pay less tax, be paid more at work, get a discount at restaurants and movies. We should be able to use the "12 items or less" line at the market no matter how many items we are buying. We should be able to get through customs and immigration, no questions asked and that little fucking annoying beagle that everyone thinks is so cute should not have to get near us. We should also be able to retire earlier and get more of a benefit than anyone else. Let's legislate motorcycle riders as special group of people. Hell, we are certainly a marginalized minority.
Carry on...

LMFAO!!!

Alanzs for president

lol farkin spot on Alan, who gives a rats arse what they think. Hell one of my sisters would let my tyres down if she knew where the nozzle was lol, thats how much she hates my bike, mums the same, can't stand the bloody things, wouldn't matter how you rode it she still thinks we are all dicks

And to a certain extent they are right, we are all completely bonkers for riding such dangerous contraptions, but that's half the attraction for me. If jow bloggs thinks im a wally for riding either like a wally or just for riding I couldn't give a monkeys & I don't think you should either Katman. In the end does it really matter? You don't seem to care that the vast majority think you are a dickhead

[carver]

LMFAO!!!

Alanzs for president

lol farkin spot on Alan, who gives a rats arse what they think. Hell one of my sisters would let my tyres down if she knew where the nozzle was lol, thats how much she hates my bike, mums the same, can't stand the bloody things, wouldn't matter how you rode it she still thinks we are all dicks

And to a certain extent they are right, we are all completely bonkers for riding such dangerous contraptions, but that's half the attraction for me. If jow bloggs thinks im a wally for riding either like a wally or just for riding I couldn't give a monkeys & I don't think you should either Katman. In the end does it really matter? You don't seem to care that the vast majority think you are a dickhead

for once i agree with you

[jrandom]

Interested to know what the proportion is. Anyone have an ACC claim pie chart handy?

Five seconds of googling didn't find one when I was writing that post. I wonder whether they actually release that information?

OECD health spending...

Ah, hmm. Spending does not automatically equate to quality of care or accessibility of system. I agree that looking into health outcomes would be more relevant. Bear in mind that we're talking about accident injury cover here, so it'd be nice to get some info purely relating to that.

[jrandom]

mums the same, can't stand the bloody things, wouldn't matter how you rode it she still thinks we are all dicks

Sounds like my mum.

And to a certain extent they are right, we are all completely bonkers for riding such dangerous contraptions, but that's half the attraction for me.

+1

... I don't think you should either Katman. In the end does it really matter? You don't seem to care that the vast majority think you are a dickhead

I was about to make the same point.

[discotex]

Five seconds of googling didn't find one when I was writing that post. I wonder whether they actually release that information?

Ah, hmm. Spending does not automatically equate to quality of care or accessibility of system. I agree that looking into health outcomes would be more relevant. Bear in mind that we're talking about accident injury cover here, so it'd be nice to get some info purely relating to that.

It's all a bit of a pain to find good info. All we can say with certainty is that vehicles will crash and people will get hurt.

Makes you wonder what information the policy/law makers have to go on other than gut feeling when we as the public have little access.

You might find this vid interesting.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/h...ever_seen.html


and.... Dragging myself back on topic for at least one post this thread.... I constantly have non-bikers commenting on my bike and how cool it is and/or saying how they love bikes. The worst I ever get is "ooh that's so dangerous" or "don't you get sick of getting wet".

I'm sure there's some cantankerous old buggers out there that hate all things two wheeled but it'd be a small minority. Most people just don't give a shit either way (but secretly wish they had the guts to ride).