As I said: Fair warning

[James Deuce]

We need more Catma.

Just saying.

[p.dath]

...
ACC should be privatised. It was briefly once before, just over 10 years ago. Oh how I rejoiced when my employer premiums fell. Then, in 1999, the Bloody Labour Gummint(TM) won an election and felt compelled to renationalise it all again, for no good reason either other than political dogma. Left-leaning parties are good at dogma.

Oh how I agree with you. I don't think I have ever heard anyone object to the notion of ACC being privatised. I can't imagine why the Labour Government stopped the brief change.

[p.dath]

How do you figure that? It will go against every trend recorded by the NZ "public" whenever legal compulsion has been presented. There are already a significant number of unwarranted, unlicensed, uninsured lower income folk driving on the road, citing expense as an excuse.

Vehicle confiscation does not punish the driver. It punishes the owner.

[duck for cover knowing a well reasoned response is about to follow from James]

I guess your referring to the prohibition of alcohol, and to the lesser extent the current legislation against personal cannabis use.

Your putting forward that a large number of people are close to the "line" where paying all the fees to use a vehicle on the road is "doable", versus crossing the line where they think "bugger it", enough is enough, and decide to stop paying and start using their vehicles illegally.

So the situation we are looking at is effectively taxing people off the road. The other situations, like prohibition or cannabis policy, used legislation to make it out right illegal. There was no choice of being able to comply and pay. So you were simply forced to conform, or break the law.

I would like to think that given a legal option, even at a price, that most road users would choose to take the legal option - even if they hated paying the extra.

[ManDownUnder]

I'll PM skyrider and short circuit. Can't wait for the response.

It was only realised during a National Govt reign... if they'd left it alone and opretended the loss wasn't there no-one would be asked to pay for it. Cullenomics 101.

... right up there with cullilingus... the act of getting one's mouth around such matters to make everything feel good while running the risk of slipping into deep shit

[Ixion]

Oh how I agree with you. I don't think I have ever heard anyone object to the notion of ACC being privatised. ..

Until now.

[p.dath]

Until now.

Why do you feel a public based ACC is better than having the option of private insurance?

[Skyryder]

The average worker will have to pay a 21 per cent increase in their ACC bill next year, rising from $658 a year to $799, ACC Minister Nick Smith said today.
Dr Smith blamed predicted cost increases of more than $4 billion between now and 2011 as ACC covers more accidents and pays more for care and compensation.
He said he had tried hard to ease the pain, but the average worker levy would increase from $1.40 to $1.70 per $100 earned from next April.
The employer and self-employed levy would rise from $1.26 to $1.31 per $100 of payroll.

From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10548370


The government could soften the blow for taxpayers by extending the date for the full funding of historic claims, which were due to come into effect in 2014.

From http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2952...op-your-wallet


“Instead of hiking up prices until 2014 and then dropping them dramatically, it makes sense to smooth out the process and extend the deadline until 2019 - a process which will effectively halve the residual claims costs for the next five years,” Maryan Street said.
“The average employers’ levy is now $1.26 per $100 of liable earnings and this is also ACC’s proposed rate for next year. This would reduce to about $1.01 if the date was pushed out to 2019.

From http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00235.htm


Skyryder

[James Deuce]

I would like to think that given a legal option, even at a price, that most road users would choose to take the legal option - even if they hated paying the extra.

It's largely anecdotal, but I work with lads who buy Sti Imprezas and then don't insure them, simply because no one will, even TP - and laugh about doing a runner if they ever nobble someone. These are guys who earn above average money for their age, and they simply haven't been taught about their responsibility to other road users and don't accept that they are doing anything wrong.

Remember that these are intelligent kids, with decent qualifications. Above average you could say. Now have a think about some of the stupid shit the average person pulls from time to time. Half the population is dumber than that.

[Brian d marge]

Half the population is dumber than that.

Please tell me you are Joking

Please


please


Stephen

[Dave Lobster]

It's largely anecdotal, but I work with lads who buy Sti Imprezas and then don't insure tham, simply because no one will, even TP - and laugh about doing a runner if they ever nobble someone. These are guys who earn above average money for their age, and they simply haven't been taught about their responsibility to other road users and don't accept that they are doing anything wrong.

Remember that these are intelligent kids, with decent qualifications. Above average you could say. Now have a think about some of the stupid shit the average person pulls from time to time. Half the population is dumber than that.

It isn't 'just' those sort of clowns. I know middle aged people that ride quite powerful (expensive) bikes without insurance, and look at me as if I'm retarded because I wont. "Just ride carefully" is the answer I get..
Yeah, if only it was that simple to not be involved in a smash.

It's WAY over half.

[jono035]

Hang on a second..... there is a better way to get money when the country needs it, TAX PROPERTY GAINS.........

Sure, it will make a few unscrupulous property developers whine, but man, think about the Millions of dollars they are missing out on EACH MONTH in NZ, moreover, change the tax regs for property developers, for it is THEY who forced the values so artificially high in NZ, making purchasing a home all but a dream for most Kiwi's.

This is something I've been saying for the past 6-7 years. The problem is part of the kiwi dream appears to be owning a couple of rental properties to support yourself without actually having to do anything.

Property investment doesn't do squat all for the economy and it certainly doesn't make NZ more wealthy as a whole. It is wealth redistribution, plain and simple. Take from the poor and give to the rich. Extend the concept to its extreme and you end up with feudal England, rich landowners sitting fat and bored in their castles and serfs working their asses off to feed and house themselves...

[jono035]

It isn't 'just' those sort of clowns. I know middle aged people that ride quite powerful (expensive) bikes without insurance, and look at me as if I'm retarded because I wont. "Just ride carefully" is the answer I get..
Yeah, if only it was that simple to not be involved in a smash.

It's WAY over half.

Yeah, there are a few on here who I've seen using the whole 'every crash has a cause therefore learn to ride better and you won't cause a crash'...

Boggles my mind. I'm really not certain whether it is arrogance or lack of imagination...

On another note, doesn't anyone know which countries other than America lean so heavily on private insurance. There was an article I was reading recently which was talking about making public healthcare available for everyone.

I like to think that things like public health care are a sign of a more civilised nation. If we are having problems with ACC spending too much then we need to, as a nation, stop having less accidents or seriously look into what is causing them to run over budget. I'm sure everyone here has heard of people who are trumping up a minor injury and living off ACC payments. Starting with that and pruning the excess from there would surely be a better approach than scrapping it completely.

[jrandom]

'every crash has a cause therefore learn to ride better and you won't cause a crash'...

That statement is (almost) a truism.

Its fallacy lies in the fact that none of us are perfect.

Still worth striving for, though.

[rainman]

Just privatise the fucking thing.

ACC should be privatised....Left-leaning parties are good at dogma.

... no more so than those of the right, I'm afraid.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone object to the notion of ACC being privatised.

Serious question for those of you pro-privatisation:
A few years ago I stuffed my back up - sporting injury. Pretty much all the treatment (physio, surgery, drugs) for this so far has been from ACC - although my private disability insurance paid me while I was recovering from the surgery. It's likely I will need more work done on this as time goes by - ACC did the minimum possible (for good medical reasons). In fact I'm enjoying a course of physio for it at the moment.

I have spoken to Tower and SX and both confirm that they won't cover anything to do with my back, for any price. I can't see a way that privatising ACC would do anything but remove my cover completely or only provide cover at extortionate premiums. What am I missing?

What actual benefits (extra points for being non-knee-jerk-ideologically-pro-free-markets, 'cos, y'know, they're good and stuff; ditto for the government-small-enough-to-drown-in-bathtub crap) would privatising ACC bring?

“Instead of hiking up prices until 2014 and then dropping them dramatically, it makes sense to smooth out the process and extend the deadline until 2019 - a process which will effectively halve the residual claims costs for the next five years,” Maryan Street said.
“The average employers’ levy is now $1.26 per $100 of liable earnings and this is also ACC’s proposed rate for next year. This would reduce to about $1.01 if the date was pushed out to 2019.

Looks like Nick Smith is listening to Labour. However I'll bet this will still mean large increases, particularly since John Judge is saying more than 10%.

From that article:

On Friday, ACC issued figures showing claim liabilities - that's the future cost of existing claims - have grown to $23.8 billion.

It has net assets of $11-billion - leaving a shortfall of $12.8 billion.

So, comparing the future liability to the present assets - yeah, that's honest accounting. Good on the media for picking that up, too - not. This has all the hallmarks of a manufactured crisis.

It's WAY over half.

What, more than 50% of NZ is above averagely stupid? Um... Ok, you probably have a point.

[rainman]

So, comparing the future liability to the present assets - yeah, that's honest accounting. Good on the media for picking that up, too - not.

Pardon me quoting myself, but I take back my comments implying all of the media are useless - there is always Rod Oram. This is an article well worth reading for those that wish to cut through the spin and incompetence from the ACC minister.

The Nats are just trying to find more ways to sell off our stuff to their wealthy mates.