If I am to pay $750 in ACC/rego fee for my bike I want the fright to sue!

**Conquiztador** · 31st October 2009, 12:22

Ooopss.. "Right To Sue" that was supposed to say... As you were.

What ACC was set up to do is being eroded. It is now becoming a "User Pay" scheme. This is not new, as employers already pay higher ACC fees if the occupation is considered a "high risk" one by ACC. But now it is taken to new levels. Bikers have been singled out as a group who is costing more therefore they should pay more, is the logic.

So what is next? Using "statistics" to break each group down in to smaller bits? Make of bike will matter, model will also matter, and year of manufacture will determine what you pay. Next we pay based on tyre choice, mufflers, mirrors we choose? Then comes where the bike is registered. And whatever else can be used to separate us to show statistically who is costing more.

Fine I say. I then have a choice to select a bike and a place of registration based on my purse.

BUT if this is where it is going it is not ACC anymore. It is "User Pay" insurance scheme that is run as a business.

And I therefore consider the ACC as it was instigated defunct.

So now I want the right to sue the bastard who caused me to crash! I take him/her to the cleaners and he/she will pay until he/she dies! Because I fuckin get them. And if they hurt my kids by their actions in an accident I will make it my sole purpose to make their life a misery!

I think that was part of why ACC was put in place, to cover all and everyone without any separation based on who you were.

That is now gone.

**rainman** · 31st October 2009, 12:34

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

So now I want the right to sue the bastard who caused me to crash!

Yeah, because that arrangement works really well in other countries, doesn't it. Don't be an arse.

**duckonin** · 31st October 2009, 12:35

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

Ooopss.. "Right To Sue" that was supposed to say... As you were.

What ACC was set up to do is being eroded. It is now becoming a "User Pay" scheme. This is not new, as employers already pay higher ACC fees if the occupation is considered a "high risk" one by ACC. But now it is taken to new levels. Bikers have been singled out as a group who is costing more therefore they should pay more, is the logic.

So what is next? Using "statistics" to break each group down in to smaller bits? Make of bike will matter, model will also matter, and year of manufacture will determine what you pay. Next we pay based on tyre choice, mufflers, mirrors we choose? Then comes where the bike is registered. And whatever else can be used to separate us to show statistically who is costing more.

Fine I say. I then have a choice to select a bike and a place of registration based on my purse.

BUT if this is where it is going it is not ACC anymore. It is "User Pay" insurance scheme that is run as a business.

And I therefore consider the ACC as it was instigated defunct.

So now I want the right to sue the bastard who caused me to crash! I take him/her to the cleaners and he/she will pay until he/she dies! Because I fuckin get them. And if they hurt my kids by their actions in an accident I will make it my sole purpose to make their life a misery!

I think that was part of why ACC was put in place, to cover all and everyone without any separation based on who you were.

That is now gone.

Yep 100% +10

**Naki Rat** · 31st October 2009, 13:06

Having seen first hand what the liability i ndustry has done in North America to insurance premiums, medical costs and people's mindsets in terms of relating to your fellow humans, you do NOT want to go there

**Mully** · 31st October 2009, 14:02

Originally Posted by Naki Rat

Having seen first hand what the liability i ndustry has done in North America to insurance premiums, medical costs and people's mindsets in terms of relating to your fellow humans, you do NOT want to go there

Exactly.

Everybody will have to hold liability insurance as well. Or declare bankruptcy every time they have an at fault crash.

**AD345** · 31st October 2009, 17:20

Originally Posted by rainman

Yeah, because that arrangement works really well in other countries, doesn't it. Don't be an arse.

Originally Posted by Naki Rat

Having seen first hand what the liability i ndustry has done in North America to insurance premiums, medical costs and people's mindsets in terms of relating to your fellow humans, you do NOT want to go there

Originally Posted by Mully

Exactly.

Everybody will have to hold liability insurance as well. Or declare bankruptcy every time they have an at fault crash.

I think you guys might be missing C's point.

You caint have some parts of the populace being treated differently to others and still call it a universal scheme.

If it AINT a universal scheme therefore then the compact under which it was first set up has been broken and we should get our rights back that we gave away.

I don't think anyone really want a litigous system but C is right in pointing out that the damned govt. is seriously trying to have its cake and eat it too.

**Conquiztador** · 31st October 2009, 20:18

Originally Posted by AD345

I think you guys might be missing C's point.

You caint have some parts of the populace being treated differently to others and still call it a universal scheme.

If it AINT a universal scheme therefore then the compact under which it was first set up has been broken and we should get our rights back that we gave away.

I don't think anyone really want a litigous system but C is right in pointing out that the damned govt. is seriously trying to have its cake and eat it too.

I knew there was intelligent lifeform still around.

**Winston001** · 31st October 2009, 20:40

Originally Posted by AD345

I think you guys might be missing C's point.

You caint have some parts of the populace being treated differently to others and still call it a universal scheme.

.

Mmmmm......so what do you call "Working For Families Tax Credits"?? A person with 1/2/3 etc children gets a payment and effectively pays no tax. Their neighbour, same age, same job, but no child pays the full whack of tax. How is that fair? Why should one person be treated so differently to another?

People disabled by sickness (spina bifida, motor-neuron disease) get taxpayer support often while not being able to earn any income. Why should you pay for that?

**Conquiztador** · 31st October 2009, 20:51

Originally Posted by Winston001

People disabled by sickness (spina bifida, motor-neuron disease) get taxpayer support often while not being able to earn any income. Why should you pay for that?

Yep. I agree with you. They should sort them selves. After all they decided that they wanted that illness. In the 1940's the Germans knew how to fix this issue. Gass anyone who was not able bodied.

Or perhaps the Indian way is what we should have here? Put them on the street corners with their hat out? If nobody gives them any bread they deserve to die.

**Motu** · 31st October 2009, 21:11

Did you see TV1 news tonight Pete? At the Auckland protest there is some guy with a purple beard,his brother,his son....and the back of my head.I've just had to do a mercy dash tonight to get one of them going in my town...faulty alt wiring and flat batt.

**rainman** · 31st October 2009, 21:15

Originally Posted by AD345

I think you guys might be missing C's point.

I think you're missing mine: which is that a litigious system is the wrong answer, regardless.

Originally Posted by AD345

You caint have some parts of the populace being treated differently to others and still call it a universal scheme.

Well, you can extend the same cover to all and still call it universal. Universal doesn't mean that the levies all have to be the same - they haven't been for some time. Different industries pay different rates, based on likelihood of injury.

The "ACC problem" needs to be fixed mainly by dealing to Nick Smith's reflexive approach pro privatisation, tidying up some of the minor inconsistencies regarding what's covered, and addressing the extortionate rates charged by the providers. The last one is the hardest, but would make the biggest difference.

Ordinary folk won't get better or cheaper service with a privatised ACC, nor with a scheme where everyone sues everyone else.

**Conquiztador** · 31st October 2009, 21:27

Originally Posted by rainman

I think you're missing mine: which is that a litigious system is the wrong answer, regardless.

Well, you can extend the same cover to all and still call it universal. Universal doesn't mean that the levies all have to be the same - they haven't been for some time. Different industries pay different rates, based on likelihood of injury.

The "ACC problem" needs to be fixed mainly by dealing to Nick Smith's reflexive approach pro privatisation, tidying up some of the minor inconsistencies regarding what's covered, and addressing the extortionate rates charged by the providers. The last one is the hardest, but would make the biggest difference.

Ordinary folk won't get better or cheaper service with a privatised ACC, nor with a scheme where everyone sues everyone else.

Fuck Nick, you are too obvious...

**Conquiztador** · 31st October 2009, 21:29

Originally Posted by Motu

Did you see TV1 news tonight Pete? At the Auckland protest there is some guy with a purple beard,his brother,his son....and the back of my head.I've just had to do a mercy dash tonight to get one of them going in my town...faulty alt wiring and flat batt.

Is there a link?