ACC ACCidentally discloses intention to become an insurance company

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Personally, I prefer the Woodhouse compensation model (ie ACC)

But what I assert they CANNOT do is try to be a bit of both. Either ACC, or an insurance company.

Totally agree... I have been against ACC in its flawed collection system since I was knee high to a grasshoper, BUT have never been against what ACC and the Woodhouse compensation model were suppose to be, if done right it can and does work

[avgas]

Their website is enough evidence for me. Bridgecorp's website looked more SOE than theirs.

[Winston001]

Y'know there are laws about insurance companies , and claiming to be one


F'instance, the Insurance Companies Deposit Act 1953

S4


Now, ACC are publically claiming to be an insurance company. ANd saying (in that ad) that they offer insurance.

I wonder if they have made the required deposit?

Might be another interesting question for the Minister

Nice one.


But seriously guys, why all this angst over the word insurance? ACC has always been a social insurance scheme from day one.

[FastBikeGear]

In a standard insurance scheme, where the driver at fault is liable for personal injuries of the other party our premiums should be less for two reasons.

Reason 1
The personal liabilty costs are greater for the insured parties insurance company when a car hits a bike than when a motorbike hits a car.

Reason 2
We know from statistics that when cars and bikes collide the car drivers are more often at fault. Cars hit bikes both because they don't see them and because a good many car drivers (especially those who have never ridden a motorbike) don't know how to share the road with motorbikes.

Offsetting the above two points, to some unknown extent, is that, statistics apparently show that we are more likey to injure ourselves in single party accidents.



However in a no fault system.

The personal liability to the compensation company when a bike and a car collides is identical regardless of who causes the accident - which is why both parties should pay the same levy

However if both parties to the accident were driving cars, the chances of an accident are reduced because they would both see each other, yada yada yada, so therefore the the motorcyclists levy should be more.

If you can't sue the arsonist for personal injury then the cost of living in a straw house should be more.

If a no fault system is one where we don't take responsibility for our actions, is it's also not our fault that we choose to ride motorbikes?

Added to this, statistics apparently show that we are more likey to injure ourselves in single party accidents.



I think a 'fault based' insurance scheme would be cheaper for motorcyclists than car drivers.

[James Deuce]

Nice one.


But seriously guys, why all this angst over the word insurance? ACC has always been a social insurance scheme from day one.

Insurance financial model = fully funded liability. Hence why they want billions.

Compensation = Pay as you go financial model. Hence the 700 million profit for a Government department that should be run with balanced books.

You're cleverer than this Winston and your insistence that liability insurance will be fine is vaguely insulting. 12% of my income goes on Insurance. I can't afford any more, nor can I afford the amount of time it would take the NZ Justice system to sort any liability related issue out. You yourself alluded to the basic impotence of NZ's Justice system in another post.

If they want to be an Insurance company they need to repeal the ACC Act first, and provide a marketplace with the scope for competition. They have no intention of making all of the Corporation's business open to competition in the short term, which leaves "Insurance customers" dealing with an Government department acting as a business monopoly with the legislation in place to allow them to price motorcycles off the road for anyone except Lawyers, Dentists, and Doctors.

[James Deuce]

I have received the same standard response acknowledging my submission. The two things that I immediately picked up on were:

Meta data can be a bitch for those using a tool to manage their website, rather than actively coding it.

Even using a tool, you'd think they'd have enough political common sense to avoid that kind of thing. Mind you, they do think we're a bunch of P smoking bearded losers without a computer between us.

[Ixion]

Nice one.


But seriously guys, why all this angst over the word insurance? ACC has always been a social insurance scheme from day one.

Because, one of the main reasons why Sir Owen recommended the ACC scheme ,was to enable people to escape from the miseries that were inherent in the previous INSURANCE based model.

ACC was an ALTERNATIVE to insurance.

To turn it into another insurance company is to totally warp back to the 1960s.

Those of you too young to remmeber those days will have no idea what an abomination the insurance based scheme was.

If you were injured , at work or on the road, you first had to front up with a VERY large sum (in todays money, think maybe $10000) to pay for a lawyer (uness you had the sense to belong to a strong union that employed its own lawyers).

Then your claim would wind throughthe courts, literally for years . Jarndyce vs Jarndyce had nothing on NZ insurance litigation.

And through those years you had better be able to come up with further payments for lawyers.

At the end of it (assuming you got to the end) you might , or might not, end up with a payment. Most of which would then go in paying more lawyers' bills.

The vast majority of people couldn't afford either the money or the stress of taking a personal injury case to completion.

They got nothing.

And that is the world to which the government want to return us. The world that is summed up by that word "insurance"

Moreover, we gave up an enormously important right in exchange for the certainty of the ACC scheme.

The right to sue. At least 1000 years old , that. And in law , when someone gives up a right , they are usually entitled to compensation. Rights have value. They can even be bought and sold.

We gave away a valuable right in exchange for certain benefits. Now the government want to take away those benefits, but don't want to return that right to us.

Do you know of any other form of insurance (as distinct from assurance) that stands outside the law of tort?

That's why the angst. Because a return to the 1960s benefits nobody except overseas insurance companies. Because ACC as an insurance scheme, leaves us with the worst of both worlds. Without the Woodhouse security, and without the right to sue.

[FastBikeGear]

Insurance financial model = fully funded liability. Hence why they want billions.

Compensation = Pay as you go financial model. Hence the 700 million profit for a Government department that should be run with balanced books.

You're cleverer than this Winston and your insistence that liability insurance will be fine is vaguely insulting. 20% of my income goes on Insurance. I can't afford any more, nor can I afford the amount of time it would take the NZ Justice system to sort the issue out. You alluded to the basic impotence of NZ's Justice system in another post.

If they want to be an Insurance company they need to repeal the ACC Act first, and provide a marketplace with the scope for competition. They have no intention of making all of the Corporation's business open to competition in the short term, which leaves "Insurance customers" dealing with an Government department acting as a business monopoly with the legislation in place to allow them to price motorcycles off the road for anyone except Lawyers, Dentists, and Doctors.

James, I honestly believe that they want to sell it and open it up to comeptition. Here's what I think they will do.

Step 1. Get rid of all the liability that is hanging over form the period from 1974 to 1999. How do they do this? They get todays motorbike riders to accept the liability/debt incurred during this period. Why are they in a hurry to do this? Because if they don't the ACC won't be able to compete with private insurance companies who won't have any responsibility to this liability. This is the step we are currently engaged/caught up in.

Step 2. Open it up and accept and encourage competition from off-shore insurance companies on a levilish playing field. These companies will bid for your business. You choose the policy you want, the insurance company that you think will do the best job of paying out and nominate the risky activities you want to be covered for (and they advise you of your personal premium just like with medical insurance today in New Zealand.)

What will be the nature of the Insurance

1. You will need separate insurance schemes for work place the road and sports. (You might get them as a combined policy from one company). As part of your employment package some employers may choose to contibute to your work place insurance)
2. Membership to a govt approved insurance scheme will be compulsory
3. Insurance will be no-fault first party insurance You won't be able to sue the other party or their insurance company. This will get rid of many (but not all) of the lawyer problems Ixion points out with the pre ACC insurance
4. Hopefully they will retain ownership of ACC Insurance NZ Ltd to act as a check against gouging (think Kiwibank strategy).

Time frame: 2011

[mashman]

sorry guys ... i'd have to say that a Risk Premium model would be something i would support .. unless someone can explain to me why it would be bad

Take a look at how insurance companies calculate your (risk) premium based on BMI!!! tis a pandora's box going to a risk premium model... plus you end up with the 2 tier health care system, them's that can afford it and them's that can't... All of the shennanigans going on with ACC at the moment will be a defining moment for the people of NZ or for the government of NZ... but that's just my take on it!!! a Risk Premium Model may well be perfect

[StoneY]

Step 1. Get rid of all the liability that is hanging over form the period from 1974 to 1999. How do they do this? They get todays motorbike riders to accept the liability/debt incurred during this period. Why are they in a hurry to do this? Because if they don't the ACC won't be able to compete with private insurance companies who won't have any responsibility to this liability.

This is the step we are currently engaged/caught up in.

WHAT fuckin engagement Wobbly?
When were WE the stakeholders asked to approve this process??????

Youve lost me again man

[mashman]

James, I honestly believe that they want to sell it and open it up to comeptition. Here's what I think they will do.

Step 1. Get rid of all the liability that is hanging over form the period from 1974 to 1999. How do they do this? They get todays motorbike riders to accept the liability/debt incurred during this period. Why are they in a hurry to do this? Because if they don't the ACC won't be able to compete with private insurance companies who won't have any responsibility to this liability. This is the step we are currently engaged/caught up in.

Step 2. Open it up and accept and encourage competition from off-shore insurance companies on a levilish playing field. These companies will bid for your business. You choose the policy you want, the insurance company that you think will do the best job of paying out and nominate the risky activities you want to be covered for (and they advise you of your personal premium just like with medical insurance today in New Zealand.)

What will be the nature of the Insurance

1. You will need separate insurance schemes for work place the road and sports. (You might get them as a combined policy from one company). As part of your employment package some employers may choose to contibute to your work place insurance)
2. Membership to a govt approved insurance scheme will be compulsory
3. Insurance will be no-fault first party insurance You won't be able to sue the other party or their insurance company. This will get rid of many (but not all) of the lawyer problems Ixion points out with the pre ACC insurance
4. Hopefully they will retain ownership of ACC Insurance NZ Ltd to act as a check against gouging (think Kiwibank strategy).

Time frame: 2011

So if you have no insurance what are your options??? Suffer in agonising pain for the rest of your life? I'm not having a go at you wobbly, but nothing good can come out of your health care being taken over by an Insurance company. They will hold all of your records... stub your toe on the bed 1 too many times and you're next premium with have the caveat that they will not pay for any more toe stubbing incidents... simple example maybe, but use it as a roadmap for people who suffer recurring injuries... no good will come out of privatisation!

Is there any way i can get an injunction against my employees, to stop them from selling stuff that i hold shares in?

[FastBikeGear]

WHAT fuckin engagement Wobbly?
When were WE the stakeholders asked to approve this process??????

Youve lost me again man

Sorry that I have lost you again, but when you send a submission to consultation@acc.co.nz you are consulting with the government.

It's just their interpretation of 'consultation' is different from yours and their interpretation suits their objectives.

[FastBikeGear]

So if you have no insurance what are your options??? Suffer in agonising pain for the rest of your life? I'm not having a go at you wobbly, but nothing good can come out of your health care being taken over by an Insurance company.

Having no insurance won't be an option - it will be compulsory.

I am not saying whether I like it or not. I am just saying that I think this is their plan.

When we all jump up and down, write letters to MPs, newspapers and ride to Wellington (and I will be there) we help them sell this plan to the public.

"The result of the submissions/consultation process and ACCs financial woes has clearly shown us that we need to take a fresh look at ACC......

[mashman]

Having no insurance won't be an option - it will be compulsory.

What if i'm unemployed? or have been for several years? or have debilitating injuries that I've had since birth? Where's my cover as i can't afford insurance? I understand your hypothesizing

[Bald Eagle]

What if i'm unemployed? or have been for several years? or have debilitating injuries that I've had since birth? Where's my cover as i can't afford insurance? I understand your hypothesizing

You become part of the process known as natural selection. Animals sacrifice the weak out of the heard.
It's how we look after ours that sets us apart.... except for