If Labour wins the election I'll have to pay my ACC levy

[MSTRS:Me]

ACC strength has been its ability to charge everyone more than once.

Only in the Vehicle account. But no-one really grizzled about that until the 2009 levy hikes.
With that spur to reflect, most of us suddenly saw the unfairness of multiple regos in this form of levying. Hence the desire to see something fairer to replace it, and/or better still, something that isn't being wasted when a vehicle is not being used. Something like fuel-based levies.
Privatising the Motor pool (vehicle account) is not a good way to go for obvious reasons.

[BoristheBiter]

Only in the Vehicle account. But no-one really grizzled about that until the 2009 levy hikes.
With that spur to reflect, most of us suddenly saw the unfairness of multiple regos in this form of levying. Hence the desire to see something fairer to replace it, and/or better still, something that isn't being wasted when a vehicle is not being used. Something like fuel-based levies.
Privatising the Motor pool (vehicle account) is not a good way to go for obvious reasons.

I can't see the problem.

We would still be using the same health care provider, only who they send the bill to would change.
Like I said we used @work, cut my hand, went to hospital, got fixed up and never saw a bill, and the rehabilitation was way better than what I have got in the past from ACC
We are not talking medical insurance, we are talking accident insurance, as hospitals are still free.

I can see where there would have to be very strict guidelines enforced, and I can see it could be open to abuse but everything can.

[MSTRS:Me]

We are not talking medical insurance, we are talking accident insurance, as hospitals are still free.

WE are talking about VEHICLE ACCIDENT-related personal 'insurance' - not cutting your hand at work or in the kitchen at home.
Perhaps not a problem if/when JoeSquid falls off his R1 and only hurts himself. What about the poor bugger hurt when SidStupid takes out that pedestrian, drives off and no-one 'got his plate'? Said pedestrian was hurt in a vehicle-related accident, s/he'll be asked for the driver's details for insurance purposes and can't comply. *Cover denied*. Or *Just go to ACC and lie about how you were hurt*.
We have strict guidelines now, and yes there is still some abuse, but at least the system is relatively simple.
Changing things would be like the olde maps stated ... "Here there be Dragons"

[davereid]

WE are talking about VEHICLE ACCIDENT-related personal 'insurance' - not cutting your hand at work or in the kitchen at home.
Perhaps not a problem if/when JoeSquid falls off his R1 and only hurts himself. What about the poor bugger hurt when SidStupid takes out that pedestrian, drives off and no-one 'got his plate'? Said pedestrian was hurt in a vehicle-related accident, s/he'll be asked for the driver's details for insurance purposes and can't comply. *Cover denied*. Or *Just go to ACC and lie about how you were hurt*.
We have strict guidelines now, and yes there is still some abuse, but at least the system is relatively simple.
Changing things would be like the olde maps stated ... "Here there be Dragons"

Exactly.

Even if compulsory third party insurance were introduced, lots of people just wont bother. So if you don't have other cover, you are shagged if the fella that crashes into you isn't covered.

And even if he paid for his insurance like a good boy, he may be drunk, or unlicenced, so his claim will be declined, and yep its back on you.

Of course there is the next fallacy that competition always results in improvement to prices. It CAN do. But it is hard for organisations designed to make a profit to be cheaper to run than those that don't need to make a return.

ACC doesn't need to make a profit. Each private insurer will want to make a profit, pay handsome rewards to its directors and CEO and good returns to its investors.

They may make offers that seem to good to be true for a while. But eventually, they will want to send profits back to USA or China.

[BoristheBiter]

WE are talking about VEHICLE ACCIDENT-related personal 'insurance' - not cutting your hand at work or in the kitchen at home.
Perhaps not a problem if/when JoeSquid falls off his R1 and only hurts himself. What about the poor bugger hurt when SidStupid takes out that pedestrian, drives off and no-one 'got his plate'? Said pedestrian was hurt in a vehicle-related accident, s/he'll be asked for the driver's details for insurance purposes and can't comply. *Cover denied*. Or *Just go to ACC and lie about how you were hurt*.
We have strict guidelines now, and yes there is still some abuse, but at least the system is relatively simple.
Changing things would be like the olde maps stated ... "Here there be Dragons"

I am simply talking about a fairer system for all but I guess you just can't see the big picture as you seem to have a major hang up over private insurance.

I can't see your point with the above, as the pedestrian would have their own insurance. The hospital charges the insurance company and the insurance company is the one that goes looking for sidstupid.

And it is accident medical and rehabilitation insurance, to be more specific, personal injury cover.

[BoristheBiter]

Exactly.

Even if compulsory third party insurance were introduced, lots of people just wont bother. So if you don't have other cover, you are shagged if the fella that crashes into you isn't covered.

And even if he paid for his insurance like a good boy, he may be drunk, or unlicenced, so his claim will be declined, and yep its back on you.

Of course there is the next fallacy that competition always results in improvement to prices. It CAN do. But it is hard for organisations designed to make a profit to be cheaper to run than those that don't need to make a return.

ACC doesn't need to make a profit. Each private insurer will want to make a profit, pay handsome rewards to its directors and CEO and good returns to its investors.

They may make offers that seem to good to be true for a while. But eventually, they will want to send profits back to USA or China.

Where do you guys get these ideas from?
As long as you are insured it will be, as it is now, the insurance company that goes after them not you, so how can you be out of pocket?

[davereid]

Where do you guys get these ideas from?
As long as you are insured it will be, as it is now, the insurance company that goes after them not you, so how can you be out of pocket?

Thats exactly what I said. I made the point that you will be reliant on YOUR insurance.

So you had better purchase wisely.

Would be a bummer if your WOF was expired and you had no cover, even though I crashed into you when I was drunk.

[MSTRS:Me]

I am simply talking about a fairer system for all but I guess you just can't see the big picture as you seem to have a major hang up over private insurance.

I can't see your point with the above, as the pedestrian would have their own insurance. The hospital charges the insurance company and the insurance company is the one that goes looking for sidstupid.

And it is accident medical and rehabilitation insurance, to be more specific, personal injury cover.

Hmmm...
YOU are basically talking about ACC as it was at it's inception. One single fund that everyone paid into (well, taxpayers at least). The only difference being that in your scenario, everyone must pay (including children) and they can choose who to pay it to.
Well - guess what? TPTB soon introduced different funds for different accident types, introduced risk-rating to hit those in 'riskier' professions or vehicle choice, hidden levies and latterly future-funding instead of pay-as-you-go.
How long do you think a profit-driven entity will play 'nice'?

[BoristheBiter]

Hmmm...
YOU are basically talking about ACC as it was at it's inception. One single fund that everyone paid into (well, taxpayers at least). The only difference being that in your scenario, everyone must pay (including children) and they can choose who to pay it to.
Well - guess what? TPTB soon introduced different funds for different accident types, introduced risk-rating to hit those in 'riskier' professions or vehicle choice, hidden levies and latterly future-funding instead of pay-as-you-go.
How long do you think a profit-driven entity will play 'nice'?

I don't know but I would like to think a long time but not so naive to think they will.

If we want to stop risk-rating then we will have to pay, otherwise it will remain the status quo.
Even if they bring in no claims discounts (they won't), we still have areas that are not covered by ACC levies, (why i brought up the running) areas of high risk (climbing, hang-gliding etc) that aren't covered.

[davereid]

If we want to stop risk-rating then we will have to pay, otherwise it will remain the status quo.
Even if they bring in no claims discounts (they won't), we still have areas that are not covered by ACC levies, (why i brought up the running) areas of high risk (climbing, hang-gliding etc) that aren't covered.

Sometimes the law of diminishing returns comes in.

The cost to ACC of collecting its revenue from fuel levies is very very low, and compliance is virtually 100%.

There may be the odd Bogan running an electric vehicle, or his petrol one on methanol that he makes at home, but there is only a few of them in the entire country. Way less than the number of people like me, who simply don't pay. And its not insurmountable that with the smart meters that will soon be everywhere, that a fuel tax is seamlessly applied to those vehicles too.

The cost of running individual accounts, ensuring they are collected, rating users, applying no claim discounts, scrapping over the no claim discount when "you hit me but its my leg in plaster etc etc" all has to added to what you pay in premiums.

Then if you add the requirement to make a 10-20% return on investment....

Every time the Nats get in they try and privatise it... every time labour get in they try and nationalise it.

If Labour are smart they will simply put it all on fuel. You will pay $10 rego. And there is no real mechanisim to privatise it.

Then the nats would really struggle to convince anyone that a $300-$700 licence fee is a good thing.

[bogan]

Sometimes the law of diminishing returns comes in.

The cost to ACC of collecting its revenue from fuel levies is very very low, and compliance is virtually 100%.

There may be the odd Bogan running an electric vehicle, or his petrol one on methanol that he makes at home, but there is only a few of them in the entire country. Way less than the number of people like me, who simply don't pay. And its not insurmountable that with the smart meters that will soon be everywhere, that a fuel tax is seamlessly applied to those vehicles too.

The cost of running individual accounts, ensuring they are collected, rating users, applying no claim discounts, scrapping over the no claim discount when "you hit me but its my leg in plaster etc etc" all has to added to what you pay in premiums.

Then if you add the requirement to make a 10-20% return on investment....

Every time the Nats get in they try and privatise it... every time labour get in they try and nationalise it.

If Labour are smart they will simply put it all on fuel. You will pay $10 rego. And there is no real mechanisim to privatise it.

Then the nats would really struggle to convince anyone that a $300-$700 licence fee is a good thing.

That's it in a nutshell I think. Either you have the socialist scheme and have no profit for buisnesses, with only a minority of people paying more than they would under a privatised system. Or you have a privatised system taking profits, and charging the majority more, creating a few more jobs too no doubt along with other overhead costs, but also clogging up the legal system.
The only way I can see a privatised model being even slightly beneficial to NZ, is if all the companies are NZ based, and profits don't just dissapear across the ditch.

[Spearfish]

What about diesel fuel is that included?, ACC on diesel vans/utes etc is ridiculous.

So how hard is it to make homebrew fuel? lol

[MSTRS:Me]

What about diesel fuel is that included?, ACC on diesel vans/utes etc is ridiculous.

So how hard is it to make homebrew fuel? lol

No taxes at the pump on diesel - atm. But how hard would it be to simply include as is the case with petrol? The screams would start with farmers using diesel powered farm-only vehicles. There would have to be a system for them to claim back road user charges.
Just to illustrate to it is impossible to have a system to keeps everyone happy.

Ask your local chippie...

[oneofsix]

No taxes at the pump on diesel - atm. But how hard would it be to simply include as is the case with petrol? The screams would start with farmers using diesel powered farm-only vehicles. There would have to be a system for them to claim back road user charges.
Just to illustrate to it is impossible to have a system to keeps everyone happy.

Ask your local chippie...

No, They are covered by ACC whilst they are using the diesel powered tractor so they pay the ACC levy via the diesel pump. Just like you now pay road user charges for using your petrol lawn mower, that would be fairer if it was ACC at least there is an ACC risk to mowing the lawns.

[Spearfish]

No taxes at the pump on diesel - atm. But how hard would it be to simply include as is the case with petrol? The screams would start with farmers using diesel powered farm-only vehicles. There would have to be a system for them to claim back road user charges.
Just to illustrate to it is impossible to have a system to keeps everyone happy.

Yeah, it does open a can of worms,
HaHa, the off road guys will have to pay by default and the weed eater ATGATT on those killer bastards .
BOATS...... shyt! the boat drinks fuel!!

but at least the bike will be a wee cheaper in rego