What would happen

[sAsLEX]

its about time the men in this country stood up again (not just on their soapbox either)

We are not allowed to any more. The Govt is correct, you must not voice against it.

[Patch]

We are not allowed to any more. The Govt is correct, you must not voice against it.

. . . . .. . wuss . . . . . .

[Grub]

Interesting idea - but not workable unfortunately.

1) NZ:- This is a bit like the system we used to have. Social Security paid for your health care but when accidents were involved that were not your fault, the guilty party has to pay. Enter the Lawyers!

Everyone was suing everyone else and fair enough. If some arsehole u-turns in front of you and you break your neck, there's no way you or your insurance should pay. Sounds familiar? This is how your car/bike policy works now. The prat's insurance company is going to allege that you were speeding etc etc so that they don't have to pay. These lawsuits used to go to jury trials for ferks sake - I was on a weeks worth on Jury service.

Someone has to pay all those lawyers bills and it's not the insurance companies so everyone's premiums go up.

2) US:- The system in the US is exactly what you were describing and look at the fucking mess they have over there ... and look at the lawsuits
Summary:- Our current system is one of the best out of a bad bunch.
- Yes we are paying for the inefficencies of a public service but better that than the voracious greed of the law profession and the insurance companies 'profit motive'
- No we shouldn't be paying for sports injuries where a rugby club membership does not include an ACC Levy.
- No we shouldn't be paying for burglars falling through a roof and breaking his kneck (Note for Hitch, most burglars are male)
- If someone would care to compare the annual cost of our ACC Levies against an insurance premium we might find we're way better off this way because the economies of scale generally might work to our benefit.(i.e. what does Southern Cross cost now vs what you get for it)
- ACC is a no blame system therefore we don't have to justify or recover - we just get fixed
- ACC fraud is costing more than anyone could possibly imagine.
- Yes, any person charged and convicted of ACC fraud should, as part of their sentence, be removed from the ACC benefits system for life.

[MSTRS:Me]

.... ACC is a type of health insurance and I can't get private health insurance due to having MS (multiple sclerosis) ... even ACC would try to pin any accident on that if they know about it ... its the way they have worked with my mum since her accident way back when ...

ACC is not a kind of health insurance....except insofar as your health is affected by accident. Usually. For conditions like MS, I doubt they would be interested. Hell, they fought against payouts for people with Asbestosis.

Trying to get my head around how your insurance and health care works and to be honest by the sound of it not particulalry well from what people have written.

Over here we have the NHS and private health care, up to you what you do and if you can afford to go private and jump the que you do (freedom of choice).

However, we have to pay car/bike insurance end of story. They pay up for accident damage to car/bike etc and you can get compo if the person causing the accident does some serious dmamage to you personally.

How does this compare to your system?

ACC took away the right to sue someone else for personal, bodily damages.
So if ACC refuse to meet your medical/rehab costs....you're fucked.

[Patch]

and if your self (un) employed, have a not so good year, in an accident then they'll pay you fuk all of sweet f'all. acc is a joke if you're self (un) employed. $4,500.00 p.a. for what???

[ynot slow]

Have medical insurance for surgical onwards,i.e from specialist it's paid 100% up to amount specified.I'd save about $550(2cars,1bike)in acc on rego,plus keep my acc levy from wages if work accident.

[Katman]

It should be any person who holds a drivers license that is registered to pay an ACC levy - not a levy placed on each of the individuals vehicles. After all, you can only operate one of those vehicles at a time.

[Nasty]

ACC is not a kind of health insurance....except insofar as your health is affected by accident. Usually. For conditions like MS, I doubt they would be interested. Hell, they fought against payouts for people with Asbestosis.

In somuch as you are right it is not a health insurace ... you are wrong they do take the time to blame disease if you have one ... if you have a disease they try to associate injury to diesease therefore eliminating their liability. Sucks but it is true ... my mother has a back injury ... she also has problems through a diagnosis of MS .... they tried and almost suceeded in getting her off ACC through this kind of mechanism ... it doesn't sound right ... but that is what they do .. it is actually irrefutable when we have the records to prove their mistreatment of her and her case. In my case if I had an accident where I came off it would like be that the MS had caused me to loose balance and therefore associated to disease and not accident.

[Bikernereid]

But for us the arguing about who pays for what is usually done by the insurance company, the individuals are hardly involved. I would still rather have to pay car/bike insurance but have a medical insurance system like in Belgium. You pay a small annual fee and then pay for visitng a doctor (most of which is refunded to you). They have one of the best medical systems in the world and it works. None of this waiting to see a specialist you can see one the same day!!

[QUOTE=Grub;1387307]Interesting idea - but not workable unfortunately.

1) NZ:- This is a bit like the system we used to have. Social Security paid for your health care but when accidents were involved that were not your fault, the guilty party has to pay. Enter the Lawyers!

Everyone was suing everyone else and fair enough. If some arsehole u-turns in front of you and you break your neck, there's no way you or your insurance should pay. Sounds familiar? This is how your car/bike policy works now. The prat's insurance company is going to allege that you were speeding etc etc so that they don't have to pay. These lawsuits used to go to jury trials for ferks sake - I was on a weeks worth on Jury service.

Someone has to pay all those lawyers bills and it's not the insurance companies so everyone's premiums go up.

[spookytooth]

and if your self (un) employed, have a not so good year, in an accident then they'll pay you fuk all of sweet f'all. acc is a joke if you're self (un) employed. $4,500.00 p.a. for what???

Go ask about "Acc cover plus" mate i agree its pointless to have acc when selfemplyed but with cover plus you have a set amount of cover you agree with the bastards so you only get screwed for the agreed amount

[Kittyhawk]

Reduce taxes, cut out GST and intergrate a system where insurances and medical rolls into one which has to be compulsory by all..

It should also depend on lifestyle too...why should a non biker pay for biker medical expences, why should bikers pay for cyclist accidents on the road etc...

Cage insurance should be higher as theres more of those fuckwits on the road.

[MacD]

If instead of paying a whopping great ACC levvy for the privilage of riding on the road we were personally and individually accountable for Insuring ourselves against injury.-and were required to do so by law. ? Sorta the whole user pays concept. Haven't thought it through at all just floating an idea

Given that the cost of injuries to motorcyclists is currently subsidised significantly by other ACC contributors several things could/would happen:

1. Premiums would increase significantly. Motorcyclists are at a high risk of injury or death, some 14 times that of car users.

2. If premiums didn't increase, then coverage would decrease. You might be fine until you claimed for your first injury, but then you might find yourself uninsurable in the future.

3. Some costs would be defrayed by proving fault in another party. This involves lawyers. Lawyers make a very good living. Also motorcyclists are considered currently to be primarily or partially at fault in around 59% of accidents and around 75% of fatalities (MoT Document), much higher than the urban legend figures that motorcyclists usually quote.

I don't think ACC is a perfect system by any means, but I'm not convinced the alternative would be better. I would like to see individual ACC accounts introduced with a type of no claim bonus system perhaps. However this would introduce an aspect of fault to the system, which is counter to its underlying principles.

What would be interesting to know is how much comprehensive personal accident and liability insurance for motorcyclists is in the USA? A quick Google brings up figures as high as several hundred dollars per month for comprehensive insurance (personal injury/medical, third party injury/medical, own property, third party property - note that property insurance is considered secondary).

While not aimed specifically at injury cover, Wikipedia has this article comparing costs and coverage of the Canadian (a primarily publicly funded system) and the US (a primarily private insurance funded system) health systems. It's interesting reading.

[What?]

It should be any person who holds a drivers license that is registered to pay an ACC levy - not a levy placed on each of the individuals vehicles. After all, you can only operate one of those vehicles at a time.

A point I made in a letter to the minister in charge of ACC (Annette King) a year or three ago. Her response was essentially "Yes, I agree with you, but doing that would lose us the next election, so there is no chance of us doing it."
The sad bit is, it will be no different under National.