VORB IS IN MAINTENANCE MODE You will not be able logon or make posts. We recommend you ride your bike in the meantime. [CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION]
did you not see the second para? are you the sort of guy who goes out for dinner and won't split the bill evenly in case you end up paying for someone's garlic bread.
but yes that is a great idea. by your logic everything should be user pays. Presumably if you went to university you chose to pay the full cost of your tuition rather than the subsidised amount (fees only cover 25 percent of course costs).
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha, Oh please, stop it, seriously. This is the internet, dont take it so seriously, Im just having trouble understanding your point, no need to get aggresive and make huge assumptions about what I may or may not agree with or I may or may not do.
yes i saw the second paragraph, I even mentioned it, so a very strange claim by you there
And the "by my logic" scenario you based upon my statemnets in trying to understand your point of view, not a personal belief. Read my posts again, I support the continued existance off ACC. Never suggested it should be removed, just that there are some things in the system that are not perfect, no system ever is.
your University arguement is even more flawed yes I went, and as society is benefiting from it, so has it payed. And by the time I have finished paying off my loan I will have paid for about 50% of it not 25%
And when I go to meals with friends I only support paying equal portions of the bill if if it leaves me LESS better of than if I used user pays. I do not want my friends subsidising my meals, I will pay at a minimum, my fair share.
but by your arguement, you could get the people at the resteraunt across the road to pay for your desert
look, as I said, I dont see your point. The current system isnt perfect. any other system isnt perfect. If your arguement isnt based upon the $$, then what is it you fear?
I may or may not agree with you, I dont know, I dont see your point.
can i please be excused? I want to go home.
The reason i raised the varisty argument is because it shows that there is more to assessing the costs or benefits of a particular system than looking at the direct financial cost at a given moment. You claim you are benefitting society with your education. How do you know? How did you quantify that? How do you know you aren't being subisised by a plummer somewhere. And on paying your loan you haven't contributed more you have just covered the cost of the cash that was lent.
A similar argument applies re ACC. Yes mountainbikers may be subsidised but it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your statements imply that we are freeloaders and that is a bad thing. I am saying that changing a system may have unforseen consequences (and the Ozzie experience suggests that it will) that could impact on what makes NZ such a cool country. I don't know about you but ever since I was young I have spent time enjoying the outdoors and sometimes doing dangerous things. I would hate to see that put at risk because I have to pay 100 bucks to enter a race.
When it comes down to it mine is an 'if it anit broke don't fix it' argument, with a healthy does of 'slippery slope' mixed in.
oh one more thing (though this is getting boring now) about national thinking it is broke. You may not have seen the memo from the head of the insurance council that said they'd done a deal with national on the privatisation of workplace insurance. but they wanted to withhold the details.
though i am sure the motivation was more about concern over whether mountainbikers were cross subsidising other people. not they they would get backing from big insurance companies.
Joined: Jun 20, 2004 Posts: 4,694 Location: Back in the Hood
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 8:54pm Post subject:
Right a balanced view:
Acc is enforced collectivised risk. The benefit's are considerable more than financial. It establishes a no fault legal environment in regard to pesonal injuries, this means that if you get injured in NZ you cannot sue anyone. This is good because it stops nuisance litigation for personal injuries, which is prevalent in the USA and Canada, and is becoming a problem in UK Aus and Europe.
ACC stops the courts from being bogged down by stupid cases where people who trip over their own children in malls sue and suceed in gaining massive awards.
National privatised ACC last time and have stated that they want to introduce market choice to injury Insurance if they are voted in this time. This can only mean privatising. It's yet another case of Nationals ideology over practicality stance, and yet another reason I would never vote for them...
Joined: Dec 25, 2001 Posts: 34,395 Location: Poundland
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 10:51pm Post subject:
CrustyMTB wrote:
Acc is enforced collectivised risk. The benefit's are considerable more than financial. It establishes a no fault legal environment in regard to pesonal injuries, this means that if you get injured in NZ you cannot sue anyone. This is good because it stops nuisance litigation for personal injuries, which is prevalent in the USA and Canada, and is becoming a problem in UK Aus and Europe.
ACC stops the courts from being bogged down by stupid cases where people who trip over their own children in malls sue and suceed in gaining massive awards.
Yup - you guys don't know how lucky we are. The Drop In crew were in awe of our collective approach to liability instead of the North American approach of "I sue you!" There are so many things we do in this country which we take forgranted which would not be possible under the North American system.
Going on about "taking personal responsibility" for injury doesn't address the fact that there are greedy/ mis-guided people out there who will firmly believe that they broke their wrist because the people who built the track did a bad job, or the event organisers didn't warn them clearly enough - and if given the opportunity will try and take it to court and milk it for all it's worth. The current system of ACC prevents this happening in New Zealand.
Joined: Feb 06, 2002 Posts: 28,784 Location: doing skiddds
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 10:56pm Post subject:
Tama wrote:
Yup - you guys don't know how lucky we are. The Drop In crew were in awe of our collective approach to liability instead of the North American approach of "I sue you!" There are so many things we do in this country which we take forgranted which would not be possible under the North American system.
So don't you see why we NEED Don Brash to come kcuf everything up by privatising everything so we're able to sue people?
I'm having too much fun deciding who to sue first!
Joined: May 20, 2004 Posts: 13,613 Location: looking out at Makara
Posted: Thu 15/Sep/05 7:05am Post subject:
Tama wrote:
Going on about "taking personal responsibility" for injury doesn't address the fact that there are greedy/ mis-guided people out there who will firmly believe that they broke their wrist because the people who built the track did a bad job, or the event organisers didn't warn them clearly enough - and if given the opportunity will try and take it to court and milk it for all it's worth. The current system of ACC prevents this happening in New Zealand.
OK, before I get slamed for my upcoming response, may I first say that I like ACC, and think it should continue, and I am not an ACT/national/NZ first junky.
persons who are greed/misguided CAN still sue the trailbuilders, landowners etc in NZ, always have been able to, just not for injury. They can sue for exlemplary (sp?) damages. Its just difficult because the justice system in NZ frowns upon profiting from this sort of thing, so judgements are usually small if awarded at all. So ACC does not prevent people from sueing.
But I agree with JK, argueing this point is boring, the two sides are different in ideology, and argueing ideology is pointless. I happen to agree with JK2, but for different reasons (I think, I never did fully understand his original point )
Joined: Jun 20, 2004 Posts: 4,694 Location: Back in the Hood
Posted: Thu 15/Sep/05 9:40pm Post subject:
thorg wrote:
Tama wrote:
Going on about "taking personal responsibility" for injury doesn't address the fact that there are greedy/ mis-guided people out there who will firmly believe that they broke their wrist because the people who built the track did a bad job, or the event organisers didn't warn them clearly enough - and if given the opportunity will try and take it to court and milk it for all it's worth. The current system of ACC prevents this happening in New Zealand.
OK, before I get slamed for my upcoming response, may I first say that I like ACC, and think it should continue, and I am not an ACT/national/NZ first junky.
persons who are greed/misguided CAN still sue the trailbuilders, landowners etc in NZ, always have been able to, just not for injury. They can sue for exlemplary (sp?) damages. Its just difficult because the justice system in NZ frowns upon profiting from this sort of thing, so judgements are usually small if awarded at all. So ACC does not prevent people from sueing.
But I agree with JK, argueing this point is boring, the two sides are different in ideology, and argueing ideology is pointless. I happen to agree with JK2, but for different reasons (I think, I never did fully understand his original point )
AS far as I'm aware (I could be wrong) the largest exemplary damages ever awarded in NZ were about 14k. When you consider the legal costs involved in getting a case to trial, 14k would probably only cover your photocopying...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest ℗ 2000-2008 by Tama Easton.
Extra design ℗ by Scotty Lane and Nathan Whitley. Photos and written work on this site are property of their owners, do not use them for commercial purposes.
Developed for Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 and Mozilla Firefox 3.0
yes I went, and as society is benefiting from it, so has it payed. And by the time I have finished paying off my loan I will have paid for about 50% of it 
)
