ACC to be opened up to competition

[Brian d marge]

National and ACT have struck a deal over ACC reform that will see the Government investigate opening the work account to competition.
A press conference is expected at about 4pm to release details of the deal which clears the way for ACC Minister Nick Smith to introduce his stalled Bill to increase levies and reduce some entitlements.
ACC Minister Nick Smith confirmed the ACC Reform Bill will now be introduced next week.
"I am pleased the government has secured support for this critical legislation from both the Maori Party and from ACT that will see ACC's proposed levies reduced by half," Dr Smith said.






The only hope is that David Caygil is head of the steering Committee



Stephen

[Eng_dave]

OH UFCK :Playnice: Now we really are fucked!!! Look at the price of insurance in UK people because that's what we are heading for.

[Brian d marge]

feel the burn ,,,,,, ohhh yeahhhh

Stephen :buggerd:

[Damon]

were fucked now, surely they would have noticed by their last 9 years in exile that we don't like them dicing shit up, now they've been in for less than a year and their into it again, whats the bet they don't get in for a second term

[p.dath]

Ye hah! Bring it on I say. Give me the option to have private accident cover.

Don't buy it if you don't want it. Easy huh?

[NighthawkNZ]

So does that mean they will drop the ACC lrvy on fuel?

[modboy]

Yea, well this is a complete construction isn't it. We'll make ACC be so unpalatable that the general public will be begging us to sell it off and privatise it.

Problem is no insurance company on the planet will buy an unprofitable business. So, the part that will be sold of (you can bet your fucking last dollar) will be the earners portion which is the only bit making a profit.

The non-earners fund - ie, ACC collected from road user levys won't be sold of private because that is the bit that no one wants.

Either way - I bet you - we lose.

[modboy]

Ye hah! Bring it on I say. Give me the option to have private accident cover.

Don't buy it if you don't want it. Easy huh?

We won't get that option - they'll sell off the earners levy part to private. So, employers will get the option to use private, as it was about 10 years ago before labour changed it.

Road user charges never changed over. The problem part of ACC - the non-earners levies won't change.

Privatisation I doubt will affect us.

[Azi Dahaka]

We have a old acc case manager working for us now and she noted that if it goes out for competition the private companies will say you have in the case of physio four sessions to get a person back to work where acc gives up to 10 to make sure the person is properly healed and doesn’t lapse.

So this only means that if we get hurt we will be a lot worse off because we wont get better treatment. Just remember ACC isn’t at fault guys they all do a good job is it is GOVT and the fat cat CEO that are at fault.

[slofox]

I was an employer last time ACC was privatized and later de-privatized.
Both of these shifts ended up increasing my costs as an employer. There is no way privatization will lower costs - don't fool yourselves kiddies, it ain't true.

We should not be surprised at this move. National, after all, is the party of business and capitalism. There's no secret about this - that's the sector they represent. So be not surprised when they act in the interests of the business sector. If we vote such a party in, we must expect them to be true to their interests - just as any other party of any other colour would be.

[NighthawkNZ]

Problem is no insurance company on the planet will buy an unprofitable business. So, the part that will be sold of (you can bet your fucking last dollar) will be the earners portion which is the only bit making a profit.


Thats just it ACC banked 1 billion last year as profit, it has 11 billion in the bank

ACC isn’t losing money. Its revenues (http://acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=37025&dDocName=PRD_CTRB118047&allowInterrupt=1) were $4.5 billion – $1.5 billion more than it spent on claims this year. $500 million of that extra is operating costs, the other $1 billion was added to ACC’s investments but changes to predictions of the future costs of current claims pushed out that target even further – by $5.7 billion. So, getting to being fully funded is $4.8 billion further away than it was before..

[p.dath]

We have a old acc case manager working for us now and she noted that if it goes out for competition the private companies will say you have in the case of physio four sessions to get a person back to work where acc gives up to 10 to make sure the person is properly healed and doesn’t lapse.

So this only means that if we get hurt we will be a lot worse off because we wont get better treatment. Just remember ACC isn’t at fault guys they all do a good job is it is GOVT and the fat cat CEO that are at fault.

If you want more cover - then pay for it. If like me you think you'll only need physio once in a blue moon, then take the cheaper option which only gives you 4 sessions - and pay for any extra you need out of your own pocket.

[p.dath]

Hay this is pretty simple. If you think an insurance company is going to make squillions out of running accident cover - then buy shares in them, and enjoy getting a great dividend.

If you don't think this is the case, then continue to enjoy the premiums you are paying know that no one is profiteering.

[Azi Dahaka]

That was merely an example I was merely noting that acc cares about healing the person as per say where a private company will only care about making profit. Though I may just be full of shit.

[p.dath]

That was merely an example I was merely noting that acc cares about healing the person as per say where a private company will only care about making profit. Though I may just be full of shit.

A private company is interesting in minimising costs to maximise profit.

ACC has no motive to minimise costs. Just look at the massive administrative cost they have!

[RavenR44]

A private company is interesting in minimising costs to maximise profit.

And the most effective way to minimise costs and maximise profit is to restrict payouts on claims. You're seriously suggesting we hurtle down that slippery slope? And before you claim that competition will keep it fair, care to supply compelling evidence that the insurance industry and health insurance providers are anything but cartels in themselves?

Nice theory though.

:lol:

[short-circuit]

Ye hah! Bring it on I say. Give me the option to have private accident cover.

Oh yeah - fanfuckentastic: Derail ACC through claiming a false financial predicament, hike cost to a point where it becomes untenable, invite private insurance options.

Then watch over time as private insurers hike their premiums in unison and reduce their eligibility criteria.

If you think that's a good outcome, you need your head read

[phred]

So
Keep the existing ACC idea and run it properly.
Good place to start is cutting senior managment salaries and headcount.
Contain costs - pay only for accidents.
Control the suppliers. I am sick of seeing the sandwich board sign near me that advertises free acc acupuncture.
Spread the cost across all users.
Don't pay for injuries sustained during criminal activities. etc etc etc.
Its a scheme with good intent that has become a public trough to be funded by motorcyclists????

[yachtie10]

So
Keep the existing ACC idea and run it properly.
Good place to start is cutting senior managment salaries and headcount.
Contain costs - pay only for accidents.
Control the suppliers. I am sick of seeing the sandwich board sign near me that advertises free acc acupuncture.
Spread the cost across all users.
Don't pay for injuries sustained during criminal activities. etc etc etc.
Its a scheme with good intent that has become a public trough to be funded by motorcyclists????

Sounds good to me
except there needs to be an excess on claims to limit the abuse

[NighthawkNZ]

So
Keep the existing ACC idea and run it properly.

ACC has 11b in the bank, bank 1b, and only 1.7b in claims... last year has a turn over of 4.5b

The problem is they want it to be 23billion to met future claims and be funnly funded for the future... They way I see it, it just going to take long how long I don't know...



Good place to start is cutting senior managment salaries and headcount.
Contain costs - pay only for accidents.
Control the suppliers. I am sick of seeing the sandwich board sign near me that advertises free acc acupuncture.

yup agreed


Spread the cost across all users.

That was the way it was suppose to be run and used... community based



Don't pay for injuries sustained during criminal activities. etc etc etc.

yup agreed again... patch em up and kick out the door to the paddy wagon



Its a scheme with good intent that has become a public trough to be funded by motorcyclists????

can't answer that just that, thats what it appears to be... :wacko:

[Winston001]

Lets be accurate about where matters stand. To get support from ACT and the Maori Party to introduce the current ACC legislation, National has agreed to discussion of competition at the Select Committe stage. This is where the real work of Parliament is done and laws are fine-tuned - or sometimes even abandoned.

The proposal is to allow insurance companies to compete for workers compensation. There won't be any sale of ACC.

Personally I'm opposed to bringing in insurance companies but we are a long way from that place yet.

[NighthawkNZ]

Personally I'm opposed to bringing in insurance companies but we are a long way from that place yet.

they tried in 98 - 00 and failed... ;)

[Stan]

Personally I'm opposed to bringing in insurance companies but we are a long way from that place yet.

Don't be too sure. I know the submissions don't close until November 10 but I'll bet this deal is done and dusted. National and ACT have sewn this up and the insurance industry are gonna party.

[GOONR]

Don't be too sure. I know the submissions don't close until November 10 but I'll bet this deal is done and dusted. National and ACT have sewn this up and the insurance industry are gonna party.

Yup, insurance companies have been waiting for this to come round, they have had plans in place for quite a while now. I reckon they have been leaning on people to get this on the go.

[scissorhands]

If I never paid any insurance I'd be much better off right now.

I bet a whole lot of people could say that

[slowpoke]

Hay this is pretty simple. If you think an insurance company is going to make squillions out of running accident cover - then buy shares in them, and enjoy getting a great dividend.


You'd have to have a large sum invested to recover the extra $$$ it's going to cost. You'd need a few grand invested to recieve a dividend large enough to cover an increase of just $100. Your solution simply isn't feasable for the average person let alone family.


Yup, insurance companies have been waiting for this to come round, they have had plans in place for quite a while now. I reckon they have been leaning on people to get this on the go.

Exactly, insurance companies aren't sitting back and waiting for anything, they are driving it. It's just another market to exploit.

To my mind most of a governemnts role is to supply and manage essential services: police/justice, health, defense etc. For people to have to make basic decisions regarding their level of basic health care based on wealth doesn't sit well with me.

If they can do this with health care why not the police? Crime insurance or pay as you go perhaps: "Yes ma'am we are more than happy to send a unit to your alleged assault, will you be using Visa or Mastercard?"

The supposed premise that private industry is more cost effective than a public service is just a crock. Why would anyone want to sell a concern that cost X dollars to run and then turn around and pay X dollars plus profit for exactly the same service. Needless to say a private company's KPI can only ever be the bottom line whereas a public/government service can be measured by the quality of service it brings because the shareholders are basically the people using the service. And it's not like the private companies are going to be NZ owned so we are simply making overseas people more wealthy at our expense.

But there is no ex-politician in a pay-back cushy job being paid to whisper in the right ears and fill party coffers working on Joe Public's behalf so no doubt the Key-stone Kops will opt for the option that works best for them. To do otherwise would deplete their campaign funds and negate any chance of ever scoring one of those pay-back cushy jobs themselves. And the grandest irony of all is that politicians are still called "public servants".......

[Winston001]

Exactly, insurance companies aren't sitting back and waiting for anything, they are driving it. It's just another market to exploit.

If they can do this with health care why not the police? Crime insurance or pay as you go perhaps: "Yes ma'am we are more than happy to send a unit to your alleged assault, will you be using Visa or Mastercard?"

The supposed premise that private industry is more cost effective than a public service is just a crock.

..... no doubt the Key-stone Kops will opt for the option that works best for them. To do otherwise would deplete their campaign funds and negate any chance of ever scoring one of those pay-back cushy jobs themselves.

Oh dear......conspiracy theory is alive and well. :doh:

I'm opposed to insurance companies competing with ACC which is a good - if flawed system. Having said that, it is an effective way to make ACC look to its mettle and aim at greater efficiencies.

As for public service being efficent, just ask anyone who wanted a phone connected before Telecom was sold. :jerry:

[MacD]

A private company is interesting in minimising costs to maximise profit.

ACC has no motive to minimise costs. Just look at the massive administrative cost they have!

A private company is interested in maximising return to shareholders, administrative costs are only part of the equation.

ACC is more cost efficient than systems in place in similar countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK.

Read the 2008 PriceWaterhouseCoopers report attached to my post in another thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129475352&postcount=15).

[p.dath]

A private company is interested in maximising return to shareholders, administrative costs are only part of the equation.

ACC is more cost efficient than systems in place in similar countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK.

Read the 2008 PriceWaterhouseCoopers report attached to my post in another thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129475352&postcount=15).

PCW have a vested interested. I wouldn't trust them.

I guess it depends on a one cost, one solution fits all model. I'd prefer to have the option of having more/less cover, and for my risk (and not everyone elses) to be reflected in those costs.

[Naki Rat]

ACC has 11b in the bank, bank 1b, and only 1.7b in claims... last year has a turn over of 4.5b

The problem is they want it to be 23billion to met future claims and be funnly funded for the future... They way I see it, it just going to take long how long I don't know...



True, ACC has a substantial chest of investments that has survived the fallout from the recession better than most. The government is financially strapped ("borrowing $23 million/week") and would very much like access to that investment piggybank.

So, if they can engineer the privatisation of ACC and open it up to competition that will see many 'clients' jumping ship to sign up with other insurers. Those past clients will take their 'past history' with them potentially freeing ACC from all those future claims linked to pre-existing conditions, medical treatment claims and long term disabilities.

What are the chances of a new insurer entertaining a claim on the upgrading of a bolted/plated bone or long term emerging complications on a workplace substance exposure case? A large part of that responsibilty would probably end up dropped in the lap of our already struggling (stuffed?) public health system :thud:

Now unburdened from the previous mountain of 'future expenses' on present claims the ACC will then not require a substantial portion of their investment holding, so who better to raid the treasure chest than the government. It's nothing new.

We all know that the consolidated fund is milked dry in order to pay the welfare bill. FFS if the fuel taxes were used to build/upgrade roads we would have a highway network that would have most of us considering Harleys :eek5:

Kind of all makes sense doesn't it ? And we are but collateral damage in the greater scheme of things :bash::crybaby: But only if we let it happen :blank::blank::blank::blank::blank: See y'all on the 17th :scooter: