ACC ACCidentally discloses intention to become an insurance company

[FastBikeGear]

For those whos still have any doubt that ACC is moving towards a standard insurance company risk/premium model...

In this Fridays Computerworld there was an article titled "ACC shift gear with major IT investment" Nov 9th 2009.

It has some interesting quotes fro ACC and if you are in any doubt that the ACC is becoming an insurance company you should read it. As an insurance company it is likely that it will charge premiums (levies) commensurate with the risk. This could mean that not only road cyclists but also moutain bikers could be paying insurance premiums to the ACC.

The following is a copy of the article.


"ACC shift gear with major IT investment"

Facing the prospect of private sector competition the Accident Compensation Corporation is gearing up its technology to deliver more flexible services and to work in a “more businesslike manner".

The corporation is planning to invest in what it calls an “integrated insurance solution” in what some sources say will require a multi-million dollar transformation project.

“ACC is seeking technology solution to replace legacy systems that are no longer fit for purpose and which have had minimal investment for at least eight years,” the ACC 's Diane Bradley, who is responsible for the project told Computerworld.

The system will also allow ACC to meet the requirements of the Bill currently before parliament, to provide experience rating – no claim bonuses – and other risk sharing among other functions, she says.

Bradley says it will also allow ACC to connect some of its existing but isolated technology solutions.

“For example the systems that handles claims is separate from the system that calculates levies. The new offering will allow us to bridge that gap,” she says.

The system will also enable a higher level of levy payer self-service and deliver greater efficiencies, better data and better customer service, she says.

A tender document released last week fleshes that out and also reveals significant back-end architecture changes to support the new system.

The documents says ACC seeks technology that supports standard insurance policy administration, customer relationship management, product management and new management functions.

The requirement includes modules for sales management and quoting, and underwriting.

The project is to be introduced in phases over three years.

Currently, core systems are provided by Sun, Oracle,and IBM. Microsoft provides the office software.

Over the past few years,ACC has been implementing and upgrading a claims management system from Irish company Fineos. The new software will have to integrate with EOS, the Fineos claims system.

The RFP says that ACC is seeking to reduce the numbers of servers by 70 percent through virtualisation and consolidation.

It notes that the application server for its integrated premium system is unsupported and that the database is due to be unsupported next month.

Also, the Java code has been superseded.

“Significant investment will be required” ACC says.

Several other major functions are said to be out of scope.

Insurance industry sources say private insurers have dusted off their competitive proposals from the late 1990s when the market was briefly opened up to competition.

ACC posted a loss of $4.8 billion in its most recent financial year. The government subsequently introduced a Bill to raise levies and cut some entitlements amidst a debate about whether ACC was and insurance company at all and whether it should have a to fully fund its future liabilities

[James Deuce]

Umm, they've been signing all correspondence with "ACC Insurance" for a couple of weeks as well.

No need for geeks to go Java on anyone's arse to come to that conclusion.

I take issue with the last couple of paragraphs. NZ Insurance companies were unable to make a competitive response last time, so they'd have little to "dust off" this time.

ACC didn't lose 4.8 billion either. They made 1 billion. They didn't make the 6 billion they were expecting.

[FastBikeGear]

Umm, they've been signing all correspondence with "ACC Insurance" for a couple of weeks as well.
.

I don't believe you.

[James Deuce]

Chesire Cat posted a copy of a letter he received from ACC signed "Blah, ACC Insurance."

The document has been forwarded to opposition parties.

[FastBikeGear]

Chesire Cat posted a copy of a letter he received from ACC signed "Blah, ACC Insurance."

The document has been forwarded to opposition parties.

James I have done a search for this letter but my searching skills arn't very good. If you or any one else has a link to it, it would be much appreciated.

[GOONR]

James I have done a search for this letter but my searching skills arn't very good. If you or any one else has a link to it, it would be much appreciated.

linky here. (http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/1710AAA4335A0152CC257668006E2559)

[SPman]

All part of the exercise to destroy public health and Social Welfare systems and slide in an insurance based health system that enriches nobody except the insurance companies! 30% profits anyone???

The ultimate object, to turn the system into a mini-american nightmare!

Cunts!

[Pedrostt500]

Well I geuss we will get our right to Sue back sooner than latter.

[PrincessBandit]

I just received my confirmation letter today that my surgery will be covered by ACC; letter was dated 5th November and there was no signing including the word "Insurance" anywhere. The letter was still headed with Accident Compensation Corporation.

[NighthawkNZ]

I don't believe you.

I have noticed that as well and just got the reply from my submission


Keith McLea
General Manager, ACC Insurance

[caseye]

Here ya go BELIEVE IT NOW!

2010/11 ACC Levy Consultation



Thank you for taking the time to let us know what you think of the proposed 2010/11 levy rates.



We have received your submission and it will be considered by the ACC Board as part of our process for preparing recommendations to the Government. These recommendations will be published in all major newspapers during November 2009 and on our website, at www.acc.co.nz/consultation. We will also contact you at this time to let you know what the recommendations are.



It is anticipated that the final decisions on levy rates will be made by the Government in December 2009. In making these decisions, the Government may choose to accept, reject or modify ACC’s recommendations.



If you have any further queries please email us at consultation@acc.co.nz or contact us on 0800 ACC RATES (0800 222 7283).





Yours sincerely







Keith McLea

General Manager, ACC Insurance

[NighthawkNZ]

Keith McLea

General Manager, ACC Insurance


Looks vaguallly fimilar :innocent:

[PrincessBandit]

Yep caseye, just went back and looked at the automated reply to my submission and it sure does say ACC Insurance. Just goes to show you have to read stuff right to the end - that's where they stick the things they want to sneak past you!

[taff1954]

Had the same letter, so I emailed complaints@acc.co.nz to ask for an explanation of that tag line. It goes without saying, no reply as yet.

[FastBikeGear]

Umm, they've been signing all correspondence with "ACC Insurance" for a couple of weeks as well.


James I take it back. It seem you were absolutely correct. I am gob smacked at their audacity. I have forwarded this on to a friendly reporter at the Dom post he is going to pass it on to the journalists who are covering the ACC story.

[caseye]

I hope they are still able, unattached. apolitical , reporter/s Cause in this day and age most of them are paid by the Pollies one way or the other.
This stinks worse than a bloated cow in a river@#$%^.
Thanks taff1954 for that addy, now I'm also going to complain re my submission being acknowledged by some as yet unheard of non entity??? called "ACC Insurance"

[FastBikeGear]

I hope they are still able, unattached. apolitical , reporter/s Cause in this day and age most of them are paid by the Pollies one way or the other."

In this case I am confident that the reporter who is passing it along is an excellent and impartial reporter. I am staying with him when I am in Wellington. However despite what we may think my sense in talking to him tonight is that we don't register as one of the key news story. Rodney Hide, etc are much more of interest.

I believe the Dominion does not have a reporter assigned specifically to this story.

[Conquiztador]

In this case I am confident that the reporter who is passing it along is an excellent and impartial reporter. I am staying with him when I am in Wellington. However despite what we may think my sense in talking to him tonight is that we don't register as one of the key news story. Rodney Hide, etc are much more of interest.

I believe the Dominion does not have a reporter assigned specifically to this story.

If one was to try to get the focus away from this ACC privatisation it would be a good idea to create some kind of high profile distraction or two. Wonder what they will come up with...

[caseye]

Sent this to the ACC INSURANCE Complaints dept this evening.
Oh and a little more to the Herald.Same letter, just asked em if they'd known of the change of name and status of the ACC???






Please find below an acknowledgement of my submission to ACC re the intent to raise motorcycle ACC Levies.



I am writing to ask how it is that my submission to The Accident Compensation Corporation has been replied to by this abhoration called ACC Insurance
Mr Keith McLea I hope your joking when you so arrogantly add the word INSURANCE to the Otherwise known by it's legally recognised name , The ACC.
This brilliant piece of sneakery and down right underhandedness is exactly what those of us who have and will fight the proposed levy increases have come to expect from your Department, Oh sorry thats Insurance Company isn't it????
I am forwarding this email to every major political party and newspaper so that they can see what is going on here and that I am sincerely not happy about having my govt departments Privitised without any consultation or otherwise necessary law /l egislation changes.
A very distressed Motrocyclist,Home owner! father of 3 young people who will never vote for National or any other political party that hides it's acts from the public as long as I draw Breath.
Oh and of course I'm also a voter who's vote will only go to the party that responsibly restores ACC to it's originally intended , no fault policy.






2010/11 ACC Levy Consultation



Thank you for taking the time to let us know what you think of the proposed 2010/11 levy rates.



We have received your submission and it will be considered by the ACC Board as part of our process for preparing recommendations to the Government. These recommendations will be published in all major newspapers during November 2009 and on our website, at www.acc.co.nz/consultation. We will also contact you at this time to let you know what the recommendations are.



It is anticipated that the final decisions on levy rates will be made by the Government in December 2009. In making these decisions, the Government may choose to accept, reject or modify ACC’s recommendations.



If you have any further queries please email us at consultation@acc.co.nz or contact us on 0800 ACC RATES (0800 222 7283).





Yours sincerely







Keith McLea

General Manager, ACC Insurance

[StoneY]

Yes Caseye I have already forwarded a copy of that e-mail with ACC Insurance as a siggy to Labour, and on the 17th (of all dates) some VERY tricky questions will be raised in the Big House by none other than Phil Goff, and my mate Chris Hipkins


Utter bollocks, it was never an insurance company

Can see where the Nats were aiming at all along now, hope everyone who voted Aunty out remembers the day the shot themselves and the rest of us in the foot

Change just for the sake of it, we now pay the price

[taff1954]

Out of curiosity, if ACC IS rebranding to 'ACC Insurance', who's paying the cost of said rebranding, if ACCs' pockets are as empty as they claim them to be? On second thoughts, I'll ask them. Not that I expect a reply. Again.

[Jantar]

....

Can see where the Nats were aiming at all along now, hope everyone who voted Aunty out remembers the day the shot themselves and the rest of us in the foot....
Sorry, but I would have paid 3 times the price of the proposed ACC increase to get Heil Clarke out. However, if the ACC levies go through I'll work just as hard to get JK out as well.

[caseye]

Out of curiosity, if ACC IS rebranding to 'ACC Insurance', who's paying the cost of said rebranding, if ACCs' pockets are as empty as they claim them to be? On second thoughts, I'll ask them. Not that I expect a reply. Again.

Thats the way taff1954, do it , send em something , anything, the more they get the less they will like the idea of trying to shove something like this through again.

[SARGE]

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

[Ixion]

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


F'instance, the Insurance Companies Deposit Act 1953

S4


Amount of deposit



(1) A deposit of $500,000 shall be made with Public Trust by—


(a) Every company commencing after the 26th day of August 1974 to carry on in New Zealand any class of insurance business (whether or not that company was on that date carrying on in New Zealand any other class of insurance business)





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

[Ixion]

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

maybe so. but that's not what you're being offered. A true risk premium model would asses YOU as the risk. That's not about to happen. Instead you will pay more (no matter how low a risk you are), because you happen to ride a motorcycle. No no claims bonus etc. No right to say "Fuck you, if you're going to charge me that much I'm taking my business to the opposition"

A case CAN be made for an insurance model - it's used in a lot of places in the world.

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.

[SARGE]

maybe so. but that's not what you're being offered. A true risk premium model would asses YOU as the risk. That's not about to happen. Instead you will pay more (no matter how low a risk you are), because you happen to ride a motorcycle. No no claims bonus etc. No right to say "Fuck you, if you're going to charge me that much I'm taking my business to the opposition"

A case CAN be made for an insurance model - it's used in a lot of places in the world.

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.


ok.. try this one ..


potentially .. EVERYTHING we consume has the potential to harm or kill us .. correct?


3% ACC levy on EVERYTHING we purchase.. make GST an even 15%

[Ixion]

ok.. try this one ..


potentially .. EVERYTHING we consume has the potential to harm or kill us .. correct?


3% ACC levy on EVERYTHING we purchase.. make GST an even 15%

Actually that was pretty much Sir Owen's original concept. (Not GST, didn't have it then, but general taxation)

The levies on employers, and cars and such were lumbered into it by the Government, on a "we ahve to carry over the existing Workmens Compensation and compulsory vehicle third party charges" basis.

[caseye]

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

OK, if we assumed that a risk premium system could be established without the need for huge increases and inordinate first time fees, it might fly.
But here it is as we have it now.
ACC not with the INSURANCE tacked on the end.
Is not broke, it made a proft of 1 billion dollars paid to it's owners the NZ Govt.
Of course we know this because we have been told it is so by The Labour Party, The Progressive party,The Green party and some other parties.
They all say that while it is operating under it's original set up of income meeting expenditure and some , all is well with the system.
National are telling us Lies because they want to privatise it, simple as that.
Instead of doing that.
If they'd get on with their proposed changes to the entitlements.

Ie: no payouts to suiciders, whether they live or die, did anyone not know that if you succeed at suicide the ACC pay out a $5000.00 figure to your surviving family.

No payouts to anyone injured or killed while in the engagement of any form of illegal activity.

As far as I'm aware these are really the only two to be specifically targed.Except of course US!

I'd go further.

No payouts to any sports person who is injured while representing their club, province, country.If their clubs are not paying ACC Levies for them , then they bloody well should be.Let the damnd clubs take out Insurance if they like.

Remove ACC levies from all registrations.

Make each individuals drivers licence a record of their driving history, when renewed each class ie: driver/rider/operator is rewarded with less money owed rather than more if they have a clean licence(accident, demerit, notes by Police)
Conversely a driver with a bad record of crashes/incidents is charged more.

Put ACC specific fees on all forms of gasoline.diesel, methanol,bio fuels, again make them reasonable and graduated, so depending on what fuel is used it attracts more or less ACC fees.Also prevents us and any car enthuiasists having to pay ACC Levies on any and all of their prized possessions.


This gets us all and for the first time gets all those bloody boaties, pilots,and damnd home handyman,lawnmowing types! Go on Laugh, but think about it.
No ACC fees in registration, just fuel, cant go wrong, just like GST no one escapes and Users do Pay.

Last and by no means least, bicyclists who don't wear all the gear all of the time AOTGAOTT should not be paid out any ACC if they are involved in an acident, their fault or not, no gear no payout.

Thats my two cents worth and having written it again, I've refined it a bit must redo my submission and send it off.:scooter:

[Jantar]

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

1.
We have received your submission and it will be considered by the ACC Board as part of our process for preparing recommendations to the Government. These recommendations will be published in all major newspapers during November 2009 and on our website, at www.acc.co.nz/consultation. We will also contact you at this time to let you know what the recommendations are. With the number of submissions they have received, they would not have sufficient time to read and catalogue all submissions, let alone formulate any recommendations based on those submissions. This is strong evidence that the submission process is a sham.

2.
Keith McLea
General Manager, ACC Insurance I decided to google the two words ACC Insurance, and on the links brought up by google was this:

ACC Homepage New Zealand's accident compensation scheme provides 24-hour no-fault personal accident insurance cover.
But when I clicked on the link it took me to the ACC home page where the sentence had changed to this:
The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides comprehensive, no-fault personal injury cover for all New Zealand residents and visitors to New Zealand

There is no mention of insurance anywhere on the ACC home page.

[NighthawkNZ]

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. :rockon:


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. :rockon:


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. :rockon:


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 :shutup:

[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

[mashman]

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

:rockon:

I thought that's what the Darwin Awards were for!!! but was thinking the exact same thing...

[GOONR]

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

1. With the number of submissions they have received, they would not have sufficient time to read and catalogue all submissions, let alone formulate any recommendations based on those submissions. This is strong evidence that the submission process is a sham.

2. I decided to google the two words ACC Insurance, and on the links brought up by google was this:

But when I clicked on the link it took me to the ACC home page where the sentence had changed to this:

There is no mention of insurance anywhere on the ACC home page.

If you right click on the ACC home page and view the source you get...

META NAME="DESCRIPTION" CONTENT="New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme provides 24-hour no-fault personal accident insurance cover."

[Bald Eagle]

If you right click on the ACC home page and view the source you get...

META NAME="DESCRIPTION" CONTENT="New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme provides 24-hour no-fault personal accident insurance cover."

Yeah love the 'no fault' in that statement.

[Winston001]

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.

Oh alright, I'll bite. :D

The fully funded ACC model was adopted nearly 10 years ago. Yes it was a big change from levy-and-pay-as-you-go. Yes it fits insurance models more closely because the scheme now aims to have enough money to pay existing claims into the distant future.

The reason is the number of working people to pay for all of this is shrinking as a proportion of the total population. If we don't build up a resource now, our kids are going to say "Sod this" and cut ACC off in 20 years.

We have done exactly the same with the Cullen Fund and Kiwisaver which could equally be called Pension Insurance. All of this seems prudent forward thinking.



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



Yes. In the United States workers have Unemployment Insurance. This pays them a reduced wage for a defined period. When it runs out, they go onto Welfare which is lower and taxpayer funded.

[FastBikeGear]

If you right click on the ACC home page and view the source you get...

META NAME="DESCRIPTION" CONTENT="New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme provides 24-hour no-fault personal accident insurancecover."

I rang ACC on their comlaints line todya (0800 650 2220 To query why Keith McLea ihas signed an email addressed to me, Keith McLea, General Manager, ACC Insurance.

At first it was evident that neither the help desk or the complaints desk had ever heard of ACC Insurance.

After a short wait on hold, I was told that this is his official title in their internal directory and that he is the General Manager of their Inusrance Department.

The two staff I spoke to were suprised to discover that they now have an insurance department. I asked what the Insurance Department did and they had no idea.

I asked what insurance they provide, Can I get a quote for their premiums, etc and they weren't aware that they provided any insurance.

I sugested to them that if you sign yourself off as ACC Inurance you would expect that you would be providing Insurance or are intending to otherwise it is misleading.

I also suggested that if ACC Insurance is just a department Why doesn't he sign off Keith McLea, General Manager, ACC Insurance Dept, ACC?

The complaints staff seemed somewhat puzzled and concerned that ACC now has an Insurance Department. It was evidently news to them.

They have put in a request for me to get a written response to my questions. I think they are also interested in the answer.

[James Deuce]

Oh alright, I'll bite. :D

The fully funded ACC model was adopted nearly 10 years ago. Yes it was a big change from levy-and-pay-as-you-go. Yes it fits insurance models more closely because the scheme now aims to have enough money to pay existing claims into the distant future.

The reason is the number of working people to pay for all of this is shrinking as a proportion of the total population. If we don't build up a resource now, our kids are going to say "Sod this" and cut ACC off in 20 years.

We have done exactly the same with the Cullen Fund and Kiwisaver which could equally be called Pension Insurance. All of this seems prudent forward thinking.



Yes. In the United States workers have Unemployment Insurance. This pays them a reduced wage for a defined period. When it runs out, they go onto Welfare which is lower and taxpayer funded.

The average US citizen does not have the tax burden that the average Kiwi does. Income Tax will not reduce when ACC goes. You can bite as much as you want - instant change to a fully funded model for a minority section of the NZ public breaks the covenant established with the NZ public when we lost the right to sue in exchange for a compensation model. Even when ACC goes, I don't see the right to sue being re-established meaningfully for the "average" person. The Justice system is overwhelmed right now without adding that burden.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I can't afford to pay for any more insurance, and I certainly can't afford the legal battle and most of time involved in establishing blame and compensation from the party causing the problem.

The fully funded model was adopted 10 years ago and levies were set and maintained that would have the scheme fully funded by 2020 without establishing an onerous burden on the population. In fact I think Labour may have even brought that back to 2019. They didn't at any point try to extract more ACC money from one section of public, and if I remember correctly the ACC levy for motorcycles went down under Labour.

You seem to have this attitude that it's OK for the privileged to have the lfe style they want, but the rest of the drones who weren't good enough to get themselves a decent earner should just go to and from work and sut up and eat their gruel.

I'm not going ot get to retire and now you want me to reduce my standard of living as a reward?

I've just been looking at moving overseas, investigating jobs in Europe, the US, Australia, and the middle east. I forgot that having a disabled child means that option isn't avaialble, so I can't evebn fuck off to somewhere that I have a reasonable chance of maintaining my current lifestyle.

Yes, I'm bitter. I have vastly more at stake than you. I'm trapped, and all I can see is lifelong debt, and a rapidly diminishing quality of life. My bills go up, the tax take goes up, publicly funded service delivery reducing in quality and quantity every year, and inflation and recession ensure that wages for my particular job are trending down while I have to compete with ever younger job entrants with worthless qualifications and no work ethic. Public schooling for my disabled child gets further out of reach and because we are legally bound to provide an education my highly qualified, highly experienced wife can't go back to work because we'll be home schooling.

And someone wants to make sure that I can't even afford the free positive attitude adjustment of travelling to and from work by motorcycle every day.

The Lassez Faire, 'Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of NZ's politicians and Business "leaders" toward people like me is going to earn them the eventual negative attitude adjustment they deserve.

[Winston001]

You can bite as much as you want - instant change to a fully funded model for a minority section of the NZ public breaks the covenant established with the NZ public when we lost the right to sue in exchange for a compensation model.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I can't afford to pay for any more insurance, and I certainly can't afford the legal battle and most of time involved in establishing blame and compensation from the party causing the problem.

You seem to have this attitude that it's OK for the privileged to have the lfe style they want, but the rest of the drones who weren't good enough to get themselves a decent earner should just go to and from work and sut up and eat their gruel.

I've just been looking at moving overseas, investigating jobs in Europe, the US, Australia, and the middle east. I forgot that having a disabled child means that option isn't avaialble, so I can't even fuck off to somewhere that I have a reasonable chance of maintaining my current lifestyle.

Yes, I'm bitter. I have vastly more at stake than you. I'm trapped, and all I can see is lifelong debt, and a rapidly diminishing quality of life......

And someone wants to make sure that I can't even afford the free positive attitude adjustment of travelling to and from work by motorcycle every day.


Well said Jim. I apologise for giving you the impression that I don't care. Essentially its my nature to argue in opposition to accepted positions. If our discussion was pro-ACC I'd be arguing against it - to make people think and consider other points of view.

I'm very suspicious of the ACC data and very unhappy with the huge increase in ACC registration on motorcycles. ACC is a good system. I don't understand why NZ stands alone in the world. The Scandinavian countries were considering a similar scheme but I don't know how far that has gone.

You have my deepest respect coping with a disabled child and the thought of having one refreshing aspect of your life - motorcycling - put out of reach, seems just wrong.

[NighthawkNZ]

I'm not going ot get to retire and now you want me to reduce my standard of living as a reward?

...

Yes, I'm bitter. I have vastly more at stake than you. I'm trapped, and all I can see is lifelong debt, and a rapidly diminishing quality of life. My bills go up, the tax take goes up, publicly funded service delivery reducing in quality and quantity every year, and inflation and recession ensure that wages for my particular job are trending down while I have to compete with ever younger job entrants with worthless qualifications and no work ethic. Public schooling for my disabled child gets further out of reach and because we are legally bound to provide an education my highly qualified, highly experienced wife can't go back to work because we'll be home schooling.

And someone wants to make sure that I can't even afford the free positive attitude adjustment of travelling to and from work by motorcycle every day.

The Lassez Faire, 'Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of NZ's politicians and Business "leaders" toward people like me is going to earn them the eventual negative attitude adjustment they deserve.

well said... and with you 120%

[Grahameeboy]

All part of the exercise to destroy public health and Social Welfare systems and slide in an insurance based health system that enriches nobody except the insurance companies! 30% profits anyone???

The ultimate object, to turn the system into a mini-american nightmare!

Cunts!

Positive thoughts..I think it could be a great idea...and it will still be an Accident system as Health is already covered under Min. of Health

[Grahameeboy]

The average US citizen does not have the tax burden that the average Kiwi does. Income Tax will not reduce when ACC goes. You can bite as much as you want - instant change to a fully funded model for a minority section of the NZ public breaks the covenant established with the NZ public when we lost the right to sue in exchange for a compensation model. Even when ACC goes, I don't see the right to sue being re-established meaningfully for the "average" person. The Justice system is overwhelmed right now without adding that burden.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I can't afford to pay for any more insurance, and I certainly can't afford the legal battle and most of time involved in establishing blame and compensation from the party causing the problem.

The fully funded model was adopted 10 years ago and levies were set and maintained that would have the scheme fully funded by 2020 without establishing an onerous burden on the population. In fact I think Labour may have even brought that back to 2019. They didn't at any point try to extract more ACC money from one section of public, and if I remember correctly the ACC levy for motorcycles went down under Labour.

You seem to have this attitude that it's OK for the privileged to have the lfe style they want, but the rest of the drones who weren't good enough to get themselves a decent earner should just go to and from work and sut up and eat their gruel.

I'm not going ot get to retire and now you want me to reduce my standard of living as a reward?

I've just been looking at moving overseas, investigating jobs in Europe, the US, Australia, and the middle east. I forgot that having a disabled child means that option isn't avaialble, so I can't evebn fuck off to somewhere that I have a reasonable chance of maintaining my current lifestyle.

Yes, I'm bitter. I have vastly more at stake than you. I'm trapped, and all I can see is lifelong debt, and a rapidly diminishing quality of life. My bills go up, the tax take goes up, publicly funded service delivery reducing in quality and quantity every year, and inflation and recession ensure that wages for my particular job are trending down while I have to compete with ever younger job entrants with worthless qualifications and no work ethic. Public schooling for my disabled child gets further out of reach and because we are legally bound to provide an education my highly qualified, highly experienced wife can't go back to work because we'll be home schooling.

And someone wants to make sure that I can't even afford the free positive attitude adjustment of travelling to and from work by motorcycle every day.

The Lassez Faire, 'Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of NZ's politicians and Business "leaders" toward people like me is going to earn them the eventual negative attitude adjustment they deserve.

Jim..where does it mention the establishment of liability?

I think that ACC needs a shake up....it needs to be run better to secure it for the future of NZ....at this stage there are just ideas being banded about...

Why does change scare so many when it is the only constant...

[kevie]

Chesire Cat posted a copy of a letter he received from ACC signed "Blah, ACC Insurance."

The document has been forwarded to opposition parties.

And I ave emailed Manawatu Evening Standard, Solid Gold FM and Campbell Live with this info too .... wonder if they will tell it how it is or bow down to the power of the government to mute them.

[twotyred]

In this case I am confident that the reporter who is passing it along is an excellent and impartial reporter. I am staying with him when I am in Wellington. However despite what we may think my sense in talking to him tonight is that we don't register as one of the key news story. Rodney Hide, etc are much more of interest.

I believe the Dominion does not have a reporter assigned specifically to this story.

I'm sure he is but,at the end of the day it is his wholly owned editor that has the final say what runs...

[taff1954]

Out of curiosity, if ACC IS rebranding to 'ACC Insurance', who's paying the cost of said rebranding, if ACCs' pockets are as empty as they claim them to be? On second thoughts, I'll ask them. Not that I expect a reply. Again.

OK, so I did email and ask, this was the reply. Note the reference to the 'internal ACC Insurance group, and the comment re the usage of the word insurance:

"Thankyou for your email below. My apologies that I have not been able to respond as quickly as I hoped.

I have had the opportunity to gather the following information for you and I hope it does clarify things for you.

Insurance is defined as an arrangement for compensation in the event of damage to, or loss of (property, life or a person) in exchange for a payment.



ACC is the Crown entity set up to deliver New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme through the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation (IPRC) Act 2001.



Within ACC, the group named “ACC Insurance” undertakes activities that are “insurance related activities”. Such activities include determining and making recommendations (to the ACC Board) on the levies to be charged for each account, underwriting activities to ensure each levy product or service is financially sustainable and collecting levies, either directly or indirectly from ACC levy customers.



While we appreciate this may be a different use of the term “insurance” than is generally understood, it does best describe and provide direction for the internal ACC Insurance Group."

Signed by Diane Paton, Customer Support Coordinator.

(Edit) No mention of whether this is a rebranding or not, and if so who's paying for it - my original questions to them.

[FastBikeGear]

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



James can you clarify was this a $700 million dollar dividend to the government or a $700 million paid in tax?

[FastBikeGear]

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

Even if you are unempoyed you will still need to pay an ACC premium if you want personal injury cover and it will still be compulsory. Can't get blood out of a stone you say. No but you can deduct it directly from your unemployment allowance.

[James Deuce]

James can you clarify was this a $700 million dollar dividend to the government or a $700 million paid in tax? I guess you could call a levy a kind of tax.

[FastBikeGear]

I guess you could call a levy a kind of tax.

No.

Some of the levy goes into the ACC motor fund.

I assume the ACC pays income tax and I am trying to clarify if the 700 million was income tax or a dividend.

[Winston001]

James can you clarify was this a $700 million dollar dividend to the government or a $700 million paid in tax?

The ACC investment fund made a profit and $700 million was the tax on that profit. The Cullen Fund paid tax and also the Reserve Bank. I know it seems weird to have government agencies and SOEs paying tax but the result is they are placed on a level playing field with private businesses.

Additionally SOEs pay dividends to the government but I don't think ACC is in this category.


Even if you are unemployed you will still need to pay an ACC premium if you want personal injury cover and it will still be compulsory. Can't get blood out of a stone you say. No but you can deduct it directly from your unemployment allowance.

Cover is already provided for in tax on the benefit - no reduction involved. No loss-of-income payment of course if you don't have a job but that is logical. Otherwise a canny unemployed person would be looking for "accidents" all of the time. :D

[FastBikeGear]

The ACC investment fund made a profit and $700 million was the tax on that profit. The Cullen Fund paid tax and also the Reserve Bank. I know it seems weird to have government agencies and SOEs paying tax but the result is they are placed on a level playing field with private businesses.

Additionally SOEs pay dividends to the government but I don't think ACC is in this category.



Cover is already provided for in tax on the benefit - no reduction involved. No loss-of-income payment of course if you don't have a job but that is logical. Otherwise a canny unemployed person would be looking for "accidents" all of the time. :D

Winston, thanks for the clarification on the $700 million.

It seems that you are suggesting under the new privatised personal injury insurance scheme that we are discussing in this thread that if you are on the dole that your motorvehicle ACC levy could be paid to the insurance company from the tax on your dole?

[Winston001]

Winston, thanks for the clarification on the $700 million.

It seems that you are suggesting under the new privatised personal injury insurance scheme that we are discussing in this thread that if you are on the dole that your motorvehicle ACC levy could be paid to the insurance company from the tax on your dole?

Ah - I don't believe there is or will be a privatised personal injury scheme. For one thing the coalition government would not have the support to pass the required legislation.

However we can expect to see work compensation cover being offered by insurance companies in competition with ACC. It happened in 1998 and society as we know it did not end. There was no right to sue. Nevertheless I'm opposed to this because its unnecessary.

An unemployed person who drives a motorvehicle relies on the owner to pay the registration. Regardless, that unemployed person is covered by ACC from the motorvehicle account. Just as they are covered by general taxation for childbirth, appendictus etc.

Outside the workers account and the motorvehicle account, we all contribute 0.5c/$ in tax to ACC to cover sports/household etc injuries.

[FastBikeGear]

Ah - I don't believe there is or will be a privatised personal injury scheme. For one thing the coalition government would not have the support to pass the required legislation.

However we can expect to see work compensation cover being offered by insurance companies in competition with ACC. It happened in 1998 and society as we know it did not end.


Winston I think you are right privatisation is a done deal on work compensation.

However I am not so sure you are right about your first prediction. They have already got rid of the core principal of ACC 'no-fault cover' and i think very few people would have thought they would get support for that!

From the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill 90-1 (2009), Government Bill

"Enable risk rating in Motor Vehicle Account for both vehicles and vehicle owners

The Bill will allow regulations to be made for risk rating in relation to Motor Vehicle Account levy rates. Risk rating regulations for motor vehicles, registered owners of motor vehicles, and persons who hold trade licences under section 34(1) of the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986 will link safety behaviour to levy payments, for example potentially offering no-claims bonuses for vehicle owners, or allowing discounts for vehicles with high safety ratings. These categories are consistent with section 216 of the IPRC Act."


So why is this clause critical?

Motorcycle levies make up 0.3% (12.5 million out of 4.3 Billion) of total revenue for the ACC.

So why focus on this?

Why the urgency to become fully funded?

What could be the possible strategy that requires risk based levies and fully funding?

To open the way for privatisation or to triple the revenue from 0.3% to 0.9% of their revenue?

[Winston001]

However I am not so sure you are right about your first prediction. They have already got rid of the core principal of ACC 'no-fault cover' and i think very few people would have thought they would get support for that!

From the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill 90-1 (2009), Government Bill

"Enable risk rating in Motor Vehicle Account for both vehicles and vehicle owners

The Bill will allow regulations to be made for risk rating in relation to Motor Vehicle Account levy rates.......


So why is this clause critical?

Motorcycle levies make up 0.3% (12.5 million out of 4.3 Billion) of total revenue for the ACC.

So why focus on this?

Why the urgency to become fully funded?

What could be the possible strategy that requires risk based levies and fully funding?

To open the way for privatisation or to triple the revenue from 0.3% to 0.9% of their revenue?

Nicely argued and that is a good question. I'll suggest some answers which you needn't accept.

1. Fully funding ACC has been government policy for 10 years. Its not a new idea. The reason is the longterm cost of ACC is projected to be too high for a shrinking taxpayer base. Same problem incidentally with old age pensions which is why we have the Cullen Fund and Kiwisaver.

2. No fault does not equal no risk. People in high risk jobs pay much higher ACC levies than office workers and always have.

3. Why pick on motorcycles? It's easy. Logically skateboarders, cyclists, rugby players ad infinitum should also be levied but there is no simple way to do it. Vehicle registration makes us easy pickings. And we do get hurt a lot........

Incidentally truckies also face a $250 ACC increase and we are being a bit selfish forgetting that. Bikers aren't the only ones in the pot.

[FastBikeGear]

Nicely argued and that is a good question. I'll suggest some answers which you needn't accept.

1. Fully funding ACC has been government policy for 10 years. Its not a new idea. The reason is the longterm cost of ACC is projected to be too high for a shrinking taxpayer base. Same problem incidentally with old age pensions which is why we have the Cullen Fund and Kiwisaver.

2. No fault does not equal no risk. People in high risk jobs pay much higher ACC levies than office workers and always have.

3. Why pick on motorcycles? It's easy. Logically skateboarders, cyclists, rugby players ad infinitum should also be levied but there is no simple way to do it. Vehicle registration makes us easy pickings. And we do get hurt a lot........

Incidentally truckies also face a $250 ACC increase and we are being a bit selfish forgetting that. Bikers aren't the only ones in the pot.

I have to return the compliment and say nicely put. Unfortunatey I also own a truck!

I think many people have over looked the point you make that 'no fault' can be interpreted as not meaning the same as 'no risk'.

[Hawk]

read the first sentence, did you notice anything.............................

http://www.google.co.nz/#hl=en&q=acc&meta=&aq=f&oq=acc&fp=68533f3836616102

[R6_kid]

funny how it somewhat contradicts the leading sentence on the actual page:

"The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides comprehensive, no-fault personal injury cover for all New Zealand residents and visitors to New Zealand."

It's meant to be an Accident Compensation Corporation, not an insurance company.

[Slyer]

<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3429" name="GENERATOR" />
<META NAME="KEYWORDS" CONTENT="ACC, Accident, New Zealand, No-Fault, Injury, Prevention, Rehabilitation, Injury Prevention, Compensation, Care, Recovery, Community">
<META NAME="DESCRIPTION" CONTENT="New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme provides 24-hour no-fault personal accident insurance cover.">
They put that there in the source, not google. ;)