National opens ACC to private sector [Archive]

phill-k

21st December 2010, 15:20

Please note this was a sarcastic post for those that think I actually agree with it.

One of the best moves the Key Government has done so far - if you are big business and thus have the ability and more importantly the leverage to negotiate a premium that reflects your size rather than the risk, if you are at the other end of the tree small one man band or some such you will as we all did last time pay more for your workplace cover.

I think this is known as a level playing field.

So that's two great measures down to Key the national cycle track and the beginnings of the dismantling of our no fault compensation scheme.
Oh that's right the national cycleway that promised 4000 new jobs has become the bits of a national cycleway and the jobs won't be there if at all until 2015, an absolute ripper of a job fest that was. So many new jobs created so many happy kiwis.

Bring back the right to take legal proceedings and then I'd be happy.

Str8 Jacket

21st December 2010, 15:22

Those of us that can't get health insurance are fucked.

oldrider

21st December 2010, 15:23

Repost!!!! ;)

I don't mind! (the repost that is!)

But hey, :psst: Repeat the truth often enough and the politicians will pronounce it to be a lie! :facepalm:

Magua

21st December 2010, 15:33

Opening a no-fault universal compensation scheme (in theory only?) to competition from insurance companies, gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Hitcher

21st December 2010, 15:35

spookytooth

21st December 2010, 15:37

StoneY

21st December 2010, 15:40

Repost!!!! ;)

Yep, someone beat me to it but hey...thats what happens when ya have a job LOL

Str8 Jacket

21st December 2010, 15:41

Yep, someone beat me to it but hey...thats what happens when ya have a job LOL

Hey, I have a job and finished 2 hours ago....! :p

StoneY

21st December 2010, 15:47

ACC has been partially privatised before. I remember it well and fondly when I was self-employed in the 1990s. My "ACC levies" were considerably lower prior to a Labour gummint nationalising everything again.

My mate who's on here as The_Dude was one of the chaps that assisted companies to sort out the private/ACC partnerships etc
He says it was a total disaster - he made a lot of money for about 6 months and then it all went to the compost heap due to all the loopholes the private sector could hide behind

I was a prime example myself as to why it was so difficult to work

When I was assessed for my role as a Sky TV Contractor (in Auckland at the time) and the private insurance company refused to cover:
My Spine (upper and lower)
My Left Arm
My Right Arm
My Right Leg

And after these 'noted exclusions' were lodged on the policy they still expected a whopping $1600 per annum in premium because I worked on roofs at times............

Loophole then was;
ACC still covered you where the insurance company made exclusions based on medical history
I just refused to go private andstayed purely with ACC anyway...after all at least they covered anything that had been hurt before..........(then anyway)

firefighter

21st December 2010, 16:05

When I was assessed for my role as a Sky TV Contractor (in Auckland at the time) and the private insurance company refused to cover:
My Spine (upper and lower)
My Left Arm
My Right Arm
My Right Leg

And after these 'noted exclusions' were lodged on the policy they still expected a whopping $1600 per annum in premium because I worked on roofs at times..........

Fuck, imagine what they'll say to me?! :gob:

phill-k

21st December 2010, 16:06

Actually mite have a chance of getting a claim accepted too

Don't count on it the private insurers are in it for the bottom line - claims interfere with the bottom line.

Personal experience - Builder mate takes additional cover to cover his business costs should he have an accident or illness.

He steps off a plank and lands very heavily, ACC accept his claim and pay him his due the insurance company who had taken his money for nearly 20 yrs refused the claim as he had on the odd occasion had physio treatments as a tuneup to keep him working, paid for himself, for just generalised aches and pains, and had not bothered to note this on the renewals, when he challenged it the process to force them to pay, lawyers ect ect was just to much for him and he just gave up on it, returned to work after three months and covered the loss / costs himself..

MSTRS

21st December 2010, 16:28

Yes, this happened before. Yes, ACC quite possibly lost a lot of money. Yes, Labour reversed the changes and re-instated ACC.
Will they do it again next time they take power? Who knows.
But National's absolute determination to privatise will not change, and will eventually lead to the total demise of ACC.

Pussy

21st December 2010, 16:32

Ocean1

21st December 2010, 17:59

ACC has been partially privatised before. I remember it well and fondly when I was self-employed in the 1990s. My "ACC levies" were considerably lower prior to a Labour gummint nationalising everything again.

Ah, well, y'see we couldn't have self employed persons and small business owners paying merely reasonable levies, just not right.

I'm sick of it. The shape of the whole tax revenue structure mirrors pretty much exactly the ability to pay. Any pretense otherwise is insulting.

They figure any attempt to mitigate tax liability is effectivel cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. But I'm very close to ceasing work altogether until I can formulate a workable strategy to save for my dotage, as it is it's very nearly impossible to do legally.

mashman

21st December 2010, 18:10

:facepalm:

"This policy of choice is the best way to put pressure on ACC to provide effective and efficient workplace accident cover,"

National replaced the ACC Board didn't they? What was the point of replacing the board?

"He said that advice was "somewhat contradictory" as it was suggested ACC would have difficulty competing with private insurers but would at the same time be able to compete unfairly "as it does not have to provide a return on capital"."

Somewhat contradictory? No brainer I would have thought. Why privatise an account that's generating a "surplus" of cash? Seems like a big PLUS for ACC and it returns in the 000,000,000's (even though it's invested).

"Officials will now also investigate introducing "choice" or private sector competition in other ACC accounts such as the earners and motor vehicle accounts, Dr Smith said."

:facepalm:

"We do not wish to add to the financial pressures on households and businesses while a fragile economic recovery is under way."

So the previous 2 years of recession and ACC Levy increases didn't add to the financial pressures of households?

NONONO

21st December 2010, 18:10

phill-k

21st December 2010, 18:32

Well guys, there it is, big and bold and in full 3D colour.
ACC done and dusted.
Won't be long now before we are paying huge legal fees and waiting , sometimes years, in order to have our claims sorted out.
Unless you can afford large contributions on earnings insurance, that wait can be devastating for families, lose the house, school fees? etc etc......cos you ain't working and no one's paying you.
The insurance company rider of "admit no fault" will see to that.
No doubt the insurers will loss lead the initial fees, keeping them at some lower percentage than any calculation of ACC, and once the ACC is dead....well, it's supper time.
To those of you that cheer the demise of such a world leading, forward thinking, totally Kiwi idea..sod you, you have little idea what you are getting into....but it won't be long till you find out.
Who's Next?
You Are!

Bling to you - well said. My wife had a simple accident 5 yrs ago but thanks to some medical miss adventure she is unable to work. We have had our moments with ACC but at least they are governed by an act of parliament and have methods of appeal set in place, god help NZer's when we have to deal with private companies and fund the legal battles that will be required to force their hand.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 18:35

Well guys, there it is, big and bold and in full 3D colour.
ACC done and dusted.
Won't be long now before we are paying huge legal fees and waiting , sometimes years, in order to have our claims sorted out.
Unless you can afford large contributions on earnings insurance, that wait can be devastating for families, lose the house, school fees? etc etc......cos you ain't working and no one's paying you.
The insurance company rider of "admit no fault" will see to that.
No doubt the insurers will loss lead the initial fees, keeping them at some lower percentage than any calculation of ACC, and once the ACC is dead....well, it's supper time.
To those of you that cheer the demise of such a world leading, forward thinking, totally Kiwi idea..sod you, you have little idea what you are getting into....but it won't be long till you find out.
Who's Next?
You Are!

And you have a scintilla of proof for this statement?

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 19:04

And you have a scintilla of proof for this statement?

The history of world politics will be the proof.....of the pudding.......oohh, pudding....

It's so plain and simple that ACC is getting lined up for the big privatisation so that the corporate world can muck in with their pollie mates and get a slice of the action. It is simple basic greed, money before people and its fucking coming mate so get your arse greased for a good old fashioned butt fuck from those we are suppoesed to trust with our votes and our lives.....

The pie tax is next, mark my fucking words sweathearts.....

NONONO

21st December 2010, 19:39

And you have a scintilla of proof for this statement?

Oh yes..I have lots of proof, research and personal experience.....
Have you ever lived in a place where the ACC model did not exist?
Spent any length of time in the UK, USA, Aus or anywhere but Godzone?

Have you seen the international reports on ACC?

Ever tried to get a claim settled and found the litigation fees would eat up the pay out?

Ever been on the receiving end of a spurious counter claim by an employee of a large corp, and even though the judiciary ruled you where at no fault, walked away having to pay costs, cost that wiped out the payment?

God bless you mate....one born every minute.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 20:02

Oh yes..I have lots of proof, research and personal experience.....
Have you ever lived in a place where the ACC model did not exist?
Spent any length of time in the UK, USA, Aus or anywhere but Godzone?

Have you seen the international reports on ACC?

Ever tried to get a claim settled and found the litigation fees would eat up the pay out?

Ever been on the receiving end of a spurious counter claim by an employee of a large corp, and even though the judiciary ruled you where at no fault, walked away having to pay costs, cost that wiped out the payment?

God bless you mate....one born every minute.

So - you got nuthin'?

Oscar

21st December 2010, 20:03

The history of world politics will be the proof.....of the pudding.......oohh, pudding....

It's so plain and simple that ACC is getting lined up for the big privatisation so that the corporate world can muck in with their pollie mates and get a slice of the action. It is simple basic greed, money before people and its fucking coming mate so get your arse greased for a good old fashioned butt fuck from those we are suppoesed to trust with our votes and our lives.....

The pie tax is next, mark my fucking words sweathearts.....

Er - ACC has been privatised before and as I recall, nothing much changed from the point of view of the private citizen, and for business, rates reduced markedly.

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 20:16

Er - ACC has been privatised before and as I recall, nothing much changed from the point of view of the private citizen, and for business, rates reduced markedly.

This government is more aggressive (and underhand) with their outcome so I beleive this time it is very much different. No way can we as a nation let corporate thieves take over ACC and any other service these bastards want to make money out of.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 20:29

This government is more aggressive (and underhand) with their outcome so I beleive this time it is very much different. No way can we as a nation let corporate thieves take over ACC and any other service these bastards want to make money out of.

How so?

Why is it aggressive and underhanded?
The announcement today said that "..final decisions will occur after the 2011 election." I'd say that's very fair - feel free to vote against it.

As for the "corporate thieves" malarkey, I think you're getting a bit carried away aren't you? They're talking about allowing private providers, in addition to the ACC. Notwithstanding that, it is the ACC Act that provides the basis of the cover (the so called "no fault system"), and no one is talking about changing that.

The last time the same thing occurred, the sky didn't fall, but costs did.

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 20:38

"..final decisions will occur after the 2011 election." I'd say that's very fair - feel free to vote against it

And I will mate, but for who is the big question.

Im going on the evolution of privatisation through the years. It has always ended up turning to shite and only a select few really getting anything out of it.

Plus, the present government has always denied that they would do this, and hey presto.

I am against the governments plans for ACC, I am against the privatisation of ACC, I am against finance companies getting rich of the back off this action and the insurance council saying that it will improve workplace safety standards is a load of bollocks. I am a qualified OH&S auditor, inspector and creditor. I know workplace safety and I know just how robbing bastard insurance companies can dilute the quality of what is provided and paid out on.

But hey, what the fuck do I know right..? I play music, ride a bike and have been involved in all levels of workplace safety for 25 years

So why dont I jsut shut my fucking mouth and let this and evey other lying, robbing, bastard government ride roughshot over me.....

No fucking way mate, no fucking way.......I have my belief and I am sticking to and will fight for them.

Thanks mate for reminding me why I despise politicians

Winston001

21st December 2010, 20:44

...... these bastards want to make money out of.

So you are a committed communist Max?? Profits are evil? You give your own labour freely without payment?

Its funny how folk roil long and hard against anyone else earning money but zealously grasp it for themselves. :shutup:

Oscar

21st December 2010, 20:50

And I will mate, but for who is the big question.

Im going on the evolution of privatisation through the years. It has always ended up turning to shite and only a select few really getting anything out of it.

Plus, the present government has always denied that they would do this, and hey presto.

I am against the governments plans for ACC, I am against the privatisation of ACC, I am against finance companies getting rich of the back off this action and the insurance council saying that it will improve workplace safety standards is a load of bollocks. I am a qualified OH&S auditor, inspector and creditor. I know workplace safety and I know just how robbing bastard insurance companies can dilute the quality of what is provided and paid out on.

But hey, what the fuck do I know right..? I play music, ride a bike and have been involved in all levels of workplace safety for 25 years

So why dont I jsut shut my fucking mouth and let this and evey other lying, robbing, bastard government ride roughshot over me.....

No fucking way mate, no fucking way.......I have my belief and I am sticking to and will fight for them.

Thanks mate for reminding me why I despise politicians

I still don't understand. Both you and the other poster can't seem to actually come up with a reason why this won't work. It's been done before and went OK.

As for the Govt. lying - it was in their election manifesto.
They aren't doing it until after an election where the issue can be aired.

You rail against politicians, yet your "argument" is full of political slogans.

For example perhaps you can take a deep breath and tell us why the "robbing bastard insurance companies" are going to dilute workplace safety?

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 20:52

So you are a committed communist Max?? Profits are evil? You give your own labour freely without payment?

Its funny how folk roil long and hard against anyone else earning money but zealously grasp it for themselves. :shutup:

Thats exactly right mate. I am a commited communist. I only emigrated to NZ beacuse they told me there was a town called Lenin but when I got there I fould out that it was actually Levin, so that was a bummer.

I give my own labour freely because the peanuts I get paid at the strip club is not worth talking about. I only manage to survive because of the 'extras' that are so popular with the boys in Levin at the strip club where I work.

Yes, I hate people who earn more money than me. Could you face yourself in the mirror every morning after night of taking extras from the male population of Levin> Can you? Can you?

I wil grasp as much money as I can and have no problem admitting it. Levin is a small town and I know everyone now. I will take their money bacause pole dancing is fucking hard work, the basic pay is shite and those farmers have rough hands. Once you know what a pair of rough and hairy fence workers hands are like when they grab you during a 'reach around' then you will know what I have to go through.

I hope I have answered your questions friend

Levin, damn you.......

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 20:53

Hitcher

21st December 2010, 21:08

As for the Govt. lying - it was in their election manifesto.
They aren't doing it until after an election where the issue can be aired.

Dearie me. Some people just don't get MMP. Anybody who votes for a party based on what's in its manifesto is delusional. MMP means that no one party can govern alone. They need to form alliances with other parties with whom they may not be philosophically aligned and will horse trade key elements of their manifesto to become government. This means that under MMP we end up with a government for which nobody has actually voted.

Understand that and you'll begin to get a glimpse of how our political machinery works.

Scuba_Steve

21st December 2010, 21:18

I still don't understand. Both you and the other poster can't seem to actually come up with a reason why this won't work. It's been done before and went OK.

Yea I heard it started well for the companies, from what my workmate was saying you trip on the stairs at work your company insurer denied your claim on the basis "it's not a workplace accident as this could have happened at home go see ACC" then ACC would deny you on the basis "it was a workplace accident, your company insurers problem".
So at the end you apparently get "cheaper coverage", in exchange for no actual cover & the insurers make large profits through not paying out, a win for everyone... right? :facepalm:

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:19

Is that you Mrs Max? I thought you were at work..??

So you got nuthin' as well?

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:21

Dearie me. Some people just don't get MMP. Anybody who votes for a party based on what's in its manifesto is delusional. MMP means that no one party can govern alone. They need to form alliances with other parties with whom they may not be philosophically aligned and will horse trade key elements of their manifesto to become government. This means that under MMP we end up with a government for which nobody has actually voted.

Understand that and you'll begin to get a glimpse of how our political machinery works.

It's not about how MMP works, it's about the accusation they were lying.
If it was in their manifesto, they can hardly be lying, can they?

Buyasta

21st December 2010, 21:24

It's not about how MMP works, it's about the accusation they were lying.
If it was in their manifesto, they can hardly be lying, can they?

Ah, but given the fact that we all expect politicians to lie and renege on their election promises, isn't fulfilling an election promise lying, in a sense? :p

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 21:24

So you got nuthin' as well?

No, I just want to know who you are and what have you done with my wife?

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:25

Yea I heard it started well for the companies, from what my workmate was saying you trip on the stairs at work your company insurer denied your claim on the basis "it's not a workplace accident as this could have happened at home go see ACC" then ACC would deny you on the basis "it was a workplace accident, your company insurers problem".
So at the end you apparently get "cheaper coverage", in exchange for no actual cover & the insurers make large profits through not paying out, a win for everyone... right? :facepalm:

So far, the nearest I've seen to actual facts in this thread is Max being scared of his wife and your discussion with a workmate. I think I'll ask the cat:facepalm:

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 21:25

Ah, but given the fact that we all expect politicians to lie and renege on their election promises, isn't fulfilling an election promise lying, in a sense? :p

I was trying to get that point across mate but obviously I know Nuttin'

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:26

Ah, but given the fact that we all expect politicians to lie and renege on their election promises, isn't fulfilling an election promise lying, in a sense? :p

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: :facepalm:

You win.

I'm going for a lie down...

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 21:28

So far, the nearest I've seen to actual facts in this thread is Max being scared of his wife and your discussion with a workmate. I think I'll ask the cat:facepalm:

....and being scared is a good thing bruv.

Can I please have my shovel back when you are finished with it. It's the bright blue one with the gold handle

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:29

I was trying to get that point across mate but obviously I know Nuttin'

Yes, your points were similar, except his was well thought out and funny.

Flip

21st December 2010, 21:32

So to all those working and middle class men and women who thought they would be better off under a National goverment..................... You gullible fools, you voted them in, live with it. The Business Round Table and the Australian insurance companies thank you from the bottom of their leger sheets.

My only real question is what are you going to do about it at the next election?

In the mean time call your MP and tell them how you feel about it.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:35

So to all those working and middle class men and women who thought they would be better off under a National goverment..................... You gullible fools, you voted them in, live with it. The Business Round Table and the Australian insurance companies thank you from the bottom of their leger sheets.

My only real question is what are you going to do about it at the next election?

It is happening after the next election.
And it's ledger, by the way.

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 21:39

Yes, your points were similar, except his was well thought out and funny.

Yes it was, totally agree my old china.

Maybe I am not funny anymore?
Maybe I never was funny?

Still, I'm a fat bastard so someone will always laugh at me I suppose.

As I see it my friend, we will never agree on this.

Your view point is, well, your view point

Mine is mine

I can only go on what I have seen all over the world with the effects of privatisation and what I am proud to call my experinece of how provatisation can hurt the service that the end user ends up with.

But hey, thats just me mate

I suppose 2011 will see how this will all go, being an erection year and all. Lets just hope that the decisions made at election time will be the best for what future we want for this great country.

Its been emotional....

gatch

21st December 2010, 21:45

The following text from the ACC media release is giving birth to hundreds of irony babies...

**Furthermore the Government was encouraged by the "huge improvement" in the ACC's finances and wanted to "keep maximum pressure on the Corporation to improve its performance rather than just passing additional costs onto levy payers".**

Levin, damn you.......

Wtf are you doing in LVN fatman ?

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:45

Yes it was, totally agree my old china.

Maybe I am not funny anymore?
Maybe I never was funny?

Still, I'm a fat bastard so someone will always laugh at me I suppose.

As I see it my friend, we will never agree on this.

Your view point is, well, your view point

Mine is mine

I can only go on what I have seen all over the world with the effects of privatisation and what I am proud to call my experinece of how provatisation can hurt the service that the end user ends up with.

But hey, thats just me mate

I suppose 2011 will see how this will all go, being an erection year and all. Lets just hope that the decisions made at election time will be the best for what future we want for this great country.

Its been emotional....

So, still nuthin' then?

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 21:47

So, still nuthin' then?

If you say so mate,

In Levin, the boys pay me to be who and what they want me to be

Give me dollar, me sucky sucky......

(Sounds like National talking to the USA)

motor_mayhem

21st December 2010, 21:51

Yep! They were in my last profession, too.

Bugger the nanny state liarbour

You say liarbour and yet your precious Nats bring out a hugely influencial policy at christmas when the public's attention is elsewhere, probably on their own xmas crisises. I also notice it toook stuff about 2 hours extra to publish that story vs nz herald and they never featured it as one of their main stories - though I may be reading too much into that.

ACC has been partially privatised before. I remember it well and fondly when I was self-employed in the 1990s. My "ACC levies" were considerably lower prior to a Labour gummint nationalising everything again.

Er - ACC has been privatised before and as I recall, nothing much changed from the point of view of the private citizen, and for business, rates reduced markedly.

Yeah your rates may have been lower but is that comparison taking into account inflation? Also I bet the quality of service was half of what you get now anyway.

The way insurance has to work in on the law of averages, the way averages get more accurate and less skewed by outlyers is through larger samples. Also lots of treatments the private sector can't actually afford the necessary equipment for.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:53

If you say so mate,

In Levin, the boys pay me to be who and what they want me to be

Give me dollar, me sucky sucky......

(Sounds like National talking to the USA)

I'm sorry for picking on your posts, as it is similar to a few others here, but how can you say summat like this:

I am against the governments plans for ACC, I am against the privatisation of ACC, I am against finance companies getting rich of the back off this action and the insurance council saying that it will improve workplace safety standards is a load of bollocks. I am a qualified OH&S auditor, inspector and creditor. I know workplace safety and I know just how robbing bastard insurance companies can dilute the quality of what is provided and paid out on.

...and not be prepared to back it up with some facts? It's obviously an area you feel passionate about and have some experience in.

There's been all sorts of slogans shouted on this thread, but very little actual discussion.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 21:59

You say liarbour and yet your precious Nats bring out a hugely influencial policy at christmas when the public's attention is elsewhere, probably on their own xmas crisises. I also notice it toook stuff about 2 hours extra to publish that story vs nz herald and they never featured it as one of their main stories - though I may be reading too much into that.

Yeah, the Govt. is sneaking the new policy through with an 11 month wait, after a general election. Sneaky bastards, no one's gonna notice that:facepalm:

Yeah your rates may have been lower but is that comparison taking into account inflation? Also I bet the quality of service was half of what you get now anyway.

The way insurance has to work in on the law of averages, the way averages get more accurate and less skewed by outlyers is through larger samples. Also lots of treatments the private sector can't actually afford the necessary equipment for.

You bet the service was half?
Insurance works on averages?
Averages get skewed by outlyers?:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

So far damn near everyone opposing this change on this thread has just made shit up to support their crackpot theory....

Brian d marge

21st December 2010, 22:08

I still don't understand. Both you and the other poster can't seem to actually come up with a reason why this won't work. It's been done before and went OK.

As for the Govt. lying - it was in their election manifesto.
They aren't doing it until after an election where the issue can be aired.

You rail against politicians, yet your "argument" is full of political slogans.

For example perhaps you can take a deep breath and tell us why the "robbing bastard insurance companies" are going to dilute workplace safety?

Ill bite

I live in a country , where we have accident insurance

no insurance, no cover ( unless u pay )

it has its good and bad points , good; no speeding tax , u crash and burn who cares , good ;, just had a cap put in one of my teeth , 40 bucks all up , and the hospital , the same ,,20 min wait , and a couple of buck for most things

BUT and believe me here the bottom dollar rules ........

having a baby??? try 100 000 yen and if its in the weekend , tack on a 20 or 30 000 on top of that

oh and want epidural ?? tack on another 70 000

So the insurance will cover most of that you have to find 25 % ( excluding epidural ) so you are looking at 30 000 plus epidural full cost 70 000 and any other costs that might be incurred ...

if you need drugs that are not on the "list " ie cheap ,,,tough
if you cannot afford insurance ( which you pay monthly about 30 to 49 000) tough
if you need a medical treatment not on the list tough

and as for work place safety . :facepalm: doesn't happen as its cheaper to pay insurance ,,,( or not , if the job is classed as part time , the company doesn't have to pay , so a lot of jobs fall into the contracting /part time category ...

My mate , who won the AMA No1 plate for Vintage class , had an accident , lapsed insurance ( American)
LOST EVERYTHING , the helicopter ride was ( off top of head 20 000 US dollars )

The short sightedness of " oh my payments went down " is the very reason ( along with apathy ) that NZ is no longer what it was ,,,ya friggen ruined a great country

It ISN'T national , Labour , or the whachamacallmenow party , its the bond market and those outside influences that seek to make a profit

You want proof , look up the IMF web site , then NZ report and it quite clearly says

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2010/pn1064.htm

( this is the recent one , below is the previous year and the one I quoted from )

Snip
9. Over the long term, key budgetary risks are the growing healthcare costs and public pension outlays. These risks should be addressed before the demographic pressures intensify, by reforming health care and the public pension schemes.

from the 2009 report

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2009/032309.htm

I added both to show that successive government according to those outside influences are and have been VERY PRUDENT

Those outside influences DO NOT GIVE A STUFF ABOUT YOU AND I OR THE POOR

and that style of economic management has led to the stresses that we read about all the time

( five families a Mexican case study , good book and clearly shows the link )

Im happy to provide a ton more evidence and have done so many times in the past ,,

next time , you get a speeding ticket for 4km over the limit ...ohh speed kills or complain at those on the dole when they should be working 3 jobs to make Ends meet like the rest of us .....
or complain about the electricity prices , waiting times,,,or the price of vegetables

these are all due to a financially responsible government(s)

Stephen

oh by the way the solutions easy , don't use debt , buy NZ sourced and made , cut out the middle man ( pack and save ) and add value to anything you make or do

Unless there are any better ideas??

Flip

21st December 2010, 22:10

This has a lot to do with the fat cats on the BRT wanting to get their fat greedy hands on the ten billion dollars worth of ACC assets and SFA to do with workplace safety.

The people of NZ are just being ass fucked and are being told its in their best interest. Sorry about the language but its how I feel.

Fatt Max

21st December 2010, 22:10

I'm sorry for picking on your posts, as it is similar to a few others here, but how can you say summat like this:

...and not be prepared to back it up with some facts? It's obviously an area you feel passionate about and have some experience in.

There's been all sorts of slogans shouted on this thread, but very little actual discussion.

Dont apologies mate, its all about debate.

You say I have nothing and I accept that, at 10.55pm I have nothing other than a desire to rant about what I see as the death of our ACC system throuh privatisation.

I am, as you rightly say, passionate about it and I have, as you say, experinece in it.

My passion is through my experinece of government run services that have drastically deteriaoted when they have been privatised. The UK for instance, has suffered terribly over the years with competing companies bidding for healthcare contracts.

The lowest bid is accepted, the service ends up being desacrated and the loser in all of this is the end user. The same happened there with rail, rubbish collections, even prisoner transfer (those of us who were in the UK when Chubb were awarded the prison transfer contract and lost 20 prisoners in their first week. L O fucking L)

So, to this amazing and great country. Ok, I am not an expert on the history of NZ politics but I am a paid up voter and I love this country to bits. The ACC system as prescribed by Woodhouse is world leading. However, this government has decided that it is skint (when we know it is cash rich, the figures are out there and I am sure, as a biker, you would have read them in teh various threads) and that it needs reform.

So, open it up to competition and all of a sudden we have Australian Insurance companies knocking on the door wanting a piece of it. Mr Key has made it well known that he wants stonger commercial ties across the ditch and what a better way to do it.

Now, as an OSH inspector, I will watch the demise of standards as companies realise that cheaper insurance levies driven by these companies will mean diluting safe work practices. Compliance, in all its forms, costs and it is a non recoverable overhead.

What do you do? Easy, you cut corners and eventually some poor bastard who has turned up to do a days work gets hurt.

A claim is made, all manner of excuses given not to pay out and who suffers? The fucking worker does. The insurance company still has its premiums but the worler loses out.

And we pick up the pieces

ACC is unique to New Zealand. This government wants to open it up for privatisation based on the notion that ACC is skint. That is incorrect although I do noy have the facts to hand so will understand you not taking heed of that statement.

However, take heed that the government is lying, the distruction of ACC can be seen as an attack on the fabric of NZ society and people, including me, are pissed off with it.

I would sooner the money is spent sorting out those that abuse the system, now that I would support.

In my lifetime I hope and pray that I can make enough noise so that my dear son can enjoy this country for what it is, earn his keep and enjoy it with his family rather than pay it into the coffers of those that dont give a shit.

Enter

Oscar

21st December 2010, 22:14

Ill bite

I live in a country , where we have accident insurance

no insurance, no cover ( unless u pay )

it has its good and bad points , good; no speeding tax , u crash and burn who cares , good ;, just had a cap put in one of my teeth , 40 bucks all up , and the hospital , the same ,,20 min wait , and a couple of buck for most things

BUT and believe me here the bottom dollar rules ........

having a baby??? try 100 000 yen and if its in the weekend , tack on a 20 or 30 000 on top of that

oh and want epidural ?? tack on another 70 000

So the insurance will cover most of that you have to find 25 % ( excluding epidural ) so you are looking at 30 000 plus epidural full cost 70 000 and any other costs that might be incurred ...

if you need drugs that are not on the "list " ie cheap ,,,tough
if you cannot afford insurance ( which you pay monthly about 30 to 49 000) tough
if you need a medical treatment not on the list tough

and as for work place safety . :facepalm: doesn't happen as its cheaper to pay insurance ,,,( or not , if the job is classed as part time , the company doesn't have to pay , so a lot of jobs fall into the contracting /part time category ...

My mate , who won the AMA No1 plate for Vintage class , had an accident , lapsed insurance ( American)
LOST EVERYTHING , the helicopter ride was ( off top of head 20 000 US dollars )

The short sightedness of " oh my payments went down " is the very reason ( along with apathy ) that NZ is no longer what it was ,,,ya friggen ruined a great country

It ISN'T national , Labour , or the whachamacallmenow party , its the bond market and those outside influences that seek to make a profit

You want proof , look up the IMF web site , then NZ report and it quite clearly says

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2010/pn1064.htm

( this is the recent one , below is the previous year and the one I quoted from )

Snip
9. Over the long term, key budgetary risks are the growing healthcare costs and public pension outlays. These risks should be addressed before the demographic pressures intensify, by reforming health care and the public pension schemes.

from the 2009 report

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2009/032309.htm

I added both to show that successive government according to those outside influences are and have been VERY PRUDENT

Those outside influences DO NOT GIVE A STUFF ABOUT YOU AND I OR THE POOR

and that style of economic management has led to the stresses that we read about all the time

( five families a Mexican case study , good book and clearly shows the link )

Im happy to provide a ton more evidence and have done so many times in the past ,,

next time , you get a speeding ticket for 4km over the limit ...ohh speed kills or complain at those on the dole when they should be working 3 jobs to make Ends meet like the rest of us .....
or complain about the electricity prices , waiting times,,,or the price of vegetables

these are all due to a financially responsible government(s)

Stephen

oh by the way the solutions easy , don't use debt , buy NZ sourced and made , cut out the middle man ( pack and save ) and add value to anything you make or do

Unless there are any better ideas??

NZ had an optional privatised system (such as is being proposed now), a few years back. So based on the actual facts - how did this change workplace safety?

Oh, and what has having a baby to do with ACC?

GOONR

21st December 2010, 22:19

....
So, open it up to competition and all of a sudden we have Australian Insurance companies knocking on the door wanting a piece of it. Mr Key has made it well known that he wants stonger commercial ties across the ditch and what a better way to do it......

Not all of a sudden. Those Australian Insurance firms have been kicking on the door for this for a very very long time. The door final collapsed under the weight of the $$'s being pushed the governments way.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 22:21

Dont apologies mate, its all about debate.

You say I have nothing and I accept that, at 10.55pm I have nothing other than a desire to rant about what I see as the death of our ACC system throuh privatisation.

I am, as you rightly say, passionate about it and I have, as you say, experinece in it.

My passion is through my experinece of government run services that have drastically deteriaoted when they have been privatised. The UK for instance, has suffered terribly over the years with competing companies bidding for healthcare contracts.

The lowest bid is accepted, the service ends up being desacrated and the loser in all of this is the end user. The same happened there with rail, rubbish collections, even prisoner transfer (those of us who were in the UK when Chubb were awarded the prison transfer contract and lost 20 prisoners in their first week. L O fucking L)

So, to this amazing and great country. Ok, I am not an expert on the history of NZ politics but I am a paid up voter and I love this country to bits. The ACC system as prescribed by Woodhouse is world leading. However, this government has decided that it is skint (when we know it is cash rich, the figures are out there and I am sure, as a biker, you would have read them in teh various threads) and that it needs reform.

So, open it up to competition and all of a sudden we have Australian Insurance companies knocking on the door wanting a piece of it. Mr Key has made it well known that he wants stonger commercial ties across the ditch and what a better way to do it.

Now, as an OSH inspector, I will watch the demise of standards as companies realise that cheaper insurance levies driven by these companies will mean diluting safe work practices. Compliance, in all its forms, costs and it is a non recoverable overhead.

What do you do? Easy, you cut corners and eventually some poor bastard who has turned up to do a days work gets hurt.

A claim is made, all manner of excuses given not to pay out and who suffers? The fucking worker does. The insurance company still has its premiums but the worler loses out.

And we pick up the pieces

ACC is unique to New Zealand. This government wants to open it up for privatisation based on the notion that ACC is skint. That is incorrect although I do noy have the facts to hand so will understand you not taking heed of that statement.

However, take heed that the government is lying, the distruction of ACC can be seen as an attack on the fabric of NZ society and people, including me, are pissed off with it.

I would sooner the money is spent sorting out those that abuse the system, now that I would support.

In my lifetime I hope and pray that I can make enough noise so that my dear son can enjoy this country for what it is, earn his keep and enjoy it with his family rather than pay it into the coffers of those that dont give a shit.

Enter

But this isn't the UK, and the fundamental tenets of ACC are not being challenged. Notwithstanding that, as I said to the previous poster NZ had an optional privatised system (such as is being proposed now), a few years back. So based on the actual facts - how did this change workplace safety?

As for the private system: firstly it's optional - the ACC would still exist. Secondly, if an employer has a bad record - their premiums go up and ACC/OSH inspectors are on yer arse.

Brian d marge

21st December 2010, 22:21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3rGMpSc0j4

226861

Stephen

Oscar

21st December 2010, 22:24

Flip

21st December 2010, 22:30

But this isn't the UK, and the fundamental tenets of ACC are not being challenged. Notwithstanding that, as I said to the previous poster NZ had an optional privatised system (such as is being proposed now), a few years back. So based on the actual facts - how did this change workplace safety?

As for the private system: firstly it's optional - the ACC would still exist. Secondly, if an employer has a bad record - their premiums go up and ACC/OSH inspectors are on yer arse.

Because in the near future ACC won't have to cover the liabilities and won't need 10 billion worth of assets, then there will be an asset sale. You won't know that it is happening just that the Nats have had a fire sale and most of the money from your bike rego has been sold to some one from the BRT.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 22:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3rGMpSc0j4

226861

Stephen

The Govt. has announced something and allowed almost a year for discussion and a general election before finalising things.

Please explain how that makes the NZ people sheep?
One of the reasons the left was kicked out of Govt. was that sort of paternalistic arrogance.

Flip

21st December 2010, 22:34

ACC assets being privatised?
Congratulations, that is the biggest piece of propaganda shite posted tonight.
You are special.

And I doubt you were around when National sold the assets that were owned by the national super at the time to pay for the think big projects.

Been there before.

Oscar

21st December 2010, 22:35

Because in the near future ACC won't have to cover the liabilities and won't need 10 billion worth of assets, then there will be an asset sale. You won't know that it is happening just that the Nats have had a fire sale and most of the money from your bike rego has been sold to some one from the BRT.

OK, I apologise.
I said your earlier post was the biggest piece of propoganda shit posted, but this one really is better. Could you explain how the Gummint sells my rego money to the BRT?:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Oscar

21st December 2010, 22:37

And I doubt you were around when National sold the assets that were owned by the national super at the time to pay for the think big projects.

Been there before.

I was around, and I think my memory is somewhat better than yours.
It was the 1984 Labour Govt. that sold most of the assets (Railway, Power Generation etc).

Buyasta

21st December 2010, 22:46

One of the reasons the left was kicked out of Govt. was that sort of paternalistic arrogance.

If you look at the switches between which party wins in pretty much any democratic country that has two main parties, it begins to appear that the actual policies and actions of a government have absolutely nothing to do with how people vote.

Between the tendency to look back on the past through rose coloured glasses, and the fact that any government makes many unpopular decisions, by the end of the first term of a party being in power they've lost a fair bit of support, although they generally seem to hold onto power for another term.
At each new election, large number of voters will switch to the other main party not currently in power, as by this point they've forgotten most of the crap that party did when they were last in power and have decided that they'll probably do a better job than the current party. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Admittedly this is based entirely on my poor memory, a fairly short lifespan thus far, and analysis of only NZ and the US, so it's entirely possible (indeed, probable) that I'm entirely wrong, but this is definitely the way it has always appeared to me.

Berries

21st December 2010, 23:05

:corn::corn:

having a baby??? try 100 000 yen and if its in the weekend , tack on a 20 or 30 000 on top of that oh and want epidural ?? tack on another 70 000
At current exchange rates that's about $20.

Brian d marge

21st December 2010, 23:25

NZ had an optional privatised system (such as is being proposed now), a few years back. So based on the actual facts - how did this change workplace safety?

Oh, and what has having a baby to do with ACC?

Ok

believe what ever you want to believe , but dont complain when it goes sour ,

work place safety , ...well my old mum is the lawyer for the Meat workers union ( or summink like that )

Try blunt knives, ,or here in the shunting yards ( in fact as i trawl through my records , I will continually add to this ,,,

<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style> According to the New Zealand Herald there were 32 railway workers killed in the 20 years before the inquiry, of those 16 occurred in the seven years after privatisation.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/meatworkers-and-bosses-trade-accusations-3581962

Sorry Just thinking about this I could give lots of anecdotal evidence , but you want to see a trend and unfortunately ( as of this moment ) all I the data I have is under a labour government

http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/paid-work/workplace-injury-claims.html

I will see if I have any data for the last national government

Here up to 2002 and about a 20 % ( 140 claim per 1000 in 2001 as far back as I can find, 143 for 2002 , and 117 in 2010 after a few years of the nanny state thats a good 20 % drop straight after a Jenny Shipely led business orientated government )
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/2002/paid-work/paid-work.shtml

Stephen

oh as for babies , While some may say it was an accident, Im sure you can make the link to what a health insurance scheme looks like ( no its not ACC but its what will happen when a private health company get its way ...ie SOME forms of injury will not be paid out , 6% hearing loss??? anyone )

motor_mayhem

21st December 2010, 23:42

Yeah, the Govt. is sneaking the new policy through with an 11 month wait, after a general election. Sneaky bastards, no one's gonna notice that:facepalm:

You bet the service was half?
Insurance works on averages?
Averages get skewed by outlyers?:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

So far damn near everyone opposing this change on this thread has just made shit up to support their crackpot theory....

True I don't know about the quality of services but if you don't understand how averages and probability work you should probably excuse yourself from any insurance conversation.
Here's a pretty decent explanation - http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/healthcare/insurance/health-insurance.htm
The keystone of it being = "Insurance is a bit like a gamble between you and the insurance company. The company bets that they'll take in more money in premiums than they have to pay out in benefits, whether it's for health insurance, auto insurance, life insurance or homeowners insurance. You're paying a premium every month just in case something happens." The premium you will pay will be a share of the total cost of claims from the clients over a time period plus the company's profit margin.

Brian d marge

21st December 2010, 23:54

The Govt. has announced something and allowed almost a year for discussion and a general election before finalising things.

Please explain how that makes the NZ people sheep?
One of the reasons the left was kicked out of Govt. was that sort of paternalistic arrogance.

see your own comment ( yes they openly stated way back in the Nineties, what they intended to do , and they are doing it ,,,,

Rego any one? , cost of heating your home? , snip

from the energy bill second reading
The ministerial review as set up identified that the increase in prices for residential consumers over the last decade was a matter of particular concern. Everyone knows that in the 8 years prior to 2009 electricity prices for residential consumers rose by some 73 percent, or three times the rate of inflation. The review identified insufficient competition—particularly at the retail level, and particularly in the South Island—as key reasons for an undue increase in those retail margins for residential customers.

Student loans .... or even this....

snip

In the year to June 2009, 15 percent of the population was living below the 60 percent threshold, down from 18 percent in 2007. The proportion of the population with low incomes rose sharply from 1990, reached a peak in the mid-1990s and has generally declined since then. In 2009, the proportion was still a little above the average level in the 1980s.
The increase in the proportion of the population with low incomes in the early-1990s is attributable to declining household incomes arising from high rates of unemployment and reduced levels of social assistance. The improvement since the mid-1990s reflects more robust economic (and income) growth, the steady decline in unemployment, the increase in housing assistance and the increase in tax credits for families with children. Rates remain a little higher in 2009 than they were in the 1980s partly because, for many groups, housing costs for low-income households have risen significantly as a proportion of their household incomes.

now the 4th labour government that as you say introduced all of this were comprised and or supported by members of the business round table , Gibbs Kerr and Douglas ,,, hardly fair to call those lot for the people or labour and that the chair man? of the IMF was at one time a labour man ( Mike Moore .I cant quite remember )

and when borrowing from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Adjustment_Program ( notice about the deregulation and privatization??)

So get past this National /labour thing , its where we borrow the money from ( cheap money , nothing to do with labour again , as quite a few other countries did the same thing ,,,Ireland )
Stephen

btw im providing a lot of evidence,,, no seems to be forthcoming from others?

slofox

22nd December 2010, 03:57

ACC has been partially privatised before. I remember it well and fondly when I was self-employed in the 1990s. My "ACC levies" were considerably lower prior to a Labour gummint nationalising everything again.

I was self employed and an employer last time ACC was privatized - and when it was re-nationalized.

BOTH changes cost me more - more when it was privatized and more when it was changed back. Levies rose with both changes...funny that.

NONONO

22nd December 2010, 05:40

I was around, and I think my memory is somewhat better than yours.
It was the 1984 Labour Govt. that sold most of the assets (Railway, Power Generation etc).

Jeez....I'm sure that had SOMETHING to do with the fact that a certain drunken arrogant buffoon had left the cupboards bare.
FFS Mr Oscar, you ask for facts (sorry you demand that we give them to you) and when we do you simply ignore them as they don't fit your narrow little neo liberal view point.
Please piss off back to Nat HQ..I can almost smell the uranium on your breath from here.......

"It's been tried once before, in 1999, when the ACC was privatised in relation to work-related claims...in the time that [ACC was privatised] there was a great amount of competition between insurance companies to buy business. We saw what happened in Australia when the same sort of thing happened. In the early 1980s, there were two insurance companies...which were competing heavily for worker’s compensation premiums. They cut their premiums and they got into competition with each other until eventually they both went broke, and left the Victorian state government to pick up the pieces.”

Don Rennie, ACC Committee, NZ Law Society, TVNZ Breakfast,

All this talk of liabilities being blown out is complete nonsense. It's ill-founded and smacks of scare-mongering, which, given the current economic picture is the last thing people need to be told. ...on paper the losses have ballooned when in reality there's nothing wrong with it.”

Jonathan Eriksen, Managing Director, Eriksen & Associates (international actuarial and strategic investment consultancy),/B]

[B]“For the Government to wrap legitimate concerns about slippage in ACC's performance in a whole lot of shrill scaremongering and scapegoating is gratuitous. …ACC is a civilised and cost-effective approach to dealing with the injured. Why undermine confidence in the scheme, unless you plan to undermine the scheme itself?”

Brian Fallow, Economics Editor, NZ Herald

For those of us interested in letting the current bunch of bastards (Labor or Nat) know that we don't agree with Mr Oscar and who are sick of constant attacks on our way of life...NZ Riders Are Voters.....
http://www.nzrav.org/
See you there.

Voltaire

22nd December 2010, 06:06

This government is more aggressive (and underhand) with their outcome so I beleive this time it is very much different. No way can we as a nation let corporate thieves take over ACC and any other service these bastards want to make money out of.

Do you bank with Kiwibank, have a 2 degrees phone, make biofuel, grow your own veges and make your own pies...:innocent:

I prefer companies that make money to Govt departments who waste it....I know I did my apprenticeship in the Post Office...:facepalm:

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 07:13

Jeez....I'm sure that had SOMETHING to do with the fact that a certain drunken arrogant buffoon had left the cupboards bare.
FFS Mr Oscar, you ask for facts (sorry you demand that we give them to you) and when we do you simply ignore them as they don't fit your narrow little neo liberal view point.
Please piss off back to Nat HQ..I can almost smell the uranium on your breath from here.......

"It's been tried once before, in 1999, when the ACC was privatised in relation to work-related claims...in the time that [ACC was privatised] there was a great amount of competition between insurance companies to buy business. We saw what happened in Australia when the same sort of thing happened. In the early 1980s, there were two insurance companies...which were competing heavily for worker’s compensation premiums. They cut their premiums and they got into competition with each other until eventually they both went broke, and left the Victorian state government to pick up the pieces.”

Don Rennie, ACC Committee, NZ Law Society, TVNZ Breakfast,

All this talk of liabilities being blown out is complete nonsense. It's ill-founded and smacks of scare-mongering, which, given the current economic picture is the last thing people need to be told. ...on paper the losses have ballooned when in reality there's nothing wrong with it.”

Jonathan Eriksen, Managing Director, Eriksen & Associates (international actuarial and strategic investment consultancy),/B]

[B]“For the Government to wrap legitimate concerns about slippage in ACC's performance in a whole lot of shrill scaremongering and scapegoating is gratuitous. …ACC is a civilised and cost-effective approach to dealing with the injured. Why undermine confidence in the scheme, unless you plan to undermine the scheme itself?”

Brian Fallow, Economics Editor, NZ Herald

For those of us interested in letting the current bunch of bastards (Labor or Nat) know that we don't agree with Mr Oscar and who are sick of constant attacks on our way of life...NZ Riders Are Voters.....
http://www.nzrav.org/
See you there.

You continue to get opinion (or in your case political slogans) mixed up with facts.

Give me an example of something that happened post-1999 that supports your claims. Don Rennies analogy is patently ridiculous - to compare something that happened Victoria to do with Workers Comp with a debate about NZ's ACC system is apples and oranges.

I happen to agree with Erikson about the financial state of ACC btw.

However to call me a Nat just because you disagree with me is not only rude, but exposes the shallowness of your thought process. You bleat about how ACC treat motorcyclists but are prepared to continue to trust them for compensation claims? Who's the mug again?

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 07:16

see your own comment ( yes they openly stated way back in the Nineties, what they intended to do , and they are doing it ,,,,

Rego any one? , cost of heating your home? , snip

from the energy bill second reading
The ministerial review as set up identified that the increase in prices for residential consumers over the last decade was a matter of particular concern. Everyone knows that in the 8 years prior to 2009 electricity prices for residential consumers rose by some 73 percent, or three times the rate of inflation. The review identified insufficient competition—particularly at the retail level, and particularly in the South Island—as key reasons for an undue increase in those retail margins for residential customers.

Student loans .... or even this....

snip

In the year to June 2009, 15 percent of the population was living below the 60 percent threshold, down from 18 percent in 2007. The proportion of the population with low incomes rose sharply from 1990, reached a peak in the mid-1990s and has generally declined since then. In 2009, the proportion was still a little above the average level in the 1980s.
The increase in the proportion of the population with low incomes in the early-1990s is attributable to declining household incomes arising from high rates of unemployment and reduced levels of social assistance. The improvement since the mid-1990s reflects more robust economic (and income) growth, the steady decline in unemployment, the increase in housing assistance and the increase in tax credits for families with children. Rates remain a little higher in 2009 than they were in the 1980s partly because, for many groups, housing costs for low-income households have risen significantly as a proportion of their household incomes.

now the 4th labour government that as you say introduced all of this were comprised and or supported by members of the business round table , Gibbs Kerr and Douglas ,,, hardly fair to call those lot for the people or labour and that the chair man? of the IMF was at one time a labour man ( Mike Moore .I cant quite remember )

and when borrowing from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Adjustment_Program ( notice about the deregulation and privatization??)

So get past this National /labour thing , its where we borrow the money from ( cheap money , nothing to do with labour again , as quite a few other countries did the same thing ,,,Ireland )
Stephen

btw im providing a lot of evidence,,, no seems to be forthcoming from others?

Evidence?
What of the mish mash above actually has to do with ACC?

Energy costs?
Student loans?
Ireland?

Step away from the bong...

Fatt Max

22nd December 2010, 07:39

Do you make your own pies...:innocent:

What a fucking great idea bruv...!!

Quasievil

22nd December 2010, 07:41

Excellent !! less government and more privatization ALL THE WAY !!

anything said to the contrary in the previous pages all I will say is your wrong
(and clearly a spoon feeding labour supporter :yes:)

Katman

22nd December 2010, 07:43

The original ACC concept was an ideal that was always doomed to failure as we increasingly became a 'Fuck you Jack' society.

phill-k

22nd December 2010, 07:50

Do you bank with Kiwibank, have a 2 degrees phone, make biofuel, grow your own veges and make your own pies...:innocent:

I prefer companies that make money to Govt departments who waste it....I know I did my apprenticeship in the Post Office...:facepalm:

And ship their profits offshore ah!

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 08:00

Understand that and you'll begin to get a glimpse of how our political machinery works.
More accurate (if not really a word) is 'Political Machinatery'...

Yeah, the Govt. is sneaking the new policy through with an 11 month wait, after a general election. Sneaky bastards, no one's gonna notice that:facepalm:

Announce it now, right on Xmas, when 'everyone' is distracted. Say little or nothing for the next year. Make a shedload of promises, obfuscate and misdirect. Win election. BANG!!
"What do you mean 'What happened?' - we told you all about it last year"

I was around, and I think my memory is somewhat better than yours.
It was the 1984 Labour Govt. that sold most of the assets (Railway, Power Generation etc).
It was. Someone had to pay for Think Big and the years of SMP to farmers.
We're still paying...

Squiggles

22nd December 2010, 08:15

Tis perhaps worth taking another glance at what the ACC Group from Auckland and Vic Uni discussed last december (http://www.business.auckland.ac.nz/Schoolhome/Research/Researchgroups/ACCGroup/Seminarsandevents/Pastevents/2009/2009ACCforum/tabid/2580/Default.aspx)

eelracing

22nd December 2010, 08:16

The original ACC concept was an ideal that was always doomed to failure as we increasingly became a 'Fuck you Jack' society.

Wake up and smell the coffee jack...heres our future.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/132438-Can-anyone-help-please

This from a Government directive to ACC from Nick Smith...which results in a 6 fucking month wait until surgery!!! and even worse never able to ride again. You can bet your bottom dollar that this guys case manager got a rise.

Will that be you to?you willing to put up with that shit.Or are you all right coz you can afford private health insurance?

And of course the older you get the higher the risk you are to some pen pushing bottom line merchant.

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 08:24

If ACC was envisaged and set up to replace the problems that private insurance caused...why the fuck would it be a good idea to go back to that system?

No - don't tell me - could it be that the people that want this to happen are in a position to make money out of it?

StoneY

22nd December 2010, 08:42

Last year before the BIKEOI I took a Labour MP, young Chris Hipkins on a ride to Martinborough for lunch

Chris was dead keen to see why so many bikers loved 'his' hill (he is the Rimutaka MP)

We had a great lunch at Hooters and he told us of how a delegation from European and North American countries/states had come to study our ACC system

All of them, including the Swiss reps, reckoned we have a world beating system in ACC and whatever is wrong with it in our opions is insignificant when compared to the crap they put up with under private insurance/lawyers/sue your ass for hurting me systems they all have.

Canada were so impressed they went back to try get the government of Canada to investigate a similar scheme

As has been said so many times.... ACC aint broke, it aint broken.
Needs better management, yep
Need to kick off the bludgers abusing the system? ABSOLUTELY

But raise levies and open to private competition...never
It made 1.7 BILLION more than it spent 2008-2009

Its no secret I am a Labour supporter,but this issue is far more than just Labour National etc

Its about a treasured Kiwi institution that needs to be managed better, not competed with, sold, or privateized

Brent

Voltaire

22nd December 2010, 08:45

And ship their profits offshore ah!

Maybe we could use North Korea as a model of self sufficiency or return to pre a pre European lifestyle....:gob:

Katman

22nd December 2010, 08:54

Need to kick off the bludgers abusing the system? ABSOLUTELY

This is the area that needs to be focused on.

Bludgers have systematically fucked our entire welfare system as well as the ACC system.

phill-k

22nd December 2010, 09:00

Maybe we could use North Korea as a model of self sufficiency or return to pre a pre European lifestyle....:gob:

Fuck u are funny mate, we have a system (see stoney's post) thats regarded as one of the best in the world.
NZ has an issue with overseas debt, why bust up a NZ owned system that works and is profitable, and give the profits of such to overseas companies and add to our overseas debt.

Bald Eagle

22nd December 2010, 09:08

We will be riding again I predict as also included in Nick the P ..'s release is this little gem

"Officials will now also investigate introducing "choice" or private sector competition in other ACC accounts such as the earners and motor vehicle accounts, Dr Smith said."

2011 is going to be a busy year if want to stop them ruining a world class system .

phill-k

22nd December 2010, 09:14

This is the area that needs to be focused on.

Bludgers have systematically fucked our entire welfare system as well as the ACC system.

I agree with you totally but why destroy a very sound system for the sake of a very small minority who attempt to abuse the system.

I'd like to know just how many people are believed to be abusing the system, because to do so you need a doctor to be signing you off and pass ACC's many specialist medical personal who are engaged to continually review said doctors decisions.

Katman

22nd December 2010, 09:15

2011 is going to be a busy year if want to stop them ruining a world class system .

New Zealand society set about ruining the system long before the politicians got involved.

yungatart

22nd December 2010, 09:16

But this isn't the UK, and the fundamental tenets of ACC are not being challenged. Notwithstanding that, as I said to the previous poster NZ had an optional privatised system (such as is being proposed now), a few years back. So based on the actual facts - how did this change workplace safety?

As for the private system: firstly it's optional - the ACC would still exist. Secondly, if an employer has a bad record - their premiums go up and ACC/OSH inspectors are on yer arse.

You what?
The tenets of ACC are most definitely being challenged...to the point where the original Woodhouse principles have been diluted. The moment governments instructed ACC to introduce risk rating, ACC began its slide down the slippery slope.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 09:23

You what?
The tenets of ACC are most definitely being challenged...to the point where the original Woodhouse principles have been diluted. The moment governments instructed ACC to introduce risk rating, ACC began its slide down the slippery slope.

So you want to continue with the original full on, no fault system?
How much do you suppose it would cost?
Would you pay?

mashman

22nd December 2010, 09:27

Its about a treasured Kiwi institution that needs to be managed better, not competed with, sold, or privateized

"He said that advice was "somewhat contradictory" as it was suggested ACC would have difficulty competing with private insurers but would at the same time be able to compete unfairly "as it does not have to provide a return on capital"."

It looks like the money is there :yes:, ACC does SAVE money each year doesn't it?

Must be the management. Legislation, expensive fuckin legislation.

mashman

22nd December 2010, 09:32

Fuck u are funny mate, we have a system (see stoney's post) thats regarded as one of the best in the world.
NZ has an issue with overseas debt, why bust up a NZ owned system that works and is profitable, and give the profits of such to overseas companies and add to our overseas debt.

cannot give again etc...

In a nutshell.

mashman

22nd December 2010, 09:35

So you want to continue with the original full on, no fault system?
How much do you suppose it would cost?
Would you pay?

it looks to be much cheaper than the alternative. "He said that advice was "somewhat contradictory" as it was suggested ACC would have difficulty competing with private insurers but would at the same time be able to compete unfairly "as it does not have to provide a return on capital"."

yungatart

22nd December 2010, 10:38

So you want to continue with the original full on, no fault system?
How much do you suppose it would cost?
Would you pay?

Yes.

I have no idea, but since ACC is there to provide cover for everyone regardless of fault, and insurance is there to make a profit for its shareholders, I know which one I would rather go with.

Again, yes.

Str8 Jacket

22nd December 2010, 10:44

So will the situation arise where motorcycle clubs will not allow someone to race at there events unless they have their own personal insurance?

If this happens, what are the chances that those who have private insurance won't be covered in a racing scenario?

Not saying that this will be the case but when you are creating a user-pays system its almost inevitable, aint it??

StoneY

22nd December 2010, 11:18

So you want to continue with the original full on, no fault system?
How much do you suppose it would cost?
Would you pay?

It costs a lot less than private or even some hybrid attempt at 'competition' based as per the late 90's when it was last tried (and epically failed because insurers denied claims that ACC will cover)

Yes.

I have no idea, but since ACC is there to provide cover for everyone regardless of fault, and insurance is there to make a profit for its shareholders, I know which one I would rather go with.

Again, yes.

And yep I agree with your comments 100% +10 char for good measure

Last time it was tried the bastards at the private insurance firm wanted 1600 a year in premiums, yet would not cover ANY portion of my body that had previously had ANY form of injury... thats right leg, spine, head, left arm, and right arm.
As I worked on Roofs for a portion of my day I was deemed 'High risk' by both ACC and the private firm, at that time named Tower.
Even at roofers rates the ACC levy was cheaper and I was guaranteed cover regardless of prior incidents in my medical history

Funny thing is not ONE of my past injuries is from Motorcycling....... yet thats what I now pay over $1700 per annum for the privellege of participating ........... (3 bikes all over 601cc)

The ONLY way I would even consider private as an option is if it meant I paid ONE levy for ALL my vehicles.....and that will not happen.
I know it wont because I recently sat in a room on a steering committee where we had this exact discussion with Kieth McKlea...

Oh yeah he happens to be GM ACC Insurance
I asked the man face to face "IF Private Insurance becomes an option, will this allow for us to take private road user cover and not pay ACC levy fees on our motorcycles?"

Answer:
"No because someone without private cover might borrow your bike, or your passenger may have no insurance, and we still have to cover your injuries even if you have not paid rego fee's....."

So where is there ANY advantage to going private?

Pay more, get less, and as we keep explaining over and over to those with blinders and earp[lugs in place,who think ACC is in trouble...... ACC IS CASH RICH and takes OVER 1.7 BILLION more than its SPENDS

There is no need for these changes, except to look after Mr Key's old mates in Merril Lynch and co.

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 11:25

So where is there ANY advantage to going private?
None. To the end user, that is.

Pay more, get less, and as we keep explaining over and over to those with blinders and earp[lugs in place,who think ACC is in trouble...... ACC IS CASH RICH and takes OVER 1.7 BILLION more than its SPENDS

But...but...But...Nick said ACC was broke...he wouldn't LIE to us, would he? Nah...course not.

riffer

22nd December 2010, 12:22

But...but...But...Nick said ACC was broke...he wouldn't LIE to us, would he? Nah...course not.

Aye... there's the rub. You see, us mere mortals don't understand the difference between cash in the bank and cash after contingent liabilities.

It's a long story, and complicated, but basically it works out that we're all fucked, and the only possible remedy is some more and vigorous fucking.

Katman

22nd December 2010, 12:37

None. To the end user, that is.

There is if they start dishing out no claim bonuses.

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 12:40

There is if they start dishing out no claim bonuses.

Big if. There's none on Medical. Or Life. In fact, they both get more expensive as one gets older...

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 13:22

It costs a lot less than private or even some hybrid attempt at 'competition' based as per the late 90's when it was last tried (and epically failed because insurers denied claims that ACC will cover)

.

Here's another one that confuses opinion with facts.
Epically failed?
Says who?

Do you have some proof of this assertion?

I can't understand why some here are whinging about being screwed by a govt. monopoly (rego costs) one minute and defending it's right to be the sole provider of other services the next.

SPman

22nd December 2010, 13:27

Bugger the nanny state liarbour
You'd rather have Big Brother state, Nactional?

riffer

22nd December 2010, 13:29

I can't understand why some here are whinging about being screwed by a govt. monopoly (rego costs) one minute and defending it's right to be the sole provider of other services the next.

Really? Then you can't have read much at the time it was all going down.

You're still confusing ACC with insurance. Just like the current government. It isn't.

Scuba_Steve

22nd December 2010, 13:31

I can't understand why some here are whinging about being screwed by a govt. monopoly (rego costs) one minute and defending it's right to be the sole provider of other services the next.

Quite simple if the costs are justified all good-ish, fact is they aren't as for wanting to remain ACC that's simple too they're are there for cover ONLY, that is they're purpose NOT to make a profit as it is with insurers where profit comes before all else and maximising that is the ultimate goal. Thinking it any different is ignorant or just plain retarded!

Brian d marge

22nd December 2010, 13:41

Evidence?
What of the mish mash above actually has to do with ACC?

Energy costs?
Student loans?
Ireland?

Step away from the bong...

Ill step away from the bong if you take the blinkers off

How plainly do I have to spell it out ( and As I have some time today I will try )

Can you not see that it is those that set the Bond rate , and "advise us on good economic practice , - not labour or national ~ that want NZ to loosen up the controls on our ACC .
this has been done in Many other countries that the IMF have "advised " and NZ is right there at the front

Now Im am not going to wait while the " never had it so good generation , who I might add received free or near enough to free Tertiary education as well enjoying an unmodified pre Rogernomic NZ

Im not going to wait while you destroy NZ with your blindness.... Your ACC (IMHO) WILL go up ,,,and IF I am wrong it will stay the same or go down ...please let me be wrong.
BTW YOUR REGO HAS GONE UP

And I will After coffee sit down and and walk you through, ( you can still vote National thats fine , as they are both as bad but at least labour had half a concience for the working stiff ,,,,)

Stephen

Brian d marge

22nd December 2010, 13:42

The original ACC concept was an ideal that was always doomed to failure as we increasingly became a 'Fuck you Jack' society.

agreed 100% ( its happening slowly here in the Japan to)

Stephen

SPman

22nd December 2010, 13:51

National Party leader John Key has been forced to confirm plans to open workplace accident insurance to private competition, but has denied that amounts to privatising ACC.

His comments followed revelations by The Dominion Post that a Merrill Lynch broker's report tipped Australian insurers to make a $200 million killing if National went ahead with an "informal" plan to privatise ACC.

Insurance companies expect National to privatise ACC, but their would-be customers, the business community, are surprisingly unenthusiastic.
Insurance Council chief executive Chris Ryan said there was an appetite among insurers to re-enter the workplace accident compensation market.
The Merrill Lynch report suggests privatisation could unlock $2.1 billion in new premium income. Mr Key once worked for Merrill Lynch. Prime candidates for privatisation were the workers' compensation and motor accident accounts.
....................cynical......moi?

If someone thinks they can save a few bucks, they'd happily throw ACC out and embrace private inurance - after all, it's the NZ way!
Trying to turn ACC into a facscimile private insurer, in attitude if not reality has been a softening up process to get you all used to how you'll be treated - believe me, if you think you're being shafted by ACC - you aint seen nothing yet!

Voltaire

22nd December 2010, 14:25

Now Im am not going to wait while the " never had it so good generation , who I might add received free or near enough to free Tertiary education as well enjoying an unmodified pre Rogernomic NZ

I remember the pre pre Rogernomic days....leaving NZ on $10 NZ an hour and arriving in sydney on $14 AU....pubs open on Sundays.....shops open on weekends.....a variety of take away food.....way cheaper stuff....but.....Vehicle rego on a bike $350.00....compulsory vehicle insurance,Union Membership, Workers Comp...but I had a bevel drive Ducati :woohoo: so life was good.
It would appear that for everything you gain...you lose something.

StoneY

22nd December 2010, 14:31

Here's another one that confuses opinion with facts.
Epically failed?
Says who?

Do you have some proof of this assertion?

I can't understand why some here are whinging about being screwed by a govt. monopoly (rego costs) one minute and defending it's right to be the sole provider of other services the next.

Proof?
I lived through it you sanctimonious #$%@!!! did you?
It WAS an epic fail, it lasted no more than 2 years before it was turned over and ACC restored to its original form with the exception of a re-calculation of levy rates, and discounts for self managing risk, or having fewer accidents in your workplace

My BEST MATE was one of the brokers who set his business up totally around private insurance options for workers, and he had 12 months of good revenue, before the public started refusing to play the game and his clients all returned to an ACC model.

So, if you can prove other than the situation I just described go ahead.
Where is YOUR proof Oscar?
Show us ONE single success case from when thay last did this!
You cant coz none exist

It was reversed because our Nation lost millions of dollars to underperforming insurance companies that simply lawyered up and refused to pay out injury claims, FACT!
And the Government had to step up and take it back to ensure our workforce was covered for any accidents.
Its all on public record, do you dare to imply I am making this up?

And while we are at it when did YOU last have a no topic barred conversation with Kieth McLea from ACC...I did less than 2 months ago and remember the conversation very clearly.

Quasievil

22nd December 2010, 14:37

You'd rather have Big Brother state, Nactional?
Labour = social engineering , what are you on about.................anti success ?

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 14:47

It was reversed because our Nation lost millions of dollars to underperforming insurance companies that simply lawyered up and refused to pay out injury claims, FACT!
And the Government had to step up and take it back to ensure our workforce was covered for any accidents.
Its all on public record, do you dare to imply I am making this up?

There was another reason...
ACC was hemorrhaging money from the work account due to payouts to existing claimants and not having enough new levies to keep it topped up.

I can understand that there is something to say about ACC having an enormous balance of reserves. If it's big enough, it will become self-sustaining. In which case, levies go down (ha!) or the lost income from those that go private won't be such an issue.

Believe what you like, but none of what is happening is being done for the benefit of the common wo/man...

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 14:57

Proof?
I lived through it you sanctimonious #$%@!!! did you?
It WAS an epic fail, it lasted no more than 2 years before it was turned over and ACC restored to its original form with the exception of a re-calculation of levy rates, and discounts for self managing risk, or having fewer accidents in your workplace

My BEST MATE was one of the brokers who set his business up totally around private insurance options for workers, and he had 12 months of good revenue, before the public started refusing to play the game and his clients all returned to an ACC model.

So, if you can prove other than the situation I just described go ahead.
Where is YOUR proof Oscar?
Show us ONE single success case from when thay last did this!
You cant coz none exist

It was reversed because our Nation lost millions of dollars to underperforming insurance companies that simply lawyered up and refused to pay out injury claims, FACT!
And the Government had to step up and take it back to ensure our workforce was covered for any accidents.
Its all on public record, do you dare to imply I am making this up?

And while we are at it when did YOU last have a no topic barred conversation with Kieth McLea from ACC...I did less than 2 months ago and remember the conversation very clearly.

My, my you do get excited, don't you?‎
As a matter of fact, I did live through it.‎
I've also spent a considerable part of my working life helping with actions against ‎insurers and the ACC in respect of compensation claims.‎

As for facts, you're another nupty doing the "my mate said" dance.‎
Why would I accept your word for something just because you finish your sentence ‎with FACT! If it's a matter of public record, why don't you post the figures?‎

It's my recollection that the reason the last one scheme was abandoned was ‎ideological - i.e. the Labour Govt. killed it.‎

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 14:59

Does anyone remember what happened in the carpark of the meatworks in Wairoa a few years ago?
A worker, with gang affiliations, was at work but on a break having a smoke. He got shot by a rival gang member, and was paralysed as a result.
Now - this company had done a deal with ACC, and agreed to cover their staff through their own insurance. Fine, in principle. Except, the company's insurer didn't want a bar of covering the injured worker. He was on a break. He was in an area with access for the public. He wasn't injured accidentally. Whatever. Any excuse to dodge payment was rolled out.
12 months down the line, the insurer and ACC struck a deal and paid out 1/2 each to the victim.
Now, you could argue that workers there still paid ACC levies for leisure-time cover. If he'd been shot outside of work and off the premises, then ACC should pay the lot. Is smoko classed as 'leisure time'? I don't think so.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 15:02

Really? Then you can't have read much at the time it was all going down.

You're still confusing ACC with insurance. Just like the current government. It isn't.

You're asking me to trust an organisation that plainly screwed up the calculations for mc rego charge?

You're confusing the compensation aspect of ACC with the legislative side.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 15:14

Quite simple if the costs are justified all good-ish, fact is they aren't as for wanting to remain ACC that's simple too they're are there for cover ONLY, that is they're purpose NOT to make a profit as it is with insurers where profit comes before all else and maximising that is the ultimate goal. Thinking it any different is ignorant or just plain retarded!

On that basis the state would run every service.
And history proves that the State is actually not that good at providing services. In the past Govt. monoplies were used to hide unemploment (NZR), to suppress diversity (NZBC) or just to be downright hopelessly inefficient (NZPO).

No one is saying that the ACC should be done away with, but to intoduce a bit of competition to the market can hardly hurt. And it's not like the ACC have a spotless history of service and claims payment is it? The NZ Herald have been running feature stories on the ACC's propensity toward shitty claims service for several weeks now.

riffer

22nd December 2010, 15:17

You're asking me to trust an organisation that plainly screwed up the calculations for mc rego charge?

You're confusing the compensation aspect of ACC with the legislative side.

No I'm not. All I've done is mention that we definitely don't back ACC's explanation. There is a lot of change ACC needs to embrace. I believe Cherry picking the most profitable aspects out of the organisation and leaving the less profitable parts (the "social promise stuff") to fall over so that we can emprofit overseas corporations is not the way to do it.

You're a typical NZer - you're so determined to get yourself the biggest bargain that you'll happily accept crap. Get out of your Warehouse mentality and figure out that privatisation and globalisation is going to screw the country in the end.

I don't have so much of a problem with the competition aspect - I just don't trust the insurance companies to play fair - they're not in business to accept risk.

StoneY

22nd December 2010, 15:17

It's my recollection that the reason the last one scheme was abandoned was ‎ideological - i.e. the Labour Govt. killed it.‎

Your recollection is utter shit
'My Mate' is on here and posted in this thread, The_Dude is the username and you can head to the Dom Post archive for the figures and facts as reported at the time...I already know how it went down its you thats dribbling bullshit all over this thread

Labour didnt kill it, they booted the underperforming and overcharging asswipes from the insurance industry out and RESTORED it to the way our legislation stated we should be covered

And I speak from my experience being charged 1600 dollars a year to cover the one leg that ACC had never paid any claims on, because the insurance companies cross refferenced medical history and ACC claims history to 'exclude' prior injuries from cover

Again, when did you last sit on an ACC hosted Steering Committee?

I did this year over the MSL and how to govern it. To ensure we Motorcyclists dont get ripped off any further.
I can categorically state in total confidence I have a far better grasp on the current ACC situation than you appear to have

I bet you believe the spin from Nick that ACC is broke? Yet its public record, its yearly report clearly shows a mass profit margin well above it expenditure.
There is NO need for this 'competition' bullshit, its Key making his promises to Merril Lynch come true while the Kiwi public get shafted by the rich yet again

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 15:29

Your recollection is utter shit
'My Mate' is on here and posted in this thread, The_Dude is the username nad head to the Dom Post archive for the figures and facts as reported at the time...I already know how it went down its you thats dribbling bullshit all over this thread

Labour didnt kill it, they booted the underperforming and overcharging asswipes from the insurance industry out and RESTORED it to the way our legislation stated we should be covered

And I speak from my experience being charged 1600 dollars a year to cover the one leg that ACC had never paid any claims on, because the insurance companies cross refferenced medical history and ACC claims history to 'exclude' prior injuries from cover

Again, when did you last sit on an ACC hosted Steering Committee?

I did this year over the MSL and how to govern it. To ensure we Motorcyclists dont get ripped off any further.
I can categorically state in total confidence I have a far better grasp on the current ACC situation than you appear to have

I bet you belkieve the spin from Nick that ACC is broke? Yet its public record, its yearly report clearly shows a mass profit margin well above it expenditure.
There is NO need for this 'competition' bullshit, its Key making his promises to Merril Lynch come true while the Kiwi public get shafted by the rich yet again

Another rant but no evidence.
I'm not dribbling anything - I'm simply asking the propagandists here to back up their claims with some facts and figures. For example you say that the insurance companies were overcharging last time, yet my experience was that they were generally cheaper than the ACC. However, you made the claim, so I have no doubt that you have some premium tables to back it up.

You see, you can "categorically state in total confidence" until you sprain your wrist and go blind, but I'd prefer to see something in writing if its all the same.

For the record I don't believe that ACC is broke either, but it is easy to look at the figures and see a profit without factoring future liabilities. It may not be broke, but I do think that it is inefficient and badly managed - at one stage it was fostering a child abuse industry in this country by paying on "recovered memories".

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 15:30

And I speak from my experience being charged 1600 dollars a year to cover the one leg that ACC had never paid any claims on, because the insurance companies cross refferenced medical history and ACC claims history to 'exclude' prior injuries from cover

Just for the sake of balance...why did you opt to go private? ACC was still there for anyone who wanted to stay with it, as I recall it.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 15:34

You're a typical NZer - you're so determined to get yourself the biggest bargain that you'll happily accept crap. Get out of your Warehouse mentality and figure out that privatisation and globalisation is going to screw the country in the end.

I don't have so much of a problem with the competition aspect - I just don't trust the insurance companies to play fair - they're not in business to accept risk.

On the contrary - I won't accept crap, and I think that the ACC has been delivering crap for some time now.

If you think insurers are risk averse, you might be interested in Zurich's result in NZ last year - they lost $24m on $75m turnover.

StoneY

22nd December 2010, 15:34

Just for the sake of balance...why did you opt to go private? ACC was still there for anyone who wanted to stay with it, as I recall it.

Company deal we had - all the contractors opted in to get a better rate...took 3 months and we bailed back to pure ACC
:)

Katman

22nd December 2010, 15:41

And it's not like the ACC have a spotless history of service and claims payment is it? The NZ Herald have been running feature stories on the ACC's propensity toward shitty claims service for several weeks now.

Hell, you don't even have to read the Herald.

KB is full of stories about how shitty the service ACC provide is.

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 15:44

... it is inefficient and badly managed
Really? Everything I've ever seen on that subject extols how well they do in terms of overheads. Do you have some facts to the contrary?

...at one stage it was fostering a child abuse industry in this country by paying on "recovered memories".
And what a lovely little scam that was. Made a LOT of money for some. Fooled a lot of 'us'. And caused untold trouble for a few. Peter Ellis, for instance.

Company deal we had - all the contractors opted in to get a better rate...took 3 months and we bailed back to pure ACC
:)
Ah! Thank you.
The premium was better. But eventually the facts of just what it covered showed that it wasn't so 'cheap' afterall?

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 16:09

Really? Everything I've ever seen on that subject extols how well they do in terms of overheads. Do you have some facts to the contrary?

:shit: Why should i be the only one on this thread actually backing up what they're saying?:woohoo: I was actually referring to their claims processes - their habit of using distant and vaguely qualified "experts" when determining claims.

I had a guy with a head injury locally who had been going to a psychiatrist (i.e. ‎medical degree and PHD) for treatment, but the ACC rolled out a psychologist (no ‎medical training) to prove our boy was faking. ‎

MSTRS

22nd December 2010, 16:18

Ah! Yes, of course. They have a poor record on that score, at least in recent years. Private insurers surely can and will do the same...

phill-k

22nd December 2010, 16:54

:shit: Why should i be the only one on this thread actually backing up what they're saying?:woohoo: I was actually referring to their claims processes - their habit of using distant and vaguely qualified "experts" when determining claims.

I had a guy with a head injury locally who had been going to a psychiatrist (i.e. ‎medical degree and PHD) for treatment, but the ACC rolled out a psychologist (no ‎medical training) to prove our boy was faking. ‎

And you think private companies who bottom line drives their existence will give better than your client has received. ACC have set in place via their act procedures to deal with your issue, private insurers will have to be sued to perform.
NZer's have been screwed by directors of financial organization's, who have shown no remorse are the insurance co's going to be any better.

Tell you have a client who under your preferred situation has a workplace accident, he can no longer work for the remaining 25yrs or so before he reaches his retirement, the insurer goes belly up or having feed at the trough just decides to withdraw from the market, who is going to pick up the poor guys compo ACC and don't tell this scenario won't happen.

ACC has its faults but NZer's can be assured they will always be there.

Robert Taylor

22nd December 2010, 16:58

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 16:59

And you think private companies who bottom line drives their existence will give better than your client has received. ACC have set in place via their act procedures to deal with your issue, private insurers will have to be sued to perform.
NZer's have been screwed by directors of financial organization's, who have shown no remorse are the insurance co's going to be any better.

Tell you have a client who under your preferred situation has a workplace accident, he can no longer work for the remaining 25yrs or so before he reaches his retirement, the insurer goes belly up or having feed at the trough just decides to withdraw from the market, who is going to pick up the poor guys compo ACC and don't tell this scenario won't happen.

ACC has its faults but NZer's can be assured they will always be there.

Erm - I was talking about a court case Grant v. Accident Compensation Corporation - last I heard, it went to appeal.

Robert Taylor

22nd December 2010, 17:01

And you think private companies who bottom line drives their existence will give better than your client has received. ACC have set in place via their act procedures to deal with your issue, private insurers will have to be sued to perform.
NZer's have been screwed by directors of financial organization's, who have shown no remorse are the insurance co's going to be any better.

Tell you have a client who under your preferred situation has a workplace accident, he can no longer work for the remaining 25yrs or so before he reaches his retirement, the insurer goes belly up or having feed at the trough just decides to withdraw from the market, who is going to pick up the poor guys compo ACC and don't tell this scenario won't happen.

ACC has its faults but NZer's can be assured they will always be there.

Yes we have been screwed by directors of finance companies, but they are just one of many sectors of society that have had a rort over the years. How about lifestyle beneficiaries, how about politicians? The worst ones are the left wing politicians because they espouse equality but they are happy to be pigs at the feeding trough to suit their own pockets. Bloody hypocrites.

phill-k

22nd December 2010, 17:03

Erm - I was talking about a court case Grant v. Accident Compensation Corporation - last I heard, it went to appeal.

So answer the rest of my questions / statements, you are very quick to state no one is giving you facts, so answer my questions don't just deflect on the one case you are bagging ACC on.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 17:04

phill-k

22nd December 2010, 17:05

Yes we have been screwed by directors of finance companies, but they are just one of many sectors of society that have had a rort over the years. How about lifestyle beneficiaries, how about politicians? The worst ones are the left wing politicians because they espouse equality but they are happy to be pigs at the feeding trough to suit their own pockets. Bloody hypocrites.

and your point is?

phill-k

22nd December 2010, 17:07

So to summarise.

The partial privatisation of ACC is a bad thing because:

My Mate Said So.
Anything I Say In Capitals Is True
All Insurance Comapany's Are Bastards
ACC Fucked Up My Rego, But They Can Trusted Otherwise
Childbirth In Toyko Is Expensive
All Politicians Are Liars (Except The Ones Who Agree With Me).

You are a bloody wanker, all the reasoned responses about why this is the beginning of the end getting to much for you.

Brian d marge

22nd December 2010, 17:07

:shit: Why should i be the only one on this thread actually backing up what they're saying?:woohoo: I was actually referring to their claims processes - their habit of using distant and vaguely qualified "experts" when determining claims.

I had a guy with a head injury locally who had been going to a psychiatrist (i.e. ‎medical degree and PHD) for treatment, but the ACC rolled out a psychologist (no ‎medical training) to prove our boy was faking. ‎

your not

you haven't provided one link or scrap of evidence to show that Acc or indeed the great unwashed would be better off

I will attempt to show you the history and possible outcomes based on past history and what has happened in other countries and how that will effect us here in NZ

unfortunately it isnt a quick read so bear with me as I assemble it

its all good as it will help me articulate things clearly and succinctly in the future

Stephen

ps I never inhaled

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 17:16

your not

you haven't provided one link or scrap of evidence to show that Acc or indeed the great unwashed would be better off

I will attempt to show you the history and possible outcomes based on past history and what has happened in other countries and how that will effect us here in NZ

unfortunately it isnt a quick read so bear with me as I assemble it

its all good as it will help me articulate things clearly and succinctly in the future

Stephen

ps I never inhaled

Shit, I inhaled plenty...
I never made any claims about ACC if you review my posts - all I wanted was some of the more outrageous claims to be verified.

I understand what you're saying about the economy and privatisation generally , however there are a bunch of people here that are basically spouting propoganda, and prime targets for a wind-up:innocent:

Voltaire

22nd December 2010, 17:24

So to summarise.

The partial privatisation of ACC is a bad thing because:

My Mate Said So.
Anything I Say In Capitals Is True
All Insurance Comapany's Are Bastards
ACC Fucked Up My Rego, But They Can Trusted Otherwise
Childbirth In Toyko Is Expensive
All Politicians Are Liars (Except The Ones Who Agree With Me).

you forgot name calling and swearing....:innocent:

I was self employed...ACC are like/worse that IRD to deal with, fairly typical of a 'company' that does not have to answer to anyone. Customer service..yeah right.

Fatt Max

22nd December 2010, 17:31

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 17:45

You forgot about my scary wife

Good point.
I was distracted by my scary wife.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 17:47

You are a bloody wanker, all the reasoned responses about why this is the beginning of the end getting to much for you.

Name calling, eh?
I won't argue with you when you call me a wanker as it's obviously your expert subject.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 17:49

you forgot name calling and swearing....:innocent:

I was self employed...ACC are like/worse that IRD to deal with, fairly typical of a 'company' that does not have to answer to anyone. Customer service..yeah right.

I also forgot the guy who told me a didn't deserve a KTM when he red blinged me.

Lucky for him, I don't have a KTM...

....I have two!:woohoo:

NONONO

22nd December 2010, 20:30

NONONO

22nd December 2010, 20:57

I also forgot the guy who told me a didn't deserve a KTM when he red blinged me.

Lucky for him, I don't have a KTM...

....I have two!:woohoo:

Yep...Wanker...............

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 21:07

Sorry cocker, you come on here DEMANDING evidence, when it's given you ignore it..
You bleat about slogans and rhetoric..
You provide no evidence yourself, and spout your own ideology..
and you have the gall to then call it a wind up...
Oh piss off sunshine, what a waste of time you are...
hope you wear a "For the dismantling of ACC" T shirt, just so as I can ignore you on the road if you need assistance...you being all self sufficient and self contained.
Phew! that uranium stinks............

I never demanded anything, I merely enquired as to the facts behind your outlandish claims. Your response pretty much confirmed you as a propagandist (not too mention tiresome and rude as well).

Fortunately we leaving in a democracy, so we'll see come November.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 21:09

Yep...Wanker...............

As I said to your mate, I'm not going to debate you on your specialist subject:yes:

NONONO

22nd December 2010, 21:23

I never demanded anything, I merely enquired as to the facts behind your outlandish claims. Your response pretty much confirmed you as a propagandist (not too mention tiresome and rude as well).

Fortunately we leaving in a democracy, so we'll see come November.

Freudian Slip I think that's called..just before you correct it...
Rude? you don't know the half of it...
By the way, only 2 types of blokes in this world, wankers and liars...which are you I wonder?
Oh, sorry 3 types, wankers, liars and The Brethren..........
Nuff said..Troll....much?

Robert Taylor

22nd December 2010, 21:59

and your point is?

I dont think I can make it any clearer. But to simplify it we live in a world of hypocrisy, we also live in a bubble where we think ''the Government should provide this and provide that'' but we forget where all the money comes from in the first place.

Oscar

22nd December 2010, 22:01

Freudian Slip I think that's called..just before you correct it...
Rude? you don't know the half of it...
By the way, only 2 types of blokes in this world, wankers and liars...which are you I wonder?
Oh, sorry 3 types, wankers, liars and The Brethren..........
Nuff said..Troll....much?

You can crap on all you like, but everything you've written here is either your opinion or that of someone else. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertions on the future of ACC such as these:

ACC done and dusted.
Won't be long now before we are paying huge legal fees and waiting , sometimes years, in order to have our claims sorted out.

So I guess that makes you a liar.

Winston001

22nd December 2010, 22:45

I haven't kept up with the thread but here's my 2 cents: Incidentally I'm generally to the right of the political spectrum.

I believe ACC is a world-leading concept. The certainty it provides injured people far outweighs the loss of the right to sue for compensation.

I do not believe insurance companies can provide the same level of support which ACC currently provides. Well, they could, but they won't. It goes completely against the grain for restricting claims which is the careful practise of all insurance companies. Perfectly reasonable for them.

I remember the 1999 change to private cover. The cost was certainly lower than ACC. I also remember the insurance company went into liquidation in 2002.

As for large businesses covering themselves - some of you will remember the AFFCO saga. A freezing worker went out to the carpark during a break to smoke some dope. He was shot by other gang members. Bummer. ACC refused to pay the $1 million in medical etc costs saying AFFCO had to cover it. That was nuts but we are on the same track again.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/62165/affco-and-acc-split-costs-shooting-dispute

Brian d marge

23rd December 2010, 05:02

I owe my mate 60 bucks

had a beer after work , that surely is a work related incident

Stephen

Brian d marge

23rd December 2010, 05:04

I dont think I can make it any clearer. But to simplify it we live in a world of hypocrisy, we also live in a bubble where we think ''the Government should provide this and provide that'' but we forget where all the money comes from in the first place.

Huh???

the little bit of paper every month that says " give me " is enough for me

I pay , I get ,,,,,

Stephen

NONONO

23rd December 2010, 06:03

ou can crap on all you like, but everything you've written here is either your opinion or that of someone else. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertions on the future of ACC such as these:

Wait, wait.....I get it:facepalm:
You work in the insurance industry, don't you? You good dog you..........

Oscar

23rd December 2010, 07:00

Oscar

23rd December 2010, 07:04

StoneY

23rd December 2010, 07:33

Ah! Thank you.
The premium was better. But eventually the facts of just what it covered showed that it wasn't so 'cheap' afterall?

Yeah mate that was the kicker

One of the team had his ladder collapse in a freak failure (pedentic guy too, always super efficient always mr super safe) a bolt on the ladder broke it tipped sideways.
He broke his collar bone

Private firm tried saying he had been negligent, wtf? Guy was Mr Safety with a 100% never had an incident at work record

Short version we went back to ACC en masse as they cant say 'no your not covered for this incident'

SKy TV themselves assisted us with legal support to do so as they wanted assurance the installer force was able to work in confidence that they were covered in any circumstance

Oscar

23rd December 2010, 07:37

Wait, wait.....I get it:facepalm:
You work in the insurance industry, don't you? You good dog you..........

A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you?

You slow witted lumpen proletariat types are why the corporate Nazi conspiracy is finding it so easy to take over the world...

MSTRS

23rd December 2010, 07:53

Would you like to retract this propaganda now?
See Winstons post - the deal was done between the employer and ACC.

I will not retract any of it. Doesn't matter whether the Insurer was the Employer...by agreement, ACC were out of the picture for workplace injuries. The guy was shot on company premises, whilst on company time. Affco or their insurer (and the lawyers) still tried everything possible to not pay out. In the end a deal was done with ACC for each to pay half. I believe the payout was $1M total.

Oscar

23rd December 2010, 08:52

I will not retract any of it. Doesn't matter whether the Insurer was the Employer...by agreement, ACC were out of the picture for workplace injuries. The guy was shot on company premises, whilst on company time. Affco or their insurer (and the lawyers) still tried everything possible to not pay out. In the end a deal was done with ACC for each to pay half. I believe the payout was $1M total.

No problem. As long as the facts don't get in the way of a good story.

MSTRS

23rd December 2010, 09:06

No problem. As long as the facts don't get in the way of a good story.

What are you on about? There was nothing in my original post that was misleading, or emotively sensational. Simply facts.

AllanB

23rd December 2010, 09:15

Odd that they are rolling out this old one. I did not think it worked last time and cannot see it succeeding again.

The public will be very suspicious of it and they have indicated it would require public approval first - the unions and opposing government parties will still up enough backlash to kill a favorable public vote.

However - what worries me is that this may then be a good excuse to justify increasing ACC charges even more!

I noticed a pattern during Helen Clarks 9 year dictatorship - often a statement was released 'we re considering XXXXX' usually it was something way out with no hope of public support (capital gains tax on your private home is one I remember) - now this hits the media for a week or more and during that uproar something slightly unsavory that it totally unrelated gets quietly passed through parliament.

Sneaky buggers.

Side note - why do political discussions get so heated? I am a bit of a voting slut - I'll vote for whoever appears to be offering the best deal for me and my family - I have no allegiances to a specific party. I do not understand people who are dedicated to one specific party for absolute decades despite evidence of that party fucking up badly somewhere down the track.

Vote em in, vote em out.

Spearfish

23rd December 2010, 09:29

Perhaps opening up ACC to competition will leave ACC with a higher concentration of the professional ACC claimant?

No company will be interested in supporting a work capable but not interested victim of the disease boneidlesclarosis.

Maybe now the language the politicians use has changed to calling ACC an insurance company then I want an individual ACC account based on my own personal risk history with a farken big no claims discount!!

RiderInBlack

23rd December 2010, 10:08

No surprise there. They have been fattening the ACC "Calf" for awhile at our cost:angry: Now it is fat enough ta sell to the greedy Corporate World, and NZ will become as sue crazy as the US.
But then you guys voted for that as soon as ya let Nation in. They made it quite clear that it was part of their plan. Thanks alot:motu:

avgas

23rd December 2010, 10:23

Remeber to make your vote count next year
I am getting sick of this statement.

How do we make it count???
Who do you think we should vote for???

- I don't want taxes to go up
- I don't want a relaxed prison system
- I don't want Waitangi Tribunal to continual
- I don't want to pay more for rego....

and many other things I don't want.

Surely the best thing for me to do with my vote is to not vote - and buy a lotto ticket as the others go to polls to decides which morons are in charge.
Statistically speaking the chances of a payoff are much greater.
I mean if I have enough money - then like others in NZ in that position.....that is the only way I could truly say "FUCK YOU" to the politicians. You gotta have money or people. And it seems "people" means > 200,000 as this is why the whole ACC protest fell over.

So yes make your vote count! because its going to determine how you will be raped by either party a or party b in future.....and if your lucky they might use lube.

avgas

23rd December 2010, 10:25

But then you guys voted for that as soon as ya let Nation in. They made it quite clear that it was part of their plan. Thanks alot:motu:
Because labour was doing such an awesome job......

face it Labour or National - your gonna get fucked

Ocean1

23rd December 2010, 10:37

I believe Cherry picking the most profitable aspects out of the organisation and leaving the less profitable parts (the "social promise stuff") to fall over so that we can emprofit overseas corporations is not the way to do it.

Why are there cherries to pick? Why should there be instances where specific groups are paying more for the services they receive than they’re worth?

The “social promise stuff” needs to be paid for somehow? Other groups can’t afford to pay for what they get?

Fuck that, that’s what the sliding income tax is supposed to be all about, why do some groups have to pay the same “extras” half a dozen different ways? ‘Cause they can afford to?

You're a typical NZer - you're so determined to get yourself the biggest bargain that you'll happily accept crap. Get out of your Warehouse mentality and figure out that privatisation and globalisation is going to screw the country in the end.

I don't have so much of a problem with the competition aspect - I just don't trust the insurance companies to play fair - they're not in business to accept risk.

Why does the competitive element have to be an off shore one? Why couldn’t NZ insurance companies bid for controlled access to bits of the market?

And what on earth leads you to believe the current charges are fair? You lot are fookin’ quick to bleat when they decide to charge higher ACC levies for bikers. Whether that’s based on genuine statistical data or rank bullshit why should any other group pay for more than they get?

Let’s start a wee poll eh?

ACC supplies me personally exactly the same bundle of services as every other Kiwi. That service costs me personally around $8.5k P.A.

You?

RiderInBlack

23rd December 2010, 10:59

Why does the competitive element have to be an off shore one? Why couldn’t NZ insurance companies bid for controlled access to bits of the market?Bet ya can't name one NZ Insurance Company that is not owned by a larger Off-Shore Company, that is big enough to handle ACC:blank: If ya can't, then that answers ya above two questions:hitcher:

Scuba_Steve

23rd December 2010, 11:01

Because labour was doing such an awesome job......

face it Labour or National - your gonna get fucked

True that your only choice in NZ is who you don't want more

Winston001

23rd December 2010, 11:44

Are you referring to HIH in respect of the insurer going bust?

Interestingly enough that shooting was used earlier in this thread as an example of an insurer avoiding a claim.

Yes ta, HIH was the one.

I don't know if AFFCO reinsured but essentially it was their risk which was argued over.

I must say I don't get it. If the guy in the case was inside or outside the gate on his break and got shot, should the employer still have to cover it? Not a work related accident. I'd be pretty dark too if I was AFFCO. I'll bet the average KBer wouldn't want to pay up either. :D

StoneY

23rd December 2010, 12:06

I am getting sick of this statement.

So stop reading KB then, coz its exactly what the situation is.

While you may believe one party is no better than the other, thats your choice in a democracy.
I for one disagree that my vote would be wasted

Its apathy like you just displayed that got our ACC levy increased by the Nat's

SPman

23rd December 2010, 12:07

How about lifestyle beneficiaries, how about politicians? The worst ones are the left wing politicians because they espouse equality but they are happy to be pigs at the feeding trough to suit their own pockets. Bloody hypocrites.The worst ones are the ACT MP's, who espouse individual freedoms, anti rorting and honesty, and are conspicuously none of these things....

Labour = social engineering , what are you on about.................anti success ? All governments engage in social engineering of one form or another. The nats are really good at it - with the help of their PR companies you hardly notice it going on - well - if you have to rely on the MSM to hear about it......... success is good, however no governments in NZ seem to be in favour of success, unless they can make some personal capital out of it. National just prattle on about successful business, but do as little as any other party to actually engender this....unless you're good mates with a politico. Most success stories in NZ have happened, despite the government of the day, very seldom with the help of!
The opening of the ACC section to private insurers will not benefit the citizens of the country as a whole - as before, the lucrative bits (if there are any) will be picked up by the private sector, leaving the ACC to carry the can for everything else.

True that your only choice in NZ is who you don't want more ...which is a sad indictment on the state of politics and polititians in this country (and overseas)

MSTRS

23rd December 2010, 12:47

... Not a work related accident....

I guess that was the sticking point. Not work related, but it did happen on company time, on company premises. Hence the eventual sharing of the payout. It's a moot point, but I guess ACC used the non-work fund?
At the time this happened, ACC were not quite the ogre they are now, so they prolly would have paid out without too much fuss.

wharfy

23rd December 2010, 12:49

ACC supplies me personally exactly the same bundle of services as every other Kiwi. That service costs me personally around $8.5k P.A.

You?

So how does that work ?
I pay ACC through vehicle rego and ACC earner levies but that is a long way from $8.5k ?

Oscar

23rd December 2010, 12:57

Yes ta, HIH was the one.

I don't know if AFFCO reinsured but essentially it was their risk which was argued over.

I must say I don't get it. If the guy in the case was inside or outside the gate on his break and got shot, should the employer still have to cover it? Not a work related accident. I'd be pretty dark too if I was AFFCO. I'll bet the average KBer wouldn't want to pay up either. :D

Yeah the HIH thing was very dodgey - I seem to recall the MD going to jail or somesuch.

motor_mayhem

23rd December 2010, 14:15

There is if they start dishing out no claim bonuses.

What's the good of having a no claims bonus if you have to waste time and money on litigation when you actually need them to pay out a claim?

My, my you do get excited, don't you?‎
As a matter of fact, I did live through it.‎
I've also spent a considerable part of my working life helping with actions against ‎insurers and the ACC in respect of compensation claims.‎

As for facts, you're another nupty doing the "my mate said" dance.‎
Why would I accept your word for something just because you finish your sentence ‎with FACT! If it's a matter of public record, why don't you post the figures?‎

It's my recollection that the reason the last one scheme was abandoned was ‎ideological - i.e. the Labour Govt. killed it.‎

So let me get this straight - to argue that this is a bad idea we need absolute substantiated proof but when you want to prove your case, you claim life experience which is the same as "my mate said" to anyone you're telling.

On the contrary - I won't accept crap, and I think that the ACC has been delivering crap for some time now.

You think? Well that "definitely" sells it to me, given your demands for proof of any statements made against your view.

:shit: Why should i be the only one on this thread actually backing up what they're saying?:woohoo: I was actually referring to their claims processes - their habit of using distant and vaguely qualified "experts" when determining claims. I had a guy with a head injury locally who had been going to a psychiatrist (i.e. ‎medical degree and PHD) for treatment, but the ACC rolled out a psychologist (no ‎medical training) to prove our boy was faking. ‎

So you think an insurance company wouldn't roll out a psychologist AND a lawyer just to make sure they didn't pay any more than they are forced to? (note use of the phrase "are forced to" rather than "are responsible for")

Here's an interesting article for you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664727/ns/health-health_care/

Particularly read further down to the bit that reads "In Perfect Health but still denied".

So to summarise.

The partial privatisation of ACC is a bad thing because:

My Mate Said So.
Anything I Say In Capitals Is True
All Insurance Comapany's Are Bastards
ACC Fucked Up My Rego, But They Can Trusted Otherwise
Childbirth In Toyko Is Expensive
All Politicians Are Liars (Except The Ones Who Agree With Me).

As a general starter try googling denied health claims and read through how much crap you would have to go through to appeal. Now add to that you are doing battle with a company who's arguments are driven by a profit increase when your claim is rejected so they are very determined. Provided ACC are actually run as a service rather than a company, their only interest should be to weed out the tools who are trying to use the system.

I don't know that all politicians are liars but how truthful would you say Nats were when they said "We won't privatise ACC in this term" compared with what we're reading now?

And I'm sure the govt would never influence what ACC make the fees for rego or whatever....:facepalm:

wharfy

23rd December 2010, 14:42

Side note - why do political discussions get so heated? I am a bit of a voting slut - I'll vote for whoever appears to be offering the best deal for me and my family - I have no allegiances to a specific party. I do not understand people who are dedicated to one specific party for absolute decades despite evidence of that party fucking up badly somewhere down the track.

Vote em in, vote em out.

Well I support Labour, the principles the party was founded on are sound - support for the workers - I did vote Green for a time after Roger Douglas hijacked the party and may do so again unless Labour figures out that they need to get back to their original principles.
National's policies are diametrically opposed to my belief's and no matter how relaxed John Key is or how Telegenic, he is still just window dressing for the National Party - Their agenda is simple - Big Business rules, and they will always favor them at the expense of the "ordinary" citizen (whose only purpose as far as Business is concerned is to work and consume to keep the machine running.)

Don't be a voting slut !!! - Think about what sort of society you want to live in and vote for a party that supports that.

Remember that Politicians will offer almost anything to get elected !! You must bear in mind what their belief system is, to quote The right Honorable Dr Lockwood Smith " you have to swallow a few dead fish to get elected "

( I just wish Phil Goff would relax a bit - He is a smart witty guy, and easily as likable as John Key if he wasn't trying so hard )

Oscar

23rd December 2010, 15:17

What's the good of having a no claims bonus if you have to waste time and money on litigation when you actually need them to pay out a claim?

So let me get this straight - to argue that this is a bad idea we need absolute substantiated proof but when you want to prove your case, you claim life experience which is the same as "my mate said" to anyone you're telling.

You think? Well that "definitely" sells it to me, given your demands for proof of any statements made against your view.

So you think an insurance company wouldn't roll out a psychologist AND a lawyer just to make sure they didn't pay any more than they are forced to? (note use of the phrase "are forced to" rather than "are responsible for")

Here's an interesting article for you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664727/ns/health-health_care/

Particularly read further down to the bit that reads "In Perfect Health but still denied".

As a general starter try googling denied health claims and read through how much crap you would have to go through to appeal. Now add to that you are doing battle with a company who's arguments are driven by a profit increase when your claim is rejected so they are very determined. Provided ACC are actually run as a service rather than a company, their only interest should be to weed out the tools who are trying to use the system.

I don't know that all politicians are liars but how truthful would you say Nats were when they said "We won't privatise ACC in this term" compared with what we're reading now?

And I'm sure the govt would never influence what ACC make the fees for rego or whatever....:facepalm:

This is getting a bit old now and most of that discussion is out of context as it goes ‎back to older (and unquoted) posts. For example the post you quote where I say "I ‎was there" was a response to an older post that inferred that I wasn't. I was merely ‎responding to posters that are against any private involvement and rail against both ‎the Govt. and the Insurance sector with no supporting evidence.‎

I merely asked these chaps to post some supporting evidence for these assertions - I ‎wasn't actually trying to make a case either way.‎

In respect of the changes to be made, I can see that opening the area to competition ‎may have drawbacks (and it could probably use an oversight authority of some sort to ‎monitor claims performance), but perhaps ACC could use a wake up call. What I ‎would vehemently oppose is any change to the "no fault" philosophy of ACC, but I ‎can't see how changing that is to anyone’s advantage. I don't believe anyone in Govt. ‎is dumb enough to open up this area to the sort of litigation that ensue.‎

As far as election promises, I can't fathom your point - they said they wouldn't change ‎it in this term, and they're giving everyone fair notice that they will do something ‎‎after the next election.‎

Fatt Max

23rd December 2010, 16:13

I don't believe anyone in Govt. ‎is dumb enough .‎

Evidence....facts.....please?

Ocean1

23rd December 2010, 16:23

So how does that work ?
I pay ACC through vehicle rego and ACC earner levies but that is a long way from $8.5k ?

I ain't going to break it down, if you work for yourself or own a small business you wouldn't need to ask.

Ocean1

23rd December 2010, 16:28

Bet ya can't name one NZ Insurance Company that is not owned by a larger Off-Shore Company, that is big enough to handle ACC:blank: If ya can't, then that answers ya above two questions:hitcher:

It'd been a while since there was a big Kiwi bank too.

Ocean1

23rd December 2010, 16:30

Fookin double post...

Oscar

23rd December 2010, 16:33

Evidence....facts.....please?

None of them are in the Labour Party.
Key won't do a deal with Peters.
None of them own Hondas.

Robert Taylor

23rd December 2010, 17:30

The worst ones are the ACT MP's, who espouse individual freedoms, anti rorting and honesty, and are conspicuously none of these things....
All governments engage in social engineering of one form or another. The nats are really good at it - with the help of their PR companies you hardly notice it going on - well - if you have to rely on the MSM to hear about it......... success is good, however no governments in NZ seem to be in favour of success, unless they can make some personal capital out of it. National just prattle on about successful business, but do as little as any other party to actually engender this....unless you're good mates with a politico. Most success stories in NZ have happened, despite the government of the day, very seldom with the help of!
The opening of the ACC section to private insurers will not benefit the citizens of the country as a whole - as before, the lucrative bits (if there are any) will be picked up by the private sector, leaving the ACC to carry the can for everything else.
...which is a sad indictment on the state of politics and polititians in this country (and overseas)

Disagree, that arrogant and TOTALLY UNREPENTANT fag Carter is 10 times worse than any other pig at the feeding trough.

We get the Governments we deserve because too many voters are infirm of purpose and are looking for easy handouts, fact.

NONONO

23rd December 2010, 17:45

None of them are in the Labour Party.
Key won't do a deal with Peters.
None of them own Hondas.

Lumpen Proletariat..? Not been called that in a while.......:yes:
Go on you bloody parasite!
Might have been nice for you to declare your personal interest in this argument at the start, then we all could have ignored your self serving posts. But that's not the way you blood suckers operate eh?
Enough of you...be gone!
Ignored...thank the lord!

Oscar

23rd December 2010, 18:03

Lumpen Proletariat..? Not been called that in a while.......:yes:
Go on you bloody parasite!
Might have been nice for you to declare your personal interest in this argument at the start, then we all could have ignored your self serving posts. But that's not the way you blood suckers operate eh?
Enough of you...be gone!
Ignored...thank the lord!

Blood sucker?
Parasite?
You forgot running dog or paper tiger.
You are starting to sound like the left wing propagandist dope that you undoubtedly are...

Fatt Max

23rd December 2010, 18:05

Blood sucker?
Parasite?
You forgot running dog or paper tiger.
You are starting to sound like the left wing propagandist dope that you undoubtedly are...

You are talking about the man I love.....

Hawk

23rd December 2010, 19:45

I agree stony how about a slight modification to your slogan "Whos next......New Zealand"

want next ??????????????????????????????????

Mom

23rd December 2010, 20:10

I ain't going to break it down, if you work for yourself or own a small business you wouldn't need to ask.

Would you be reffering to the ACC levy you pay as an employer on every $100 of wages you pay, the ACC levy you pay on registering the vehicles you use for the business, then the ACC levy you pay on the fuel those vehicles use, and the ACC levy you pay on any income you manage to generate personally from the business? Lets not forget if you are employed part time to support the business you have, you also pay ACC levy on the wages you earn and heaven help you if you happen to have a coupld of motorcycles as well.

On top of that try making a claim for a treatment injury, and waiting, and waiting for a decision on whether they will accept your claim. Once they do you are surprised, nay shocked when ACC will not pay for the 2 ambulance trips this injury resulted in as they happened more than 24 hours after the "injury" happened. Yeah, of course they did. It built up over days of treatment by 24hr clinics and GP visits, it was a serious adverse reaction to a blood pressure med that almost eveyone else can take. How can I help being special :sunny:

Something has gone very, very wrong with the spirit and intent of the Act that founded it.

Ocean1

23rd December 2010, 20:34

Would you be reffering to...
Yes. You’ve missed one but I can’t think what it is.

Caught up with the residual claims levies yet?

I’m surprised that apparently nobody else on KB is call on to be quite as generous.

heaven help you if you happen to have a coupld of motorcycles as well.

Now that you mention it... that’s almost another grand.

Mom

23rd December 2010, 20:41

Caught up with the residual claims levies yet?

Wash out your mouth!

Fatt Max

23rd December 2010, 20:49

Have you heard the news
that we are all getting screwed
while the bellends down the Beehive
get more pay.........

RiderInBlack

24th December 2010, 06:36

It'd been a while since there was a big Kiwi bank too.Which basically answers ya below question:

Why does the competitive element have to be an off shore one? Why couldn’t NZ insurance companies bid for controlled access to bits of the market?
Nice of ya to agree that ya question was invalid.

By the way ya can't count the ACC ya pay on behalf of your employees as being part you ACC as it comes out of their wages (Like TAX does). You just remove it before ya employee gets ta see it. What different world we would live in if the Employee got all of their wages and then had to pay the Government for taxes themselves.
By the way I have also been self-employed. Making sure ya set aside enough tax money is a pain in the arse. I also got screwed over last time they tried privatising ACC too. Think ya will be better off. Yer right. Start rolling out the the Tuis by the Barrel load on that one.

StoneY

24th December 2010, 06:58

ACC supplies me personally exactly the same bundle of services as every other Kiwi. That service costs me personally around $8.5k P.A.

You?

With 4 motorcycles (3 over 601cc) and a car, and two fully employed professionals who earn above the average income in our household, NOT counting whats on our fuel (would have to do some pretty hard our math to get down to that figure) we pay about 4k a year, earners and vehicles

Your so full of shit dude

So how does that work ?
I pay ACC through vehicle rego and ACC earner levies but that is a long way from $8.5k ?

Yep, exactly what the rest of us feel, and Mom has nailed it in relation to what we expect and what we get

I spent half this year as a self emoployed contractor to MOH before I took on my current role (in another high profile govt dept) and my ACC bill against my PAYE is only $1600,for the whole YEAR salary time as well as contract. The missus contribution is around 1100 in PAYE associated levy, add our bikes its a round figure of 4k and a bit of change

He has to be counting his 'employees' fee's he pays as well or commercial vehicle rates (again not a PERSONAL EXPENSE)

Oscar and co, you've trolled us enough, return to your masters and report you have epically failed to convince the nasty bikers that the scheme is a good one

Time to use the ignore function before I vomit, this moron thinks he can reason us into swallowing bullshit and thanking them for the supply

Oscar

24th December 2010, 07:28

Oscar and co, you've trolled us enough, return to your masters and report you have epically failed to convince the nasty bikers that the scheme is a good one

Time to use the ignore function before I vomit, this moron thinks he can reason us into swallowing bullshit and thanking them for the supply

Typical propagandist maroon.
I didn't post an opinion much one way or another as I think any privatisation needs more regulation - merely asked some of you lefty idiots to explain your outlandish claims.

You wouldn't dare putting me on ignore - you'd be laying awake at nights wondering what the big nasty corporate bogeyman was saying...

AllanB

24th December 2010, 11:22

National Party - Their agenda is simple - Big Business rules, and they will always favor them at the expense of the "ordinary" citizen (whose only purpose as far as Business is concerned is to work and consume to keep the machine running.)

Don't be a voting slut !!! - Think about what sort of society you want to live in and vote for a party that supports that.

( I just wish Phil Goff would relax a bit - He is a smart witty guy, and easily as likable as John Key if he wasn't trying so hard )

My issue with 'life time supporters' of any party is that they get inground beliefs that are often untrue.
Business - where would the country be without it? And in the present global enviroment if business is constantly being screwed it will just got off shore.

Social values - great in theory but from what I see in practice it is the same slackers getting hand outs decade affter decade - yep the career benificaries. I'm sick of paying for the bastards.

Somewhere in the middle would presumably be OK.

Heres my big rub - MP's are (or were) voted in to do the best for their country, so if ANY party has a good idea the lot of them should be voting for it instead of wanking on moaning about 'but we would do ....'

Phil Goff - his biggest mistake was accepting the leadership after Helen Clarke resigned - who ever took that roll was only going to be a fall-guy until the public tired of John Kay. Consquently we will never get to see Phill as PM. God help the country if Andrew Little wins!

Ocean1

24th December 2010, 11:37

Your so full of shit dude

So you don't own a small business then?

pete376403

24th December 2010, 11:39

I didn't post an opinion much one way or another as I think any privatisation needs more regulation - ...
But doesn't this really fly in the face of the (mostly) ACT and the National agendas -Privatisation = good, regulation = bad ?
If after the next election National still need the support of ACT (assuming Hide gets back in) and they go ahead with the ACC privatisation, it will have to be as unregulated as possible to keep ACT happy.

SPman

24th December 2010, 11:45

Disagree, that arrogant and TOTALLY UNREPENTANT fag Carter is 10 times worse than any other pig at the feeding trough. Chris Carter is an egotistic shithead with a chip on his shoulder the size of Egmont! He's not worse - only publicly as bad as about 60 other MP's playing the system for all they can get out of it! The sooner he's gone, as with all the others, the better.

We get the Governments we deserve because too many voters are infirm of purpose and are looking for easy handouts, fact.
Yep!

StoneY

24th December 2010, 11:45

So you don't own a small business then?

Have owned 4 small businesses and still Gst registered as a sole trader

Unless your claiming the rate for your commercial vehicle and staff levy's as 'your expenditure' and not a business cost, I stand by my post

Had a painting contractors crew with 5 staff and the whole years ACC levies for all of them AND me was only 7k, granted it was 2004, but c'mon stating you pay 8+k for YOU personally is as bogus as it gets unless your a roofer turning over 500k a year?

StoneY

24th December 2010, 11:50

Chris Carter is an egotistic shithead with a chip on his shoulder the size of Egmont! He's not worse - only publicly as bad as about 60 other MP's playing the system for all they can get out of it! The sooner he's gone, as with all the others, the better.

Nailed!
Wouldnt matter what party the MP is in, its the man/woman who decides 'will I ply fair, or will I glut myself at the trough due to a loophole and Carter is the worst example in years
Dmage he has done to the reputation of his party is immeasurable, but still pales to the rorting and sheer robbery of Bill English and his 'rentals' IMO

phill-k

24th December 2010, 11:56

MSTRS

24th December 2010, 12:01

Not get back the right to sue?
Not quite - since if you go private, and get shafted, suing is exactly what you will have to do. And you have the right to do that now...although it is very rare.

Winston001

24th December 2010, 12:22

He has to be counting his 'employees' fee's he pays as well or commercial vehicle rates (again not a PERSONAL EXPENSE)

I have no problem understanding and accepting Ocean's figures for ACC payments. Just for clarity, ACC premiums for an employer are:

1. An annual payroll levy calculated on total wages for the business. That can be a large sum particularly for any higher risk jobs such as builder, forestry worker etc.

2. A levy on the employers salary.

3. Residual levies to cover all claims made in NZ in the past for which there is not enough money. :shit: That usually comes as a nasty surprise because it is outside the standard payments.

4. Catchup levy based on last years ACC claims data for the employers industry. In other words, what your business paid last year was not enough, so here's another.

Plus GST on top.

Its all in bits and pieces rather than a lump sum bill so most employers don't add up what they pay each year.

It is easy to say this isn't a personal cost but every dollar which goes out of a business, becomes one more reason not to own it.

I can think of a shearing contractor who owed so much ACC (high risk) that he closed his business.

Heres my big rub - MP's are (or were) voted in to do the best for their country, so if ANY party has a good idea the lot of them should be voting for it instead of wanking on moaning about 'but we would do ....'

In a small country like NZ I believe most MPs are genuine and dedicated. They are also human and fallible.

The real problem is we are tiny, have a high standard of living, and sod all valuable resources. Unlike Australia which can dig wealth out of the ground. We are also a long long way from the people we want to sell stuff to which puts us at the bottom of the queue.

Our politicians can't influence the global economy or do much at all to help. The best they can hope for is to provide a stable fair-minded society which encourages people to try their ideas.

Oscar

24th December 2010, 13:05

But doesn't this really fly in the face of the (mostly) ACT and the National agendas -Privatisation = good, regulation = bad ?
If after the next election National still need the support of ACT (assuming Hide gets back in) and they go ahead with the ACC privatisation, it will have to be as unregulated as possible to keep ACT happy.

ACT surviving the next election?
I doubt it.
Even if they do, will National need them?

I think the sector needs some independat regulatory authority, privatisation or not.
Even without private insurers the ACC seem to be developing a nasty culture.

phill-k

24th December 2010, 13:12

Not get back the right to sue?
Not quite - since if you go private, and get shafted, suing is exactly what you will have to do. And you have the right to do that now...although it is very rare.

Yes you can sue for contractual performance but you can not sue for personal injury through negligence, if for instance your employer doesn't bother with safety aspects of your work, or if someone does a "U" turn in front of you.

ACC stopped employees being able to sue employers in relation to the work accidents, eg health & safety issues, negligence causing injury etc.

Winston001

24th December 2010, 14:04

My Question to

Oscar an co, tell me what opening up the profitable side of ACC to overseas insurance companies so that they can remove further funds in the way of profits from NZ will do for the ordinary average NZer. Many who has been putting their points of view to you and you continually rubbish in this forum.

I don't think Oscar has rubbished anything. In fact he's been infallibly polite and reasonable.

Not the KB way I know.... :D Shame on him!

One of the reasons ACC was originally set up was to remove the opportunity for NZ workers to sue their employers when things went wrong. National now want to break apart ACC to Benoit big business in NZ at the expense on the ordinary bloke, but they won't be giving you back the right to sue said employers as that's the part they want still bound up in ACC's social contract.

Actually we had the Workers Compensation Scheme which was a rough sort of ACC system, before 1972.

The main reason NZ moved to the revolutionary ACC scheme was to get rid of the centuries old civil liability law. If a car hit you, you sued the driver for your personal injury plus the damage to the car. If you had no insurance yourself you'd find that you were battling with the other person's insurance company in the Courts. No fun and very expensive.

Winston001

24th December 2010, 14:15

Not get back the right to sue?
Not quite - since if you go private, and get shafted, suing is exactly what you will have to do. And you have the right to do that now...although it is very rare.

Not exactly. There is a very limited right to sue for punitive damages founded on personal injury. Not actual damages (medical care) or consequent damages (loss of income).

Punitive damages is extra compensation to punish the wrong-doer and is rare in law. Usually the fault has to be gross and inexcusable. I think the current case against Corrections in respect of the RSA murders may be based on punitive damages.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_story_skin/250699%3Fformat=html

MSTRS

24th December 2010, 15:17

I see what you mean. Yep - you're right. We do not, and won't, have the right to sue in that sense. We have, and will need, the right to bring a case to the disputes tribunal or civil court, against whoever is refusing to pay out on the insured cover. That is what I meant by 'sue'.

Winston001

24th December 2010, 16:35

Agreed. At the moment there are ACC review hearings and procedures and something similar will need to be put in place for alternative insurance cover.

I'm against accident compensation being divided up. I do not believe it will be cheaper in the medium term, or as good. Despite the common view that ACC has become a nasty organisation, my experience is that they are very good. They are still operating on a social contract.

phill-k

24th December 2010, 16:42

NONONO

24th December 2010, 20:10

Read a fine article today..
Seem the insurance companies are pre empting the ACC privatisation and beginning to formulate a campaign based on Why Wait?
Targeting those vulnerable to the loss off universal cover they will begin attempting to double dip...IE, offer cover for currently ACC related issues...while the ACC levy remains in place......
I can not think of a bunch of people less worthy of breath....they produce nothing..they have no morals.. the ethics of an American arms dealer, and profit by others misery.....
I swear, if I stop to help another biker and they turn out to be connected to this industry, they are on their own....

mashman

24th December 2010, 20:12

Meh. It's business, not personal :blink:

Oscar

24th December 2010, 20:39

I swear, if I stop to help another biker and they turn out to be connected to this industry, they are on their own....

They'll just have to try and avoid breaking down in front of gay bars, won't they?

motor_mayhem

24th December 2010, 21:36

Nailed!
Wouldnt matter what party the MP is in, its the man/woman who decides 'will I ply fair, or will I glut myself at the trough due to a loophole and Carter is the worst example in years
Dmage he has done to the reputation of his party is immeasurable, but still pales to the rorting and sheer robbery of Bill English and his 'rentals' IMO

I despise Carter and Harawira the most because when they get caught out they play the "I'm a hard-done-by-minority" card as if they are under-priviledged when actually they have either never been or have completely forgotten what that's like.

They'll just have to try and avoid breaking down in front of gay bars, won't they?
No they won't cos you'll be there to help them Oscar.

Pixie

27th December 2010, 07:34

Don't be a voting slut !!! - Think about what sort of society you want to live in and vote for a party that supports that.

Remember that Politicians will offer almost anything to get elected !! You must bear in mind what their belief system is, to quote The right Honorable Dr Lockwood Smith " you have to swallow a few dead fish to get elected "

Being a voting slut,as it were, is the logical thing to be.It is the swing voters that the scum are scared of.If you are a loyal voter they will reem your arse because you are too stupid to think for yourself and probably voted the way your dad did.
If you are an opposition supporter they don't give a fuck what you think.

Mudfart

27th December 2010, 19:49

"The right honourable Dr Lockwood Smith", ahhhh yes I remember him fondly.
Last time Natzi party was "in", he was the minister for conservation, and the cave creek tragedy occured. So, he swapped portfolios with the minister of education.
Then there was a huge arse up with student loans and uni students, so he swapped portfolios again. Then he was minister for police? i think.... and some big fuck up happened again.... see a pattern?
If you fuck up, GTFO, GET THE FUCK OUT, there are other more competent people who can run the country.

avgas

30th December 2010, 15:14

Have you heard the news
that we are all getting screwed
while the bellends down the Beehive
get more pay.........
Come here mister tambourine man, play a song for me......

avgas

30th December 2010, 15:19

Punitive damages is extra compensation to punish the wrong-doer and is rare in law. Usually the fault has to be gross and inexcusable
What about something like Tort? Sorry I am a noob about legal crap these days that is outside what I need to know.
But can you actually get damages from Tort? (Sueing someone with it obviously would be a difficult task).

avgas

30th December 2010, 15:23

Not get back the right to sue?
Not quite - since if you go private, and get shafted, suing is exactly what you will have to do. And you have the right to do that now...although it is very rare.
Of course should ACC go to the insurers...... everything else could get privatized at the same time....
OSH could become = St John + WorkCover

Which I think would be a good thing. For a start there would not be another Pike River (which I have just had first hand news on......and needless to say - its not good)

Winston001

1st January 2011, 19:13

What about something like Tort? Sorry I am a noob about legal crap these days that is outside what I need to know.
But can you actually get damages from Tort? (Sueing someone with it obviously would be a difficult task).

Tort law is suing for damages - compensation. Contract law is suing for breach of a contract, nothing to do with accidents, negligence, third parties etc.

The cases over leaky buildings are divided between contractual and tortious obligations. The ability to sue a council has no basis in contract. The council instead owes a duty of care to its citizens to administer its own rules and ensure houses don't fall down.

Fatt Max

5th January 2011, 16:30

The cases over leaky buildings are divided between contractual and tortious obligations.

I thought the cases over leaky buildings was to keep the rain out

mashman

6th January 2011, 18:12

I thought the cases over leaky buildings was to keep the rain out

Nahhhh, that's what Umbrella Companies are for :shifty:

spacemonkey

14th January 2011, 04:30

One side effect of the current Queensland flooding is how its shown the true colours of the Australian insurance industry..... The crowd Key and Co wish to sell ACC to.
Have a read of this;
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2011/01/stay-classy-atlases/

It makes sense, as an insurer, to decline to offer cover for anything which might actually cost money; and there abides a regulatory environment which permits insurers to do just this. The topic, and related problems resulting from poor government policy, are covered in some detail in a column by La Trobe University disaster researcher Rachel Carter in today’s Australian. Consequently, despite the present floods being declared the most severe disaster in Queensland’s history and with some discussion today that it may be the worst in the history of the Commonwealth, insurers were, a few days ago, saying that the losses to their industry would be modest.

RiderInBlack

14th January 2011, 11:27

One side effect of the current Queensland flooding is how its shown the true colours of the Australian insurance industry..... The crowd Key and Co wish to sell ACC to.
Have a read of this;
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2011/01/stay-classy-atlases/Apsolutly no surprise there. What do ya really expect from Big Insurance Companies:blank: But hey if NZérs don't get off their Lazy Arses, that's exactly what we will get. It's not as if any major Party has come to the fore to oppose the sell of ACC strongly in Public, or to defend the Woodhouse Principals on which ACC was based. Nor has there been a hue-in cry from the Media about this. Not so much as a 20/20, 60minutes. Close-up or Campbell Live. Where is the Fair Go to make a Target of National's move to privatise ACC? No where to be seen. The Public have been sucked in and sold on the idea via the Media for sometime now. If we all don't wake-up soon, it will come and go with least of a whimper than the GST raise did.
The Public animal is such a sucker, and Politicians play us for all we are worth. They rip us off and make it look like it was our idea in the first place. They quite happily tell you that we can't afford this or that, and in the same breath give themselves pay raises.

StoneY

14th January 2011, 11:45

RiderInBlack

14th January 2011, 18:11

Have added:
ACC privatisation: Let the fightback begin (http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/12/22/acc-privatisation-let-the-fightback-begin/)

to my facebook.

So when will we wake-up and smell the roses? Most likely just after they have gone!

RiderInBlack

14th January 2011, 18:16

Decision to privatise ACC a bad one say nurses (http://www.nzno.org.nz/activities/media_releases/articletype/articleview/articleid/827/decision-to-privatise-acc-a-bad-one-say-nurses)

From New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO).
Humph, most of the ones ((Nurses) I work with have no idea that this is happening right under their noses.

StoneY

14th January 2011, 18:50

spacemonkey

14th January 2011, 19:10

Also added to me farcebook page. :yes:

Winston001

14th January 2011, 22:13

One side effect of the current Queensland flooding is how its shown the true colours of the Australian insurance industry..... The crowd Key and Co wish to sell ACC to.....

Apsolutly no surprise there. What do ya really expect from Big Insurance Companies:blank: But hey if NZérs don't get off their Lazy Arses, that's exactly what we will get. It's not as if any major Party has come to the fore to oppose the sell of ACC strongly in Public, or to defend the Woodhouse Principals on which ACC was based. Nor has there been a hue-in cry from the Media about this. Not so much as a 20/20, 60minutes. Close-up or Campbell Live.....blah blah.....

Tell me: where has the government stated it proposes to sell the Accident Compensation and Rehabilitation Corporation? Or its assets?

That did not happen either in 1999.

Brian d marge

15th January 2011, 01:58

whats wrong with just buggerin off ,

its easy once you try

grass IS greener over the other side

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BZwuTo7zKM8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BZwuTo7zKM8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Stephen

mashman

15th January 2011, 12:01

Tell me: where has the government stated it proposes to sell the Accident Compensation and Rehabilitation Corporation? Or its assets?

That did not happen either in 1999.

They are selling it's financial assets :yes: because they are opening the ACC's 100% market share (MONOPOLY ASSET) up to private competition...

Winston001

15th January 2011, 12:21

They are selling it's financial assets :yes: because they are opening the ACC's 100% market share (MONOPOLY ASSET) up to private competition...

Nope. ACC has $11 billion in assets. Furthermore ACC is not being disbanded, liquidated, or sold. There is no sale.

The government proposes that only the employment cover be open to competition from insurance companies. Not the non-earners account (general cover for every person), not the motor-vehicle account, nor the treatment injury account. That still leaves a huge amount of cover with ACC.

And finally, ACC will continue to provide work cover for employers who stay with it.

Winston001

15th January 2011, 12:32

mashman

15th January 2011, 15:07

Nope. ACC has $11 billion in assets. Furthermore ACC is not being disbanded, liquidated, or sold. There is no sale.

The government proposes that only the employment cover be open to competition from insurance companies. Not the non-earners account (general cover for every person), not the motor-vehicle account, nor the treatment injury account. That still leaves a huge amount of cover with ACC.

And finally, ACC will continue to provide work cover for employers who stay with it.

Sorry W, just had to nip out for a bit... Anyhoo... My reasoning... Opening up ACC to competition does many things to ACC, one of which is the "back door sell off" of ACC assets. Obviously that demands an explanation.

The profitable account, according to Pricky boy, is opened up to competition. Instead of 100% of revenue, ACC will now "share" the market. For arguments sake, let's say that it's more likely the it'll be the higher earners that leave ACC and go elsewhere (i doubt that'll be that far from the truth, as private insurance premiums are higher :yes:)... So, the average ACC levy is going to go through the roof as they've lost masses of revenue to the competition. I think we can call that "fact"?

Those who stay with ACC will still need their claims covered. But with less revenue they will have to start dipping in to that $11 billion of assets to pay the bills. By default, they are selling ACC's financial assets.

mashman

15th January 2011, 15:10

You can't criticise or invoke conspiracy theories when the objective is to lower the amount you pay. Who would ever want to pay more??

Those who believe that they aren't, or won't, getvalue for money. ACC's brand is damaged. I know too many people that would prefer to go private, so the "demand" is there...

Brian d marge

16th January 2011, 20:46

Let me just repeat that I disagree with the government's stance. I believe ACC is a world-leading compensation system and should not be tampered with.

Still, if we are going to discuss and oppose the government's plans, we need to be accurate on the facts.

The govt believes ACC is inefficent and charges too much for work cover. There are certainly plenty of people on here and in the news who criticise ACC. So if the cost of compensation is reduced by insurance companies (as happened in 1999), how could anyone think that was a bad thing? Its like reducing tax - everyone wants to pay less.

You can't criticise or invoke conspiracy theories when the objective is to lower the amount you pay. Who would ever want to pay more??

Personally I think they are wrong, but can understand the commonsense in the proposal.If it is opened up to competition , then its a win win , for the Govenment Acc becomes a SOE , pays the market rates to which the market will set

The returns made By the now ACC co Ltd will return to the General office of Circumlocution slush fund and all will be well.

If it is opened up and run like a business , it may well be up for sale or opened to investors ,, which is what the IMF have said all along , this is a vehicle for the profits or returns to go overseas , with we the people getting a large dose of lose lose

I have ( have to have ) private health care here in Japan , and on a daily basis , its great

Teeth , wisdom out , hundred bucks roughly

cap on tooth , 40 dollars

X-ray , 40 dollars

Health check ( over 40 must have ) free

waambulaance ride , free

But if you need a drug or care outside of list ,,, no not happening , and babies ,,,say put until Monday as it cost more during the weekend ( 1100 dollars )

Stephen

Ps I am all for saving money ,,,, but

MSTRS

17th January 2011, 07:33

ACC's brand is damaged. I know too many people that would prefer to go private, so the "demand" is there...

The 'damage' was set up by successive ACC ministers and puppet boards in order to make next step (opening up/selling) more palatable to us. In fact such a good job was done that, not only does it seem more palatable, but is being demanded by many.
Short sighted fools...

mashman

17th January 2011, 11:03

StoneY

17th January 2011, 14:01

Get behind ACC Futeures peoples this lobbying group has asked directly for biker support via my BRONZ role

http://issues.co.nz/accfutures

Brian d marge

17th January 2011, 16:39

all I can say is:

228988

Stephen

StoneY

17th January 2011, 16:46

all I can say is:

228988

Stephen

Oooo a traffic stopper for sure!

Winston001

18th January 2011, 22:31

The 'damage' was set up by successive ACC ministers and puppet boards in order to make next step (opening up/selling) more palatable to us. In fact such a good job was done that, not only does it seem more palatable, but is being demanded by many.
Short sighted fools...

LOL I don't think so but good on you.

The truth is that by 1990, many ordinary people considered ACC claims to be a rort, just like bogus insurance claims and dodgy tax deductions. Almost everyone knew a fellow-worker who was on compo and away for a looong time. And laughing about it in the pub.

So the government dramatically changed the ACC Act, doing away with lump sums, and making it harder to be on claim. ACC from then forward actively tried to get people back to work or into another job.

Hard to argue with that. The problem then became that genuine injuries were sometimes not recognised, or diagnosed as existing conditions not caused by the accident. For example, I have calcification around my C4 neck vertebrae - which is also the vertebrae I broke in my bike accident. What is the cause of long-term problems - age or accident??!!