So - is this the face of ACC in the future..

[SPman]

Sobering reading..
http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2011/0210.shtml#continue

[Shaun]

I am very sorry for the couple involved in this situation. I had very similar experiences with ACC around 3 years ago with my own health issues, Mainly head injuries that I was not getting correct professional help with from Acc.

I was very lucky, as I approached HARRY DYNHOVEN in NEW PLYMOUTH, and within 30 minutes of the NP ACC office recieving an email from his secretary, my phone was ringing hot.

A very good friend if mine had a leg amputated 4 years ago, as of last week, he could only walk on his Bullshit prosphetic leg that had been supplied to him for up to 3.5 hours before having to sit down and take it off in emense Pain, and he was a hard man and a fighter. 3 months ago letters started arriving from ACC advising him that they were about to start the process of signing him off ACC to get back to work, imagine the stress going through this mans head as he could not even walk half arsed properlly, how the hell was going to achieve this, and he had been a full time worker since he was 13 years old, he died last week from a heart attach.

ACC staff are just pen pushers, they have NO medical nor mental training at all, how can this be.

I wish this lady and man the very best of luck.

[mashman]

Sorry to hear about your friend Shaun. That's a shitty way to be "forced" into spending your last months of life.

I do wonder if private insurers would have treated the above people any differently... I have a feeling it wouldn't have been that different, and as mentioned, there's noone to hold to account.

Irrespective of insurer, if you pay your money and are in obvious need of treatment, there shouldn't be any questions, exclusions or uncertainty, just help and rehabilitiation... and all to save some money! fuckin disgusting!!!

[Shaun]

Sorry to hear about your friend Shaun. That's a shitty way to be "forced" into spending your last months of life.

I do wonder if private insurers would have treated the above people any differently... I have a feeling it wouldn't have been that different, and as mentioned, there's noone to hold to account.

Irrespective of insurer, if you pay your money and are in obvious need of treatment, there shouldn't be any questions, exclusions or uncertainty, just help and rehabilitiation... and all to save some money! fuckin disgusting!!!



Not being a Lawyer, I am not sure on NZ legal action against Private Insurance companies, but believe it would be better for all of us in a case like the opening letter or my example of my friend.

Imaging the Negative reaction from the Customers of a Private company if a story like the above was televised or put in the news paper, there intake of customers would decline radically over night.

Re ACC and what they do pay out for with our money, the Tax payers

KNOWN DANGEROUS SPORTS

Rugby
Motorcycling racers
Fishing etc etc etc

Unfortunately the world is controlled by the dollar, so why should we/ACC pay out the money to people doing KNOWN dangerous activities, ( If they take an Income from it) I Honestly believe we should have to have our own Private Insurance to cover these costs, YES I have recieved medical care in NZ from NZ from my racing crash in the Isle of Man, NO loss of Income though for the last 3.5 years as I never Paid myself a wage from the company I had established ( AND NOW DESTROYED DUE TO MY NEGATIVE BEHAVOUR) from the brain Injury recieved in the crash.

[Banditbandit]

BASTARD ACC - they seem to spend more effort on trying not to pay out than actually helping people ...

[Usarka]

I'm still waiting two years for a claim to be approved. Pricks.

(edit not bike related for all the safety nazis).

[mashman]

Not being a Lawyer, I am not sure on NZ legal action against Private Insurance companies, but believe it would be better for all of us in a case like the opening letter or my example of my friend.

Imaging the Negative reaction from the Customers of a Private company if a story like the above was televised or put in the news paper, there intake of customers would decline radically over night.

Re ACC and what they do pay out for with our money, the Tax payers

KNOWN DANGEROUS SPORTS

Rugby
Motorcycling racers
Fishing etc etc etc

Unfortunately the world is controlled by the dollar, so why should we/ACC pay out the money to people doing KNOWN dangerous activities, ( If they take an Income from it) I Honestly believe we should have to have our own Private Insurance to cover these costs, YES I have recieved medical care in NZ from NZ from my racing crash in the Isle of Man, NO loss of Income though for the last 3.5 years as I never Paid myself a wage from the company I had established ( AND NOW DESTROYED DUE TO MY NEGATIVE BEHAVOUR) from the brain Injury recieved in the crash.


That's part of the problem with both systems ain't it. They both end up trying to "get rid of the problem" and leave things up to the lawyers when it suits (cases all over the net of people not getting what they paid for). imho, going on TV etc... will do little damage to the customer base, primarily from a price point of view (we generally go after the cheapest cover when cover is essentially the same across the board, $$$) and as every situation is different, "that'll never happen to me and therefore I'll be covered when the shit hits the fan" :facepalm:. It may put people "off" for a month or two, but unless they're heavily principled people, I seriously doubt it'd impact as Negatively as you think... but that's just mho and I could be VERY wrong :).

As for the dangerous shit... is it still about 50% of accidents happenening in the home? The dangerous argument is kinda moot when so many do the same things, some more dangerous than others i grant you, but the majority don't get injured. ACC are implementing risk based assessments in April I think, so that'll go a long way towards addressing what you're talking about... although, imho, it's going the wrong way and opening the door for assigning blame, fault and cover denial with no comeback. I don't care what treatment you've received, you obviously needed it, and that's really my point. The arguments are beyond petty when you consider that it's a persons health, wealth and livelihood that they're talking about. Fix 'em up, rinse and repeat.

I pay the full whack of employee ACC levy. Following an injury last year (slipped on a path) I had the chance to take 2 weeks off on ACC's dime, but didn't take it because I knew I really didn't need to, it was only a recommendation, didn't go for the physio either (didn't really need it, but did the recommended exercises and it's better). I pay for my prescriptions because I can afford it (just), I honour the social contract as far and as best as I can (mug or not). Not everyone does the same. Not everyone pays ACC. I'm happy with that. You're not (I can see your recovery isn't complete yet :shifty: (j/k)). \

But ACC is generating a profit at the end of each year, so cases like the above shouldn't be getting swept under the carpet... THAT's where the real issue lies. What could you do with that $1.5 billion extra per year? But we have to save it for some unknown reason.

Sorry Shaun, I can't agree with the Private argument. ACC needs "fixing", it's broken, not broke... some would prefer to leave it that way and in the meantime it'll people like the above that bare the brunt of that anti-social decision.

[Shaun]

That's part of the problem with both systems ain't it. They both end up trying to "get rid of the problem" and leave things up to the lawyers when it suits (cases all over the net of people not getting what they paid for). imho, going on TV etc... will do little damage to the customer base, primarily from a price point of view (we generally go after the cheapest cover when cover is essentially the same across the board, $$$) and as every situation is different, "that'll never happen to me and therefore I'll be covered when the shit hits the fan" :facepalm:. It may put people "off" for a month or two, but unless they're heavily principled people, I seriously doubt it'd impact as Negatively as you think... but that's just mho and I could be VERY wrong :).

As for the dangerous shit... is it still about 50% of accidents happenening in the home? The dangerous argument is kinda moot when so many do the same things, some more dangerous than others i grant you, but the majority don't get injured. ACC are implementing risk based assessments in April I think, so that'll go a long way towards addressing what you're talking about... although, imho, it's going the wrong way and opening the door for assigning blame, fault and cover denial with no comeback. I don't care what treatment you've received, you obviously needed it, and that's really my point. The arguments are beyond petty when you consider that it's a persons health, wealth and livelihood that they're talking about. Fix 'em up, rinse and repeat.

I pay the full whack of employee ACC levy. Following an injury last year (slipped on a path) I had the chance to take 2 weeks off on ACC's dime, but didn't take it because I knew I really didn't need to, it was only a recommendation, didn't go for the physio either (didn't really need it, but did the recommended exercises and it's better). I pay for my prescriptions because I can afford it (just), I honour the social contract as far and as best as I can (mug or not). Not everyone does the same. Not everyone pays ACC. I'm happy with that. You're not (I can see your recovery isn't complete yet :shifty: (j/k)). \

But ACC is generating a profit at the end of each year, so cases like the above shouldn't be getting swept under the carpet... THAT's where the real issue lies. What could you do with that $1.5 billion extra per year? But we have to save it for some unknown reason.

Sorry Shaun, I can't agree with the Private argument. ACC needs "fixing", it's broken, not broke... some would prefer to leave it that way and in the meantime it'll people like the above that bare the brunt of that anti-social decision.



well said man, and great logical reasons against my idea's.

[avgas]

Some on here will tell you that ACC is fine, and opening it up for competition is very bad.

They will also tell you that it was much better 10, 20 years ago.

Sorry I am biased as I have seen my father go through it 20 years ago. It was shit then and its shit now.
And until it is opened up for completion, it will remain shit and possibly get worse.

Suck it up while you can.

[avgas]

Sorry Shaun, I can't agree with the Private argument. ACC needs "fixing", it's broken, not broke... some would prefer to leave it that way and in the meantime it'll people like the above that bare the brunt of that anti-social decision.
Name 1 government department that was fixed in the history of all time.

[748south]

Well i can sypathise, i went through pretty much the same dramas with my GF 2 years ago - same thing, no clear diagnosis = they dont want to know, she spent a year with no income after a fall caused her to have seasures, she couldnt talk, or walk, or remember. Sickness benefit was declined, as was any form of monetary support from the govt because as in your this case there was no diagnosis.

No diagnosis means "They dont know", it doesnt mean "nothing happened"

Thanksfully she gradually recovered and is now all good, but the disgusting way ACC and the NZ health system treated us will allways be remebered, she was 27 when it happened and the doctor told us "we cant do anything so it's about quality of life now"

at 27? when she was a high school teacher? fuckin ACC are a buisness cleaverly disguised as a govt departmet.

[wysper]

And until it is opened up for completion, it will remain shit and possibly get worse.



avgas - this isn't directed at you personally - just used your quote as a starting point!

Have a browse round how many people get stiffed out of insurance payouts for their cars, houses etc.

Now imagine those scenarios with your life. That is what privatization of acc will do IMHO.

Plus you will have the pleasure of being sued by a former friend for tripping on your path because their health insurance wont cover that so he has to pay his own hospital bills, can't do that so he sues you for the accident. Hypothetical of course. Maybe your insurance doesn't cover that, maybe you lose your house trying to pay for it.

But I am not looking forward to the first question to me at the scene of the accident is not "where are you hurt?" or "what is your blood type?" it will be where is your credit card? who is your insurer? No money - no help. User pays.

What makes people believe that a private insurer is going to look after you any better than ACC, they will be just as keen to dodge any payments possible, even more so because their shareholders will be demanding a profit.

[avgas]

That is what privatization of acc
Out of context. Privatisation of ACC is out of our hands in those in the beehive.

What I am talking about is competition. Out government has this, our power sector has this, schooling has this, telecommunications sorta have this.......

ACC is able to screw us - and will continue to do so until it has a competitor. We need "unbundling" of heathcare in NZ. I am seeing it slowly happen (from doctors in the know)......but it should be in full force.
Only thing stopping it right now are those whom say "ACC is fine, we don't need an alternative".
Yet 5 minutes later they are complaining about levies or how ACC is broken.

The whole ball park has changed. ACC is no longer an idea - it's a company. And should be treated as such. Companies only work efficiently with competition.

[mashman]

Name 1 government department that was fixed in the history of all time.

perhaps it's time to break the mold. If they would give it to me :yes:, i'd have a crack at running ACC... couldn't do any worse than those who already are :)... who knows, might even be able to turn it around along with its perception...



wot you said


Completely agree. Even big Nick can see that ACC has an unfair advantage, all he's trying to do is level the playing field :blink:, which unfortunately means higher premiums, even more draconian treatment criteria and most likely the return to sue yer mate. Very few winners, let alone the person whos life is being turned upside down. I reckon there's plenty of people on KB, ermmmm, yeah why not, that could do a better job than the current temporary board.

[Usarka]

Name 1 government department that was fixed in the history of all time.

That's gotta be the best argument for that I've heard. Almost swayed me! :gob:

End of the day from my experience of waiting 2 years with excuse after excuse that it can't be much worse. At least with insurance companies you know the ones that have a good rep and have a choice whether to pay the (usually) higher premiums.

But what happens to the no fault system when it is privatised (apologies if this has been discussed in another thread)..... That'll have more impact on my :) or :( of the whole thing.