ACC being opened up to competition (not bike related)

[Str8 Jacket]

I was reading this story in stuff:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5087049/Private-firms-won-t-compete-with-ACC-says-insurer

I work in procurement so kind of understand how the market operates. This story got me thinking, maybe more insurers will bid then he gives credit? I fear that they will offer employers good rates compared to ACC but cut the services to match. Why should the employer care about what their staff are entitled too, they just find it a financial burden either way. Thoughts?

Doh - this thread title should have read; "ACC being opened up to competition", not privitisation. It may be a Freudian slip but any chance a mod could change it please??

[Usarka]

Philip Schmidt - a lawyer who deals with accident insurance - was just on Nat Radio. To paraphrase in my words, he says unless the government introduces better regulation and dispute processes (which they aren't planning to do) then employees will be worse off.

[riffer]

It's not about the employees. They can go get fucked.

This is about less costs for employers. And more opportunities to make money for overseas insurance companies.

Otherwise the employees would be getting an opportunity to elect in a democratic fashion which accident insurer they would go with, rather than who the employer went with.

[spacemonkey]

Seems to be the Nats answer to every problem is "cut government revenue" and give it to foreign corporations. :facepalm:

[huff3r]

Hold on... since when was ACC insurance? I thought it was "no-fault compensation"? And therefore could not really compete with traditional "insurance" companies as they both operate completely differently.

We've been right fucked over.

R.I.P ACC.

[Winston001]

It's not about the employees. They can go get fucked.

This is about less costs for employers. And more opportunities to make money for overseas insurance companies.

Otherwise the employees would be getting an opportunity to elect in a democratic fashion which accident insurer they would go with, rather than who the employer went with.

Not exactly.



ACC is insurance no matter how you define it
Each working New Zealander pays an ACC levy as part of our tax - we will still be covered by ACC for off-work accidents. Sports, bikes, cars, falling off ladders etc



Employers will be able to choose a comercial insurer for work cover or stay with ACC
If commercial cover is such a moneyspinner, NZ insurers will be in there too not just overseas companies
The reality is ACC doesn't run at a profit, pay shareholders, or go broke. Damned hard for any commercial business to compete with that.


Neverthless I'm not impressed by this move by the government.

[pete376403]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5087049/Private-firms-won-t-compete-with-ACC-says-insurer

Private insurers will want the level playing field tilted a lot more in their favour.

[Str8 Jacket]

Private insurers will want the level playing field tilted a lot more in their favour.

That's what scares me!

[Fatt Max]

I've got a T shirt at home with 'Who's Next?' written on it. Quite a few of you guys have the same eh....

Now, did I hear somewhere during the run up to the last election that National were NOT going to open up ACC to competition? I may have this wrong but I thought that cunt John Key actually said it in an interview...?

Might be wrong, just wondered..

Oh and sorry for the 'C' word, having a cunt of a day already.....oops, I did it again...

[avgas]

I've got a T shirt at home with 'Who's Next?' written on it. Quite a few of you guys have the same eh....

Now, did I hear somewhere during the run up to the last election that National were NOT going to open up ACC to competition? I may have this wrong but I thought that cunt John Key actually said it in an interview...?

Might be wrong, just wondered..

Oh and sorry for the 'C' word, having a cunt of a day already.....oops, I did it again...
Sit down and have yourself a nice pie big fella. Try a Jesters for a change.

And yes you were right about what John Key said. But it scares me that you believed him. I stopped believing pollys many years ago. And stopped voting the same time.

Some day I will start voting again. Probably when I see the pollys repair the damage they have done.
Who am I kidding. That will never happen.

[Winston001]

Now, did I hear somewhere during the run up to the last election that National were NOT going to open up ACC to competition? I may have this wrong but I thought that cunt John Key actually said it in an interview...?


I don't recall Key or Smith saying that but you are probably right. Even so they haven't broken any promises.

What National are saying is that they propose to allow commercial insurers to compete for workplace accident cover (which is only part of ACCs business), plus they also propose to sell 49% of the govt power companies - if National is re-elected in November.

So, in the next parliamentary cycle if National can form a government, the new promises will proceed. But no broken promises right now. Political parties can and should change their policies over time.

I think both ideas are stink. But we can't fault them for being upfront and leaving the decision to the voters in November. That shows political integrity.

[SPman]

(which is only part of ACCs business), But, the most profitable part. Just more of the arsehole's mantra of "privatise profit - socialise losses"!
What else do you expect, though, with the corporatisation of government.....

[Fatt Max]

But we can't fault them for being upfront and leaving the decision to the voters in November. That shows political integrity.

...and it also falls nicely for the fat cat insurance corporate scumbag mates of this bastard government to chip in to the election fund to ensure National win.

Pigs at the trough....

[Fatt Max]

And yes you were right about what John Key said. But it scares me that you believed him. I stopped believing pollys many years ago. And stopped voting the same time.



I’m with you dude, I don’t believe a word these bastards say, especially that Key cunt and the rest of the National wankers. I was sure I heard him say that they would leave it alone and it seems I am correct. Still, him and his supporters will spin it, just as long as they get their jollys eh

I’ll have that pie now dude……….

[Bald Eagle]

.....political integrity.

Those two words don't go together, either with this gubberment or any other this country has had in recent times.

Great gamesmanship however, as the majority of voters can't see the implications of '' only after the election" and then it will be to late.

[oneofsix]

I've got a T shirt at home with 'Who's Next?' written on it. Quite a few of you guys have the same eh....

Now, did I hear somewhere during the run up to the last election that National were NOT going to open up ACC to competition? I may have this wrong but I thought that cunt John Key actually said it in an interview...?

Might be wrong, just wondered..

Oh and sorry for the 'C' word, having a cunt of a day already.....oops, I did it again...

And not sell any government assets ... this term. Next year, well probably before Christmas, under urgency and all that :bye: :bye:

[Winston001]

But, the most profitable part. Just more of the arsehole's mantra of "privatise profit - socialise losses"!


ACC doesn't make a profit. It is a social insurance scheme.

Which is why commercial insurers are lukewarm about the proposal. They need to compete with ACC but also make a profit.


...and it also falls nicely for the fat cat insurance corporate scumbag mates of this bastard government to chip in to the election fund to ensure National win.

Pigs at the trough....

Fat cat insurance companies eh? Like AMI, and Western Pacific Insurance? - which has collapsed by the way. AMI only continue because the govt has stepped in.

You may not have noticed but the number of insurance companies in NZ has shrunken markedly over the past 25 years. Its a tough game. They've disappeared all over the world.

[merv]

Seems to be the Nats answer to every problem is "cut government revenue" and give it to foreign corporations. :facepalm:

Yep I call it trying to shrink their way to success and how often has that worked for anyone? A big zero I'd say.

[AllanB]

I can't see many private insurance copmpanies being interested. It was tried a dozen or more years back and failed.

[Usarka]

It's not about the employees. They can go get fucked.


Hmmm, my understanding is that this also covers earning compensation to employees. And because they are covered by an insurance policy it removes their ability self insure..

Currently this is tightly regulated and legislated. Moving forward the current regulation and legislation will not be sufficient to protect them. So if Joe at your company loses his eyesight he may get shafted from the new insurance company with little legal protection and with no say in the policy you chose for him.

I'm normally the biggest advocate of "if you don't like the work find another job" but this has a potential negative impact on people far beyond the employee-employer relationship.

PS - last time this was done it cost companies more when labour changed it back again.

[saxet]

Seems to be the Nats answer to every problem is "cut government revenue" and give it to foreign corporations. :facepalm:

Yeah is'nt it funny how the main beneficiaries of Nats policies are big corporations, often Australian. Makes me wonder who their financial backers are.

[cowpoos]

I was reading this story in stuff:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5087049/Private-firms-won-t-compete-with-ACC-says-insurer

I work in procurement so kind of understand how the market operates. This story got me thinking, maybe more insurers will bid then he gives credit? I fear that they will offer employers good rates compared to ACC but cut the services to match. Why should the employer care about what their staff are entitled too, they just find it a financial burden either way. Thoughts?

Doh - this thread title should have read; "ACC being opened up to competition", not privitisation. It may be a Freudian slip but any chance a mod could change it please??

when this exact same thing happened in 1998 I think??? the employer I was working for was with a private insurer...and when I 90% cut a finger off...they were awesome...everything was sorted fine...they were like are you sure you don't need more physio,etc,etc....paying me 80% of my wage within a week.

and then on 2 occasions over the years...dealing will ACC...fuck me they are a pack of useless wankers...absolute arseholes...I am totally for this...acc can't get fucked!!!

did I mention private insurer was MAJORLY cheaper for employer I was with?!!

[Winston001]

Yeah is'nt it funny how the main beneficiaries of Nats policies are big corporations, often Australian. Makes me wonder who their financial backers are.

This is New Zealand. The least corrupt country in the world. There has never been any evidence of financial support in return for contracts by any political party.

The two vaguely related scandals which come to mind involved Winston Peters lying about donations from Robert Jones, and the Labour Party receiving donations from a millionaire in Monaco.

By all means reject the ACC proposals - I do - but only rational arguments will change politicians minds. Consider the Wellywood sign as a pointer to what public opinion can achieve.

[spacemonkey]

This is New Zealand. The least corrupt country in the world. There has never been any evidence of financial support in return for contracts by any political party.

The two vaguely related scandals which come to mind involved Winston Peters lying about donations from Robert Jones, and the Labour Party receiving donations from a millionaire in Monaco.

By all means reject the ACC proposals - I do - but only rational arguments will change politicians minds. Consider the Wellywood sign as a pointer to what public opinion can achieve.

You forgot about National party and the Bretheren freaks.
At $1million it was also quite hefty.

[Str8 Jacket]

What would happen if say an employee had had an illness like cancer (in their history) and they had an accident where they were diagnosed with something that could also be caused by cancer and the insurer found out? Could they possibly try to wriggle out of treating the employee, could ACC then be claimed by the employee or is they fucked?

[Winston001]

What would happen if say an employee had had an illness like cancer (in their history) and they had an accident where they were diagnosed with something that could also be caused by cancer and the insurer found out? Could they possibly try to wriggle out of treating the employee, could ACC then be claimed by the employee or is they fucked?

Since about 1991 ACC has rejected claims for injury which are a consequence or result of a person's medical condition. I can think of an example right now - a man who suffered a crippling hernia injury and has never recovered. In fact he's now had more hernias. ACC originally accepted it as a work claim, then soon stopped cover saying he had a medical susceptibility to hernias.

It has been an ongoing issue for him since 1995 and to be fair, ACC have never closed the door entirely. And he's still covered for normal accidents. But I do think they are wrong in his case because the hernia was a direct result of lifting a sheep.

You can be certain that a commercial insurance company would look equally hard at this type of situation.

[spacemonkey]

How it would go?
Well here two case studies for ya;

Case 1
Flatmate of mine was working for NZ Post as a postie, NZ Post in order to get lower premiums signed up to something called "Terciary level" in return for the lower premiums the employer became legally liable for more of the recovery/treatment costs if it was work related.
When the flatmate developed a back problem NZ Post claimed it was from not work related and refused to pay anything. ACC Claimed it was work related and refused to pay anything.
The flatmate was stuck unable to work and unable to get any acc benefit to cover living costs or any physio for 6 months while those two argued the toss.

Case 2 Joel Storey
Like NZ Post Affco under the Talley family ownership had signed up to that same scheme.
Joel Storey was an employee at the Murapara freezingworks. In what proved to be a case of mistaken identity he was shot in the freezing works carpark while on a meal break, the bullet has left him paralised for life.
The Talleys refused to pay claiming it wasn't work related and started smearing Joel Storey's name in the media, ACC responded it was on company time inside the premises. Neither would pay for Joels treatment, leaving 18 year old Joel Storey totally up shit creek for something he had not caused and was a victim of.
There's a bit of guff on his story here...... http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/never-let-the-facts-/
The current police minister Anne Tolley looks like a lying misleading henchwoman for hire, even years later reading this still fills me with disgust for the Talleys.


This is what the "Open to competition" future holds.
Privatize (and move offshore) profits, socialise costs so the taxpayer foots the bill, that is what Nick Smith has lined up for all of you.

[mashman]

Bush Lawyer :)



What would happen if say an employee had had an illness like cancer (in their history) and they had an accident where they were diagnosed with something that could also be caused by cancer and the insurer found out? Could they possibly try to wriggle out of treating the employee, could ACC then be claimed by the employee or is they fucked?


I would assume that as the previous medical condition had not been disclosed at the time of signing the policy, it would void the policy and therefore cover? The employee would probably be shit oota luck in regards to assistance/cover, unless the boss stepped in, or ACC decided it was unfair and covered the employee injuries at the tax payers expense... BUT, ACC would have the right to go after the previous insurers and/or their representatives for some form of "misdiagnosis" judgement to recoup costs etc... which by the time the lawyers fees had been taken into account, would be pretty much be zero. Tax payer ends up footing the bill anyway? :rofl:... rort!

Wonder what'll happen to the $14 billion of ACC "reserves" under a system,like that :yes: ... cream!

[Brian d marge]

Had a little bit of exposure ( to put it mildly ) to ACC

95 % of people are just the simple hard workers of life , that have a family work hard and do their best. Some, a few are not of course!

but this is typical

[2] On 17 October 2003, Ms Sisson injured her right wrist while working at the Waitotara Freezing Works. There have been various descriptions of the accident, which seems essentially to have been a forceful impact between the ulna aspect of the right wrist against a steel bar. The incident caused swelling and pain and the appellant was admitted to hospital for emergency treatment. She obtained cover for a contusion of her right wrist and has had intermittent pain and occasional swelling ever since.


ACC was refused and this was the appeal



this is one could say typical ....and if you go private ( which we have here in Japan , its ok for day to day ....but you are screwed if you aint covered ,,,,example heart problems ......


Dont screw this up folks ........


Stephen

[Winston001]

Guys, the problems you highlight arise solely because ACC only covers injury by accident. If we had a true and complete public compensation system, sickness would also be covered. There wouldn't need to be any arguments.

[Winston001]

Privatize (and move offshore) profits, socialise costs so the taxpayer foots the bill, that is what Nick Smith has lined up for all of you.

Really? Can you explain why any New Zealand politician would do what you allege?

[Brian d marge]

Guys, the problems you highlight arise solely because ACC only covers injury by accident. If we had a true and complete public compensation system, sickness would also be covered. There wouldn't need to be any arguments.

isnt hat called free health care ...and wasn't that what New Zealand has/had? .....also read the History of ACC to see why it was set up like it was .... ( One to which I whole heartedly agree and wish to contribute to ,,,,)


Really? Can you explain why any New Zealand politician would do what you allege?

Under pressure from the IMF due to loans outstanding. They will open ALL SOE/Utilities etc , and the multinational will buy shares , ( in a nut shell) The costs of any services affected WILL increase and the locals Will be disadvantaged compared to before ....

So sayeth I .........

Stephen

[pete376403]

Given that several of the financial institutions that our current PM practiced his trade at have been involved in unethical dealings (Elders IXL, Merril Lynch) I wouldn't put it past him to sell the whole country if he could.
The movie "Inside Job" is a real eye opener about the US (and it follows the global) finances, in which Merril Lynch played a large part.

[mashman]

Really? Can you explain why any New Zealand politician would do what you allege?

I'd go for... It's business, not personal.

[Winston001]

isnt hat called free health care ...and wasn't that what New Zealand has/had? .....also read the History of ACC to see why it was set up like it was .... ( One to which I whole heartedly agree and wish to contribute to ,,,,)

We have national free healthcare. We do not have income protection for illness and disability.

ACC provides income protection but only if you have an "accident" in terms of the law.


Under pressure from the IMF due to loans outstanding. They will open ALL SOE/Utilities etc , and the multinational will buy shares , ( in a nut shell) The costs of any services affected WILL increase and the locals Will be disadvantaged compared to before ....

So sayeth I .........

Stephen

Stephen: New Zealand is neither in default, nor is it remotely near default of our sovereign borrowing. Furthermore I'm unaware of any loans borrowed by NZ from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact the world view of NZ is quite the opposite of what you imagine: the $NZ continues to climb above most other currencies, the $AU being the main exception. We are seen as having a safe, stable, recovering currency.

[spacemonkey]

When people whinge about our "out of control debt"
What they are missing is that our GOVERNMENT DEBT is piss all.
For all the frothing at the mouth by right wingers, the facts still stand that Cullen got rid of almost all government debt while he was in charge for finance.
Our problem with debt is PRIVATE DEBT! Which is crazy ape bonkers out of control due to our fixation on buying property...... As a side point this borrowing is also fucking up our foreign currency balance of payments too due to all the interest being given to the Aussie banks.

And the $380m a week that they love to harp on about..... well almost a quarter of that is the Nats Bill English forward borrowing for next years budget as the rates are so low right now.

Short version... IT'S A FUCKING HAVE!!!!!!

[Oscar]

When people whinge about our "out of control debt"
What they are missing is that our GOVERNMENT DEBT is piss all.
For all the frothing at the mouth by right wingers, the facts still stand that Cullen got rid of almost all government debt while he was in charge for finance.
Our problem with debt is PRIVATE DEBT! Which is crazy ape bonkers out of control due to our fixation on buy property...... As a side point this borrowing is also fucking up out foreign currency balance of payments too due to all the interest being given to the Aussie banks.

And the $380m a week that they love to harp on about..... well almost a quarter of that is the Nats Bill English forward borrowing for next years budget as the rates are so low right now.

Short version... IT'S A FUCKING HAVE!!!!!!

Congratulations.
You have made Mashmad look rational.

[spacemonkey]

Congratulations.
You have made Mashmad look rational.

Post up some facts to disprove then fella. :)

[spacemonkey]

And from NZ governments on stats....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SOZQ_TiSnfY/TeXs-KyoyqI/AAAAAAAABFA/TElmG3P-sw0/s1600/debt.png

I don't and foreign lenders don't see any problem with GOVERNMENT debt.
That's why what the Government pays gets rates is so low.... The NZ government is seen as a good bet due to low borrowing compared to GDP.
PRIVATE borrowing however is the bit that is fucking us up.
Short version is that we are the mirror image of whats wrong in the US where Government Debt is totally insane, and private debt is reducing.

[Brian d marge]

We have national free healthcare. We do not have income protection for illness and disability.

ACC provides income protection but only if you have an "accident" in terms of the law.

No arguements here if you are talking income protection etc , which would be part of the policy you decide with your insurer.

Stephen: New Zealand is neither in default, nor is it remotely near default of our sovereign borrowing. Furthermore I'm unaware of any loans borrowed by NZ from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact the world view of NZ is quite the opposite of what you imagine: the $NZ continues to climb above most other currencies, the $AU being the main exception. We are seen as having a safe, stable, recovering currency.



In reply;

My poor word choice sorry. No NZ is not in default , rather the opposite it very well run ( fiscally ) and is held in high ? regards as to its economic management , what are the bond rates for NZ 5% ..??

but like most banks , if you borrow money they do like you to follow their way, The Nz government can issue bonds ,, borrow from overseas banks , but the international banking watchdog , IMF of which America has a large say , lays down the borrowing guide lines . Which is to privatize ,and have a certain style of economic governance . If you dont your risk rating and hence the bond rate ( the cost of money ) goes up ( and all of the problems that go along with this style of governance) I for one never signed up for this . ( and a lot of others are saying similar , people in Ireland were making noises towards defaulting on the loans...)

Call me old fashioned , but I kinda like NZ, and all it has , to benefit ,,the people that live there, I'm not to keen on someones ROI causing another to think twice about heating their home because they cant afford it ....when in a country of ONLY 4 million that should NEVER be the case.

Stephen

[Oscar]

Post up some facts to disprove then fella. :)

In Sept 2009 the Govt debt was $23.9b.
In Dec 2006 it was $14.7b
Please explain how that relates to: "..Cullen got rid of almost all government debt.."

In the last quarter of 2010, Corporate debt fell by $5b.

[Winston001]

When people whinge about our "out of control debt"
What they are missing is that our GOVERNMENT DEBT is piss all.
For all the frothing at the mouth by right wingers, the facts still stand that Cullen got rid of almost all government debt while he was in charge for finance.
Our problem with debt is PRIVATE DEBT! Which is crazy ape bonkers out of control due to our fixation on buying property...... As a side point this borrowing is also fucking up our foreign currency balance of payments too due to all the interest being given to the Aussie banks.

And the $380m a week that they love to harp on about..... well almost a quarter of that is the Nats Bill English forward borrowing for next years budget as the rates are so low right now.

Short version... IT'S A FUCKING HAVE!!!!!!

Mostly you are right. I'm not a Labour supporter but I've said on here before that Dr Cullen did a good job as Minister of Finance. He was nevertheless hamstrung by his caucus which spent money on social policy as fast as he could save it.

Private debt is a problem which the government is trying to cure by tightening the economy. Think of it as the govt giving leadership.

The $380 million/week is real and its a problem. That would build an huge number of new schools, hospitals, roads, rural broadband etc etc. This is not a "have". The money is real.

[Winston001]

No NZ is not in default , rather the opposite it very well run ( fiscally ) and is held in high ? regards as to its economic management...

but like most banks , if you borrow money they do like you to follow their way...

...Which is to privatize ,and have a certain style of economic governance . If you dont your risk rating and hence the bond rate ( the cost of money ) goes up ( and all of the problems that go along with this style of governance) I for one never signed up for this . ( and a lot of others are saying similar , people in Ireland were making noises towards defaulting on the loans...)

Call me old fashioned , but I kinda like NZ, and all it has , to benefit ,,the people that live there, I'm not to keen on someones ROI causing another to think twice about heating their home because they cant afford it ....when in a country of ONLY 4 million that should NEVER be the case.

Stephen

I like NZ too and I honestly don't see the problem. NZ is able to borrow at low interest rates because we have a stable political system and economy. It doesn't matter who controls the govt - Labour or National, our credit rating is generally good.

The good people of Ireland enjoyed a 15 year spending spree and a leap in their standard of living. And now they don't want to pay the bill...??? I'm thinking the "Zimbabwe of Europe" is coming.

What happened is the Irish govt - democratically elected - guaranteed all bank debt which loaded an almost impossible burden on the Irish taxpayer - thats what all the fuss is about. Can't remember the details but they went further than other govts when they didn't have to. It looks like panic or a punt :D that their economy would bounce back.

Besides, the Irish have the EU to back them up, just like Greece and Spain. We don't have anyone.