WTF National privatising ACC?

[RiderInBlack]

Are they nuts? Was going ta vote for them but definitely won't if they are going to do this. Didn't work last time. Cost me big time as a self-employed last time. Opens the way for the US sueing culture. Encourages discrimiation in work places based on health risks. Will cause injuried to be forced back into work earlier. Bugger that for a joke.
Who's bright idea in Nat was this?

[Oakie]

I think they were looking at privatising parts ... not the whole thing. Based on my contact with ACC yesterday morning when I was trying to get some info on their 'Partnership Programme' I could suggest a couple of parts that could benefit from competition. For what it's worth though, I believe that on the whole, ACC do a good job.

[CookMySock]

sounds like you are in a risky industry ? If so, you should pay your way or change your line of work. I pay thousands of dollars a year to ACC and our risks amount to opening cardboard boxes with a box cutter - we are getting ripped off, and I would dearly love to be able to get quotes from insurance companies based on my ACTUAL level of risk.

DB

[Flatcap]

'Looking at' does not mean 'doing'

[MisterD]

'Looking at' does not mean 'doing'

...and "opening up the sector to competition" does not mean "privatising".

[davereid]

pg C1 Dom Post Today re ACC when it was opened to competition last time:

In the time competition existed employers saved a total of $200 million a year in remiums, the number of claims fell by 40%, deaths by 50% and disputes by 85%

Sooner the better if you ask me... and add the motor-vehicle account in too.

[Magua]

pg C1 Dom Post Today re ACC when it was opened to competition last time:

In the time competition existed employers saved a total of $200 million a year in remiums, the number of claims fell by 40%, deaths by 50% and disputes by 85%

Sooner the better if you ask me... and add the motor-vehicle account in too.

How would privitisation result in less deaths? :mellow:

[MSTRS]

How would privitisation result in less deaths? :mellow:

Not sure - but if you think that when people are in a position to take responsibility for themselves, instead of Nanny imposing it, then there is a case for believing that more care is taken by them what opt to make their own decision.

[CookMySock]

Not sure - but if you think that when people are in a position to take responsibility for themselves, instead of Nanny imposing it, then there is a case for believing that more care is taken by them what opt to make their own decision.and these people are safer to ride with in a group too, because they have natural consequences should they fuck up. Non-insured people are much much more careful than uninsured, and we can easily see how they would be.

DB

[Usarka]

I wouldn't be sad if ACC got nuked pack of fucking arses.

mentioned the word compensation to case manager and never heard from him again.

pack of cunts.

But making it private would make it even more bottom line driven.

[Tank]

ACC is a bloated monster. Giving the option to 'opt out' and use private coverage is a good thing.

[Swoop]

I would like to know how many "administrators" ACC requires to perform the tasks required. Being a typically bloated, overstaffed and under-braincelled organisation, perhaps privatisation should be investigated.

[Big Dave]

My recent experience is it's hard to imagine the current ACC setup being any more useless for the self-employed.

Making it a profit centre could maybe do it though.

[Burrt Badger]

My ACC premiums dropped by 35% when ACC was opened up last time. Funny thing is, as soon as Aunty Helen removed the option of private ACC, my premiums went up again. Go think.

[Robert Taylor]

sounds like you are in a risky industry ? If so, you should pay your way or change your line of work. I pay thousands of dollars a year to ACC and our risks amount to opening cardboard boxes with a box cutter - we are getting ripped off, and I would dearly love to be able to get quotes from insurance companies based on my ACTUAL level of risk.

DB

I agree, and what is also a real ''irk'' is the amount of ACC payments to sports related injuries. You take the risk, you insure yourself. The country cannot afford this nonsense.

[Headbanger]

ACC can burn in hell.

The sooner the better.

National are champions.

[Oakie]

I think they were looking at privatising parts ... not the whole thing

Ah ha ha. Does this mean the affected units could be refered to as ACC's private parts? :laugh:

[SPman]

Notice how National didn't admit to it until they were virtually forced to!



National admits it (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/07/national-admits-it.html)

In the face of damaging leaks from the insurance industry, National has finally come clean and admitted it: if elected, they will privatise ACC again (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4605350a6160.html). Not by selling it, but by removing the ACC's statutory monopoly, a monopoly which has protected New Zealanders for over thirty years. The benefit to the insurance industry? $2.1 billion of new business, and $200 million in profit (http://stuff.co.nz/4604087a6160.html). The benefit to the New Zealand people? Higher premiums, worse coverage, and the erosion of entitlements. It's clear then who John Key and the National Party are working for - and it isn't us.
Another thing we should keep in mind is that Key only admitted this policy because he was forced to. If the insurance industry hadn't been so open in its gloating, he would have kept it secret right up until the election, then sprung it on us after the fact. That's dishonest and undemocratic. But then, this is the party which gave us the "moral obligation to lie" (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2005/09/moral-obligation-to-lie-again.html)...

Regardless of individuals experiences with ACC and their personal opinions, it's a worry that National are not revealing any of their "policies", should they become Government, unless they are forced too, by leaks! So, what else are they intending to privatise - ie - sell off to their mates again!
And don't give us that bullshit about "private enterprise can run business more effectively than Government" - that old shibboleth has been well and truly blown out of the water - private enterprise run things more effectively for themselves, they're only in it to make money - any substantial benefits to the country, if they happen at all, are purely coincidental!

[MSTRS]

SPMan - that excerpt you quote is most likely a roll-out of the same crap that was touted the first time round. It turned out to be untrue then, and so it is now. The doom and gloom merchants (paid by the Labour Party?) just can't help themselves, can they.
The facts are that it was cheaper and better for the clients to go private and still is. The only reason it was done away with before was that ACC couldn't compete on price or service and Nanny could not have that.

[MisterD]

it's a worry that National are not revealing any of their "policies", should they become Government, unless they are forced too, by leaks!

Have the Government announced an election date? No. So why should the opposition announce any policies?

[trustme]

ACC are the most infuriating ,uncooperative & inefficient bunch of mind fucks you will ever deal with. With the possible exception of IRD or WINZ ,DOC, LTSA , well actually just about any govt dept
Sack em all ,privatise the lot

As a business owner I liked the system that National set up where we had a choice & we were able to reduce costs, I cant say that the return to ACC as the sole provider has been a positive step in any way

[Oakie]

Have the Government announced an election date? No. So why should the opposition announce any policies?

Touche!

10chars

[Motu]

I wasn't happy last time National were in and privatised ACC - all the drama of finding another provider....and it was all on their terms,not ours.Like compulsory 3rd party it will be a feeding trough for insurance companies.

[Robert Taylor]

Have the Government announced an election date? No. So why should the opposition announce any policies?

I can well understand why they are hesitant to announce such policies as its a given that Frankensteins sister and her little puppy dog are going to get very very nasty. Especially as a severe electoral drubbing looks more and more likely.
Contrary to popular misconception this Government is most definitely not for the working man.

[alanzs]

My son broke his arm snowboarding in the US and it cost $60,000 US. He was in hospital overnight. :gob:
ACC may not be the best way to go, as it is a bureaucracy and all that it entails, but the options can be extremely brutal to the average person. Dealing with an insurance company, which is PURELY PROFIT DRIVEN makes ACC look like a cakewalk, trust me... :jerry:

[Ocean1]

I've got an issue with the juxtaposition of the words "accident" and "compensation". Always did have.

It attempts to divorce the cause of harm from the associated costs, removing almost all of the link between behaviour and consequence.

If you are aware of the financial and social costs of the effect of continually reinforced poor behavioural choices then you can’t help but understand that the current cultural focus on “blameless insurance” is patently unsustainable.

But then, so much of our social policy is…

[RiderInBlack]

I've got an issue with the juxtaposition of the words "accident" and "compensation". Always did have.

It attempts to divorce the cause of harm from the associated costs, removing almost all of the link between behaviour and consequence.

If you are aware of the financial and social costs of the effect of continually reinforced poor behavioural choices then you can’t help but understand that the current cultural focus on “blameless insurance” is patently unsustainable.

But then, so much of our social policy is…Jee I always wondered why the Americans where so responsible:rolleyes: Where's that Tui:apint:

[trustme]

Wow, thats deep Ocean

[Mike748]

I don't understand why we must sell assets/privatise sectors etc to make them effective and efficient.
Why can't the goverment get the right people in to shake things up, that way savings or profits can benefit us and not going offshore.
A private organisation won't step in to save us money, they will generally look to increase profits by reducing costs.

[Mully]

Wow, thats deep Ocean

Deep!! Ocean!! Geddit??? Priceless.


I don't understand why we must sell assets/privatise sectors etc to make them effective and efficient.
Why can't the goverment get the right people in to shake things up, that way savings or profits can benefit us and not going offshore.
A private organisation won't step in to save us money, they will generally look to increase profits by reducing costs.

You'll find a lot of large (multi-national) companies are like this too. Long-term employees who no-one would dare to question decide what they will and wont do. Government agencies are all about spending their budgets so they get more next time, so they are overstaffed. Senior management of these Depts are more interested in covering their arses and feathering their own nests.

[Mike748]

Deep!! Ocean!! Geddit??? Priceless.



You'll find a lot of large (multi-national) companies are like this too. Long-term employees who no-one would dare to question decide what they will and wont do. Government agencies are all about spending their budgets so they get more next time, so they are overstaffed. Senior management of these Depts are more interested in covering their arses and feathering their own nests.

I agree as I've witnessed both. It just pisses me off that there is a general perception that public assets and services can only be run efficiently by private companies.
Private companies are only successful if they employ the right people, so why can't public departments be run by more commercially minded people?

[Max Preload]

I wasn't happy last time National were in and privatised ACC - all the drama of finding another provider....and it was all on their terms,not ours.Like compulsory 3rd party it will be a feeding trough for insurance companies.

You didn't have to change from ACC when it was changed to allow you to choose your provider. You simply had the choice.


I don't understand why we must sell assets/privatise sectors etc to make them effective and efficient.
Why can't the goverment get the right people in to shake things up, that way savings or profits can benefit us and not going offshore.
A private organisation won't step in to save us money, they will generally look to increase profits by reducing costs.

Nobody is talking about selling it. Or privatising it. They're talking about opening it up to competition. I wish someone could explain to me how that is not a good thing.

[geoffm]

I agree as I've witnessed both. It just pisses me off that there is a general perception that public assets and services can only be run efficiently by private companies.
Private companies are only successful if they employ the right people, so why can't public departments be run by more commercially minded people?

Because the culture of government departments doesn't suit self motivated and driven people, and commercially minded people also hate pointless red tape and interference from political hacks that get appointed to these departments.

[trustme]

Commercial realities are not always politically acceptable, the edges get very blurred at times
Look at Air NZ & its charter flights to Iraq for the Aussie govt
Commercial decisions were overridden because of politics.

[Hitcher]

Are they nuts? Was going ta vote for them but definitely won't if they are going to do this. Didn't work last time. Cost me big time as a self-employed last time. Opens the way for the US sueing culture. Encourages discrimiation in work places based on health risks. Will cause injuried to be forced back into work earlier. Bugger that for a joke.
Who's bright idea in Nat was this?

I was self-employed during the last National administration, and have a different recollection entirely. My ACC fees almost doubled once Labour "nationalised" ACC. It didn't open the way last time for a "US sueing" culture, as the fundamental tenet of no-fault coverage was enshrined. Nobody is talking about changing that.

[Ocean1]

Jee I always wondered why the Americans where so responsible:rolleyes: Where's that Tui:apint:

You have a problem with people paying for their own lifestyle choices?


Because the culture of government departments doesn't suit self motivated and driven people, and commercially minded people also hate pointless red tape and interference from political hacks that get appointed to these departments.

Some work well. Health professionals are generally dedicated and effective, in spite of impressions engendered by semi-regular press beat-ups. It's the bureaucratic entities who's brief amounts to a provider-generated market that inevitably spectacularly fail to supply any value.

[Motu]

So obviously different self employed people had different experiences under the last privatisasion of ACC - same will happen this time too.

[Ocean1]

the fundamental tenet of no-fault coverage was enshrined. Nobody is talking about changing that.

:Oi: I am.




I was self-employed during the last National administration, and have a different recollection entirely. My ACC fees almost doubled once Labour "nationalised" ACC.

Ditto. IIRC I get to pay ACC three times in my various guises as employer, employee and business entity. Think it amounted to around $5K last year.

[RiderInBlack]

You have a problem with people paying for their own lifestyle choices?No but do not buy into ya theory that this will some how make them more responsible for their own actions as one can see that this has not made people in America more responsible. But it has cause them to blam others more for what happens to them because sueing is big money.

[Mully]

Some work well. Health professionals are generally dedicated and effective, in spite of impressions engendered by semi-regular press beat-ups. It's the bureaucratic entities who's brief amounts to a provider-generated market that inevitably spectacularly fail to supply any value.

I concur, health professionals in NZ are almost certainly world class (We'll ignore the taping the old woman's mouth for a while) but the health departments are hugely inefficient because the management have no-one to directly answer to.

I think there is a case to investigate making the administration of health services private, funded from central government. *Note, I said the admin, not the actual medical care*

[Ocean1]

No but do not buy into ya theory that this will some how make them more responsible for their own actions as one can see that this has not made people in America more responsible. But it has cause them to blam others more for what happens to them because sueing is big money.

Indeed, identical health procedures cost more in the US than they do here in spite of a supposed free market. The fact is it's not really a free market there either. As for responsibility? If an individual is willing and able to support the cost (whatever they may be) of his choices then what business is his behaviour to anyone else?


I concur, health professionals in NZ are almost certainly world class (We'll ignore the taping the old woman's mouth for a while) but the health departments are hugely inefficient because the management have no-one to directly answer to.

I think there is a case to investigate making the administration of health services private, funded from central government. *Note, I said the admin, not the actual medical care*

If you want to make the costs of healthcare transparent then make the rules of entitlement to access simple and abundantly clear. The bullshit starts when politicians tweak the rules in response to "unfair" cases or noise from the multitude of narrow-focus lobyists in the industry.

[Usarka]

My son broke his arm snowboarding in the US and it cost $60,000 US. He was in hospital overnight. :gob:
ACC may not be the best way to go, as it is a bureaucracy and all that it entails, but the options can be extremely brutal to the average person. Dealing with an insurance company, which is PURELY PROFIT DRIVEN makes ACC look like a cakewalk, trust me... :jerry:

I've had nothing but good experiences claiming on my southern cross.

Yet nothing but problems with those dickfucks at acc, at least as soon as it looks like costing more than 10 physio visits.....

hmmmm.....

[Headbanger]

I concur, health professionals in NZ are almost certainly world class



Nothing world class about PotLuck Wanganui.

[Mully]

Nothing world class about PotLuck Wanganui.

Is that the staff themselves or the constraints in which they are working (understaffed, etc)??

[MacD]

So obviously different self employed people had different experiences under the last privatisasion of ACC - same will happen this time too.

It is also worth remembering that motorcyclists' accident costs on the Motor Vehicle Account (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/WCM000119) are subsidised by other road users at present. I can't see private providers being willing to continue this, and competition for the lower risk customers (car drivers) will force ACC to follow suit.

Even Price Waterhouse Coopers (http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_communications/documents/news_article/prd_ctrb076534.pdf)considers the current ACC system to be a good system overall. For example:

The ACC employer contribution rate as a proportion of wages is substantially lower (0.78% at June 2007) than in comparable Australian workers compensation schemes (NSW 1.86%, Victoria 1.38%, Australian average 2%). The overall cost of ACC is quite low even after adjustment for coverage (eg common law access) and other known differences, and is also low relative to other international systems (Canada average 2%).

ACC motor vehicle contribution levels are also significantly lower than all Australian states.

This is not the same as saying all individual's experiences with ACC are good, but there are a lot of complaints on this site about private vehicle (property) insurance. Why would private injury (personal) insurance be any different?

Like many things in life, be careful what you wish for!

[Timber020]

If they privatize the ACC system, Litigation US style will eventually follow.

Big guys get rich, we get screwed. Everyone gets sued

[Headbanger]

Is that the staff themselves or the constraints in which they are working (understaffed, etc)??

Getting boozed and then chopping the wrong bits off people was a big issue.

[Hitcher]

If they privatize the ACC system, Litigation US style will eventually follow.

Big guys get rich, we get screwed. Everyone gets sued

Please explain.

[Tumbles]

I find it hard to jump to the conclusion of everyone sueing everyone else just because accident compensation is privatised. At the end of the day, the US is based on trial law. If a law case wins even though it doesn't reflect the law, it can be used as an example in later cases. Here the law is the law no mater what.

In terms of ACC, as a motorcyclist and an employee, I resent being forced to pay ACC levies on top of my fuel, my car, my motorcycle, and again on my PAYE tax. The way it is set up at the moment, I pay more to ACC than the average person because I earn more. Even though I am no more at risk as an employee than the next person. It's basically another way for Labour to divert money from high incomes to low incomes. I earn what I earn because i worked bloody hard to get to that position. The government can go fuck itself if it thinks its fair to redistribute my hard earned cash to the poor.

[Street Gerbil]

I pay more to ACC than the average person because I earn more. Even though I am no more at risk as an employee than the next person. It's basically another way for Labour to divert money from high incomes to low incomes. I earn what I earn because i worked bloody hard to get to that position. The government can go fuck itself if it thinks its fair to redistribute my hard earned cash to the poor.
Do you have an insurance policy guarnteeing that you will always be healthy,rich, and successful? i pay more than an average Joe Bloggs myself, but I am happy to shoulder my part because tomorrow I may find myself in a less comfortable situation.

[peasea]

I have a mate (just the one) who got done over severely by ACC. He had a few, did the right thing, rang Dial A Driver, sweet. However, DAD put his car into a tree, wrote the car off, smashed his pelvis, blah blah. That's ok, I'll be covered by ACC. To a point.

His mortgage was horrendous but it's ok, he earns heaps. However, ACC has a cap on what they'll cover. His ACC payments didn't even cover his mortgage; he's a high-flyer. He came over from the UK, thinks 'sweet, good job, get a nice place, I can afford the repayments' then gets himself a hospital bed and no way to pay the mortgage coz nobody told him about the cap.

OK, try to sue DAD. No way, they changed their name and nobody is accountable. He nearly lost his house. He certailnly lost his car, a very nice HSV. Gone.

Personally; I had an injury (no fault of my own) that to this day gives me agony and the experts tell me there's nothing wrong.

ACC? Not from where I sit.

[peasea]

To be blunt (but perhaps not overly fair), he has no one to blame for the consequences of his accident other than himself. Which "high flyer" doesn't protect his investments properly, has lawyers read the fine print of insurance policies (which it appears he had none), have income protection, family trusts, the list goes on. I'm just a lowly ambo but have a two mortgages and a child, so have income protection, life insurance, permanent disability insurance, medical cover etc.
As an aside the few true "high flyers" I know have Masserati's, Aston Martins, M5 BMW's, Ducati Desmosideci's etc.. there P.A's drive HSV's...........

Ok, 'high-flyer' in my low world then......But he had more than one toy, some thirsty aquatic devices and so on.

However; this guy was new to NZ and was ill-informed, he'll not be making the same mistakes twice, I can assure you. As for Aston Martins and their ilk; I share his sentiments in their lack of daily useability and user unfriendliness. It's a bugger getting the Foodtown bags into the trunk of a DB7.

He's a 'high-flyer' in my books, just not Donald Trump.


He now knows about the shortcomings of ACC and has taken appropriate action but it was an expensive lesson, something that incoming bods should know about.

All of which doesn't help my bum shoulder.

[Sanx]

Opening up ACC to privatisation does not equate to abandoning the ACC system of allowing people to sue for injury. Take the Australian Compulsory Third Party insurance scheme on vehicles. It's similar to ACC in that it insures against physical injury to any third party (though not to the driver). You must have CTP, but it can be from any one of a number of CTP providers.

As an aside, it also costs about double what the ACC levy on vehicle rego in NZ costs, for less cover.

I'm in favour of ACC personally, but certainly the payments one makes are not based on the true risk a person subjects him/herself to. Ride a 125cc motorbike on the road, and you'll pay an ACC levy. Race a superbike, and you don't. No levies are payable by cyclists, equestrians, jet-skiers, rugby players, etc. etc. Should they come up with a more equitable method of determining the ACC premium each person pays, I'd be al in favour of it. And running it as an non-profit SEO, similar in structure to Southern Cross, would probably help no end too.

[koba]

I Find it difficult to comprehend that motorcyclists would be anti ACC!

I think that all in all NZ is pretty good, nothings perfect but ACC seems very reasonable to me.

[scott411]

Acc for Accidents in comman is a good scheme, all my motocross crashes have been well covered,

but as for the average one man band, or cmapny being able to shop around for a better deal, how can that not be a bad thing,

Acc has a cap of what you pay, if you want extra protection to cover your actaul pay you have to get insurance, so actaully pay twice,

and also it is like getting blood out of a stone if you are elf employed, ask Shaun, do you not remember the hell he had with ACC