As I said: Fair warning

[p.dath]

...
Serious question for those of you pro-privatisation:
A few years ago I stuffed my back up - sporting injury. Pretty much all the treatment (physio, surgery, drugs) for this so far has been from ACC - although my private disability insurance paid me while I was recovering from the surgery. It's likely I will need more work done on this as time goes by - ACC did the minimum possible (for good medical reasons). In fact I'm enjoying a course of physio for it at the moment.

I have spoken to Tower and SX and both confirm that they won't cover anything to do with my back, for any price...

And I wouldn't expect them to in the current market. They can't compete with ACC - because you still have to insurance yourself with ACC no matter what.

Now if you could take that money you were paying ACC and instead pay it to another insurer, then suddenly a market will develop - based on competition. Some insurers will offer a better price, some will charge more but offer better services.

[Fatjim]

Governments shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entities that should be commercial, particularly banks and insurance companies. That's because politicians love to meddle, particularly with money that isn't theirs.

ACC should be privatised. It was briefly once before, just over 10 years ago. Oh how I rejoiced when my employer premiums fell. Then, in 1999, the Bloody Labour Gummint(TM) won an election and felt compelled to renationalise it all again, for no good reason either other than political dogma. Left-leaning parties are good at dogma.

Anything that is COMPULSORY to pay for, al a electricity, rates, taxes should be provided by the government. The overwhelming desire within the private sector to "maximise the shareholder value" does not mesh well with utilities and taxes.

Yes I know governments have a bad track record of running things. But just look at the the electrical sector, and Telecom. We have seen NZ systematically raped, end of story.

Power
We pay 20c a kW based on last years peak prices, despite the fact that

a. We were getting ripped off last year and
b. There wasn't a "power crsis" this year and therfor the wholesale rates didn't get anywhere near last years prices.

That 4.3b we where over charged just keeps growing, only its growing faster now because we're getting even more ripped off.

Telecommunications
We are still operating exchanges that were installed in the 80's. The wastage within our telecom sector is horrendous. Projects to replace the failing and unsupportable infrastructure keep getting shitcanned. I believe one major Telco is up to version 3.x of their residential VOIP service. Each version costing millions upon millions. Who's managed to get on that service?

You think governments are bad at running business's. Simple fact, nobody is. The only difference is the incompetence can't be uncovered with a ministerial review or a commission of inquiry.

[Clockwork]

Oh how I agree with you. I don't think I have ever heard anyone object to the notion of ACC being privatised. I can't imagine why the Labour Government stopped the brief change.

And I wouldn't expect them to in the current market. They can't compete with ACC - because you still have to insurance yourself with ACC no matter what.

Now if you could take that money you were paying ACC and instead pay it to another insurer, then suddenly a market will develop - based on competition. Some insurers will offer a better price, some will charge more but offer better services.

So they'll provide more for less and still deliver a profit for their shareholders? 'cus everything that operates in a market get cheaper, just ask Max Bradford!

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

So they'll provide more for less and still deliver a profit for their shareholders? 'cus everything that operates in a market get cheaper, just ask Max Bradford!

Well for a start they won't just pay out willy nilly... you break any of your licence restrictions no pay out, you drink drive no pay out, speeding and have an accident no pay out, any criminal act no pay out and you hurt yourself no pay out...

You cause injuiry to some one else drunk drinking or through stupididy ie; speeding and loose of control you pay...

Hell I may get a no claim bonus having never made a ACC claim in my life... (it would have been cheaper for me to have put that money into a savings account "the what if day fund"... fuck I would be better off...

The first thing that needs to be fixed with ACC is the no fault system... take some responabiity for their actions and some may learn self control (I doubt but you never know), you make a fuck up you pay... cause I am sick of paying for every one elses fuck ups

"The underlying problem is that ACC has drifted from being a state insurer to a welfare provider."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-levies-needed

[Clockwork]

I must admit, I don't know how this works in the real world but when someone needs medical assistance and they don't have money, insurance or they're just made responsible for their own fuck-ups, do they just leave 'em to bleed at the side of the road? If someone who earns less than me has an accident at work should they get less money spent on their treatment?

The fact is when it comes to this sort of situation and the "in it for the profit" boys bail out - we (ie society) are always left to pick up the cost anyway! And if the insurace company does meet the meet the cost we all get to pay bigger premiums instead.

[jono035]

I must admit, I don't know how this works in the real world but when someone needs medical assistance and they don't have money, insurance or they're just made responsible for their own fuck-ups, do they just leave 'em to bleed at the side of the road? If someone who earns less than me has an accident at work should they get less money spent on their treatment?

The fact is when it comes to this sort of situation and the "in it for the profit" boys bail out - we (ie society) are always left to pick up the cost anyway! And if the insurace company does meet the meet the cost we all get to pay bigger premiums instead.

In the states they treat people 'on the cheap' then leave them the bill I believe, basically leaving to indentured servitude. Sounds fun.

That statement is (almost) a truism.

Its fallacy lies in the fact that none of us are perfect.

Still worth striving for, though.

Definitely worth striving for! Not really a reason to assume that you will never ever have a crash..

[rainman]

Now if you could take that money you were paying ACC and instead pay it to another insurer, then suddenly a market will develop - based on competition. Some insurers will offer a better price, some will charge more but offer better services.

This, I believe, is the "just because it can happen it will happen" fallacy. Markets are good for some things, hopeless at others. (Financial markets are particularly broken, as an example). In general, the asymmetry of information intrinsic to healthcare makes it pretty unlikely that unregulated markets are a good solution to the health problem.

An example from another thing I care about: NZ provides bugger-all taxpayer-subsidised dental care. I am not bound to contribute to some insurance scheme to buy dental insurance in the same way I am for ACC. And yes, there is a market for dental services - but they are almost all farking expensive as measured against earnings. Is this a one-off market failure, or maybe just how healthcare markets work?

The first thing that needs to be fixed with ACC is the no fault system... take some responabiity for their actions and some may learn self control (I doubt but you never know), you make a fuck up you pay... cause I am sick of paying for every one elses fuck ups

So what happens when the person who fucks up can't pay? For themselves - or the victims of their idiocy? I'm thinking a drunk driver takes you out while you're out for a ride one day (hope not, of course, but it's a thought experiment). They're broke. Who pays for the lifetime of care that you will need?

The fact is when it comes to this sort of situation and the "in it for the profit" boys bail out - we (ie society) are always left to pick up the cost anyway! And if the insurace company does meet the meet the cost we all get to pay bigger premiums instead.

Well said.

[Skyryder]

Pardon me quoting myself, but I take back my comments implying all of the media are useless - there is always Rod Oram. This is an article well worth reading for those that wish to cut through the spin and incompetence from the ACC minister.

The Nats are just trying to find more ways to sell off our stuff to their wealthy mates.

From the article and for those with short attention spans and did not get to the end.

All the information in this column comes from widely available sources, including ACC's briefing to the incoming minister, dated November 2008.

So the government can only be taking its extreme line on ACC because it's panicking or politicking.

If it is the latter, it must have its sights set on sharply cutting ACC's services.



Skyryder

[Mikkel]

In capitalism man exploits man, in socialism it's the exact opposite.

[jono035]

Yeah, softening people up for scaling back ACC services would probably make more sense than coming straight out and saying 'hey everyone, bend over!'.

Means that anyone who opposes it can be shown to be in favour of further taxation, I guess...

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

T
So what happens when the person who fucks up can't pay? For themselves - or the victims of their idiocy? I'm thinking a drunk driver takes you out while you're out for a ride one day (hope not, of course, but it's a thought experiment). They're broke. Who pays for the lifetime of care that you will need?

The rider would be covered by ACC, the drunk gets the Bill and has a life time of payments to make to ACC...

[jono035]

The rider would be covered by ACC, the drunk gets the Bill and has a life time of payments to make to ACC...

Where do you draw that 'at fault' line though? Person driving drunk? Tired? Using a cell phone? No current WOF? No current Rego?

One of the good things about the no-fault system is that you don't have these thin ephemeral lines to judge. This means you can be confident in the system and that it will be there for you when you need it.

[Clockwork]

The rider would be covered by ACC, the drunk gets the Bill and has a life time of payments to make to ACC...

And you think a private insurer will operate on that basis? Pay your medical bill and "hope" they will recoup their money from a lifetime of payments from a third party? Or do you propose this as a solution for after the private insurer has bailed out in which case, who funds the ACC meet your medical costs?

[Swoop]

and they simply haven't been taught about their responsibility to other road users and don't accept that they are doing anything wrong.

You work with a certain kiwibiker?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Where do you draw that 'at fault' line though? Person driving drunk? Tired? Using a cell phone? No current WOF? No current Rego?

One of the good things about the no-fault system is that you don't have these thin ephemeral lines to judge. This means you can be confident in the system and that it will be there for you when you need it.

here is a good example of stupidity that we are paying for...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-sto...r-car-surfing/

ACC will cover the costs of any of his injuiries wil it not... but why should they