Privatisation

[sassie1]

There's nothing insidious about what the National government are now doing. Key made it abundantly clear before the election that the intention was to disestablish the ACC.

“National’s policy is to re-establish a competitive market to provide accident insurance.” (National Party Leader John Key, Address to NZ Large Herds Association Conference, 21 March 2007 (Source)

Why are we so surprised?

And we all know we get what we vote for don't we!!!!!

[Indiana_Jones]

Private is the way to go.

At the end of the day it should be your call if you want ACC.

They can charge $900 a year for my bike, that's ok, the only problem is that I don't have a fucking choice in the matter.

-Indy

[Skyryder]

I'll take private sector competition over this state sponsered hyjacking anyday, the only problem I have is will the government lower acc levys to reflect that? I very much doubt it, farrking thieves!!!

Look what has happened in the banking sector. And I’m not talking about the charging rorts. WestPac have been ordered to pay back 961 million in back taxes.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...gainst-Westpac

They are not the only bank that have been screwing the NZ taxpayer. Then there is the electricity market. Oh how we have forgotten how we have been ripped off by these energy companies. Competition my arse. I have no doubt that in the short term privatization will look cheaper but once everyone is hooked into the private system you just watch the increases occur. Don't believe me?

There was a time when there were no transaction charges with EFPOS. This was at the very beginning when the banks were trying to reduce there costs. What a good thing. Quick, easy and free. Then when everyone had a card along came the card charge. You think this sort of thing wont happen with ACC coverage?? Of course it will.



Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Private is the way to go.

At the end of the day it should be your call if you want ACC.

They can charge $900 a year for my bike, that's ok, the only problem is that I don't have a fucking choice in the matter.-Indy

You may well be right........................but ACC compensation was introduced as the right of every New Zealander, but in return the right to commence litigation for negligence,damages etc was removed.

If as you say it is our call if you want ACC then the same must be said for litigation. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to know which way the buisness community would want it. They would be required to continue with their ACC levy to cover those workers who opt for ACC and yet at the same time insure for coverage against litigation.

Yep I'm all for choice..............are you??


Skyryder

[rainman]

I would like to see it privatised as well.

ACC can remain as a SOE, and a default insurer for those who can't find anyone else to insure them because they are such a high risk.

Have you thought that plan through fully? How do you imagine the commercials would work?

I was in business during both those changes. Each time it changed, I ended up paying more anyway. Bastards!

Indeed. From ZB:

Competition pushes up premiums

ACC premiums are likely to go up if the Corporation's work account is opened up to competition.

The ACT party wants the Government to let private insurance companies have a crack at the Corporation's workload if the government wants ACT to support any planned changes.

The Insurance Council says when private insurers were providing ACC-type cover ten years ago, it was a very successful period for ACC. However, chief executive Chris Ryan says it is now running enormous deficits. He says the only way to rectify this is to set premiums at an appropriate level. Mr Ryan says there is a feeling premiums and reserves are too low, and conditions are very broad and undefined.

Mr Ryan says it is a very complex area and while private insurers would be interested, they would get involved only if it was a genuinely sustainable business.

Highlighting is mine. Note this is the Insurance Council's view. Privatisation is bad news for us the taxpayers - those of you calling for it would do well to think a bit more on the topic, IMHO.

[Neon]

I can't help but wonder if this whole protest thing is going to backfire on us.

Our beef is that ACC levies are skyrocketing unfairly for motorcyclists. What worries me is that Nick Smith and his cronies will ride the back of our protest action to drive through the message: "see, ACC cannot both function economically and offer competitive levies to the likes of poor motorcyclists, who are in a high-risk group. What we need is more competition to bring those costs down for the individual." Not trying to be cynical here, but are we adding fuel to the privatisation fire?

I guess what I'm saying is I hope we are not arguing for privatisation by proxy. That would piss me right off.

I know for some of you this would be welcome, and I guess it's a separate debate. My view would be that insurance companies are more likely to adopt a non cross-subsidising model, resulting in even higher levies/premiums.

[Indiana_Jones]

I can't help but wonder if this whole protest thing is going to backfire on us.

Our beef is that ACC levies are skyrocketing unfairly for motorcyclists. What worries me is that Nick Smith and his cronies will ride the back of our protest action to drive through the message: "see, ACC cannot both function economically and offer competitive levies to the likes of poor motorcyclists, who are in a high-risk group. What we need is more competition to bring those costs down for the individual." Not trying to be cynical here, but are we adding fuel to the privatisation fire?

I guess what I'm saying is I hope we are not arguing for privatisation by proxy. That would piss me right off.

I know for some of you this would be welcome, and I guess it's a separate debate. My view would be that insurance companies are more likely to adopt a non cross-subsidising model, resulting in even higher levies/premiums.

Catch 22 isn't it?

Can't roll over and just let them think that they can charge what they want...

-Indy

[Neon]

Catch 22 isn't it?

Can't roll over and just let them think that they can charge what they want...

-Indy

Precisely. What are we going to do - not protest?

[Angusdog]

Note this is the Insurance Council's view. Privatisation is bad news for us the taxpayers - those of you calling for it would do well to think a bit more on the topic, IMHO.

Well, finance companies love KiwiSaver and I can't see why insurance companies would dislike customers being able to buy income protection insurance and health insurance (which is what ACC is) from the same place they get their home and contents, vehicle and life insurance. Since like a lot of people I have all the above, add a "all business" discount and I doubt it would be more than paying the new ACC levy. However, I suspect that as a 42 year old father of three, I would pay a lot less than a young gun, in fact I would expect it. Unfair on young guys? Not sure about that... will do more thinking on 'fairness'... I do know that owning multiple bikes but paying multiple times for the same thing is far from fair.

[SPman]

customers being able to buy income protection insurance and health insurance (which is what ACC is) .

ACC when first set up was NOT an income protection and health insurance provider. - it was part of the Social Security network. Thank National in the 90's for turning it into an insurance company.
We had "Nanny" Labour, now we have Daddy" National - mainly rich white prick daddies, - who openly lie, dissemble information and use undemocratic parliamentry procedures to fuck over NZ, once again!

It’s disappointing no-one has asked Nick Smith and John Judge to explain just when ACC will collapse, as they claim, without these cuts. How will a scheme taking in $1 billion more in levies than it spends and with $11 billion in assets collapse? It won’t but if you think its in trouble and unaffordable, you might be OK with it being privatised.

[Clockwork]

Are we not forgetting..... Insurance compaines would need the right to sue to recoup thier losses, how does that work in a "no fault" system. Will we now need to get insurace to protect us in case we become liable for an accident claimed against someone else policy? Just think... two policies sold to cover one claim, now that's how you make money!

Ooops sorry, the liable party was drunk/not insured/or their policy holder just wants to delay payment. Now where does that leave you?

[slofox]

s and with $11 billion in assets...

And of course they are currently using an asset valuation that was calculated at the bottom of the value cycle...funny that...

[Indiana_Jones]

Are we not forgetting..... Insurance compaines would need the right to sue to recoup thier losses, how does that work in a "no fault" system.

Would this be the same 'no-fault' system where motorcyclist pay more rego then car drivers or moped riders pay less?

-Indy