Something I simply can't get my head around
If ACC is truly a "no blame" scheme, which is the argument for not distinguishing in regards to who caused a given injury, how then can it be considered reasonable to distinguish as to who suffered said injury?
And furthermore, how then can it be considered reasonable to be selective about which group of injuries to impose a select levy upon?
This I fail to see. Is there anyone in here who can explain the underlying logic to me? ...that is of course assuming that there is any.
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Bookmarks