Save Our ACC

**dpex** · 18th November 2009, 20:32

It was the best deal ever invented. The idea was...you had an accident and the general tax-payer paid for your rehabilitation.

Initially the idea was magnificent. No fault. No long and turgid court cases where everyone lost except the lawyers.

You got hurt, you got fixed, care of the system.

But then the idea became bastardised. Suddenly persons who lost a finger, or a toe got paid a lump sum for misery. Fuck off! Surely, ACC is there to fix whatever's left, not to pay out a lump sum to a clown whom, taking less than good care gets his foot chopped off by a lawn mower! Sure, pay to fix him, but give him a payment for being a clown?

The family of suicide victims get a pay-out! Why? Rape and child molestation victims get a pay-out? Why? ACC was designed to deal with the cost of genuine accidents.

Whatsisname. The fuck who killed the guy on a quad, in Wellington. We just paid $10K to give him a prosthetic leg....ti-fucking-tanium, no less. What ever happened to wood? Remember, the cops shot him....albeit in the wrong place;sadly, and I'll bet the shot they got was pure accident given their record.

Fuck that. Let him hobble for the rest of his life. Why are we even feeding the bastard?

ACC has gone mad. That's why they want to increase our levies.

ACC, according to Woodhouse, asserted, 'You get hurt and the public will pay.' Bludgers aside, a damned fine ideal.

We have to make it stop. And 5,000 bikers were a great way to tell the idiots it has to stop.

But we have some way to go. The protest at 'A' West city Mall, to be advised, will be just one more click in the rachet.

**StoneY** · 18th November 2009, 20:45

Nice rant but here is where we differ

The fuckhead we just brought a Titanium leg killed a guy my mates all knew well (I didnt tho) 3 kms from my house on a track I walk with my kids and dog
I would see him on a rope before buying him a leg, the indespicable monster
So there we are of an ilk, and agree on not fixing the killer,

grrrr

BUT

Do you truly think a molested child, and a rape victim are not worthy of a 'no fault compensation'?
I think they most definitely qualify as 'victims' and they most DEFINITLY did not plan to be raped or molested

Accident is only ONE word of the Accident Compensation Corporation my friend

EDIT: and REHABILITATION is there too, ask Sir Owen

**98tls** · 18th November 2009, 20:55

Originally Posted by dpex

It was the best deal ever invented. The idea was...you had an accident and the general tax-payer paid for your rehabilitation.

Initially the idea was magnificent. No fault. No long and turgid court cases where everyone lost except the lawyers.

You got hurt, you got fixed, care of the system.

But then the idea became bastardised. Suddenly persons who lost a finger, or a toe got paid a lump sum for misery. Fuck off! Surely, ACC is there to fix whatever's left, not to pay out a lump sum to a clown whom, taking less than good care gets his foot chopped off by a lawn mower! Sure, pay to fix him, but give him a payment for being a clown?

The family of suicide victims get a pay-out! Why? Rape and child molestation victims get a pay-out? Why? ACC was designed to deal with the cost of genuine accidents.

Whatsisname. The fuck who killed the guy on a quad, in Wellington. We just paid $10K to give him a prosthetic leg....ti-fucking-tanium, no less. What ever happened to wood? Remember, the cops shot him....albeit in the wrong place;sadly, and I'll bet the shot they got was pure accident given their record.

Fuck that. Let him hobble for the rest of his life. Why are we even feeding the bastard?

ACC has gone mad. That's why they want to increase our levies.

ACC, according to Woodhouse, asserted, 'You get hurt and the public will pay.' Bludgers aside, a damned fine ideal.

We have to make it stop. And 5,000 bikers were a great way to tell the idiots it has to stop.

But we have some way to go. The protest at 'A' West city Mall, to be advised, will be just one more click in the rachet.

So theres "accidental rape and molestation" which would be worthy of compensation as opposed to "warranted rape and molestation"?uh huh.

**candor** · 18th November 2009, 22:35

Originally Posted by 98tls

So theres "accidental rape and molestation" which would be worthy of compensation as opposed to "warranted rape and molestation"?uh huh.

Are we drifting off topic. If so we may as well acknowledge that in America there is now "rape" and "rape rape".
Rape being the real McCoy, rape rape being the non consenting kind by Roman Polanski of a 13 year old he drugged. Yanno the kind Holywood formed big petitions to have him pardoned for, because he is so Polanski yanno.

http://www.mamapop.com/mamapop/2009/...onsensual.html
Whoopi also joined the outcry against charges being pursued now they nabbed this casting couch cretin.

**StoneY** · 18th November 2009, 22:41

Dude yes we did drift off topic, but only in regards of focus

Rape VICTIMS are fuckin victims drugged or not drugged, 13 or 60

VICTIMS in need of; help, understanding, rehabilitation (YES they need it too) and we have a problem any government in this country cant fix.......bleeding fucking hearts who focus on protecting the perpetrators of these heinous acts

Victim's deserve to be looked after, treated, helped and compensated, cared for, nurtured and loved

Offenders......dont start me please

**98tls** · 18th November 2009, 22:43

Originally Posted by candor

Are we drifting off topic. If so we may as well acknowledge that in America there is now "rape" and "rape rape".
Rape being the real McCoy, rape rape being the non consenting kind by Roman Polanski of a 13 year old he drugged. Yanno the kind Holywood formed big petitions to have him pardoned for, because he is so Polanski yanno.

http://www.mamapop.com/mamapop/2009/...onsensual.html
Whoopi also joined the outcry against charges being pursued now they nabbed this casting couch cretin.

Uh huh,all good but the "whoopi" thing?

WTF?

**Winston001** · 19th November 2009, 00:44

Originally Posted by dpex

It was the best deal ever invented. The idea was...you had an accident and the general tax-payer paid for your rehabilitation.

You got hurt, you got fixed, care of the system.

But then the idea became bastardised. Suddenly persons who lost a finger, or a toe got paid a lump sum for misery.

The family of suicide victims get a pay-out! Why? Rape and child molestation victims get a pay-out? Why? ACC was designed to deal with the cost of genuine accidents.

Whatsisname. The fuck who killed the guy on a quad, in Wellington. We just paid $10K to give him a prosthetic leg....ti-fucking-tanium, no less.

ACC, according to Woodhouse, asserted, 'You get hurt and the public will pay.' Bludgers aside, a damned fine ideal.

Sooooo ACC should be a universal no-fault compensation system except for any woman who is raped or sexually abused, children whose parent has taken their own life, and anyone who has an accident breaking the law....

Looks like anyone doing a runner better be careful not to crash.....

I do understand your point. It seems morally wrong for criminals to get full care and rehabilitation.

As for lump sums, they were in at the beginning but so far as I recall, were removed in 1992. You don't get a lump for losing your toe but you do get weekly extra comp of a few $. Kids who aren't earning and lose the same toe get nothing.

**p.dath** · 19th November 2009, 06:26

Originally Posted by dpex

But then the idea became bastardised. Suddenly persons who lost a finger, or a toe got paid a lump sum for misery.

The system from day one was designed to provide compensation for loss of earnings. Some people suffer a loss of earnings because they have to accept a lower paid job than what they had before the accident.

Originally Posted by dpex

The family of suicide victims get a pay-out! Why? Rape and child molestation victims get a pay-out?

The Owen's Report specifically mentioned victims, and said they should be covered. Once again, do you think a rape or suicide victim is able to return to work the day after the incident? If they can't, then they will suffer a loss of income.

Originally Posted by dpex

Whatsisname. The fuck who killed the guy on a quad, in Wellington. We just paid $10K to give him a prosthetic leg....ti-fucking-tanium, no less. What ever happened to wood?

Because wood is not the current best practice.

Originally Posted by dpex

ACC, according to Woodhouse, asserted, 'You get hurt and the public will pay.' Bludgers aside, a damned fine ideal.

The Woodhouse Report also said the cost of the compensation scheme has to be socially acceptable, and in the event that it is not the scheme should direct its focus to those more serious injuries.

It seems likely the scheme will be dropping some things as a result, such as self referral Physiotherapy.

**davereid** · 19th November 2009, 07:09

Earnings Related Compensation is one that gets me, at least with the motor-vehicle account.

Fair enough, if you work hard and earn $750k a year, at work you get to pay higher ACC levies. So you are entitled to a higher payout for any accident covered by the levies you pay at work.

But, in the motorvehicle account, we all pay the same, and ACC are very firm on the division.

So if a minimum wage earner has an accident, he gets ERC of 80% of the minimum wage.

If someone earning $750k a year has an accident, they get 80% of $750K.

Effectively, in the motorvehicle account, low income earners subsidise high income earners.

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 19th November 2009, 07:35

Recombine all the accounts. Drop evey single levy they have for collecting ACC so instantly every one gets a PAY rise since that levy is no longer in your PAYE

Put ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved... its on petrol, booze every thing you buy and sell, covers yah paper cuts, it covers your tourists and covers cyclists and bikers as you are paying it on every thing you buy for you bike. It covers those that are working, even kids when will be paying ACC out of there pocket money (all business have to is up GST) the IRD goons do the rest.

If they still want to be anal about put the levy on traffic infringements and change of ownership and wofs and extra levy on fuel...

would be very hard to say who pay what and how much some one has paid... example doing this way I would probably end paying in ACC than I did previously

**Clockwork** · 19th November 2009, 10:27

Originally Posted by davereid

Earnings Related Compensation is one that gets me, at least with the motor-vehicle account.

Fair enough, if you work hard and earn $750k a year, at work you get to pay higher ACC levies. So you are entitled to a higher payout for any accident covered by the levies you pay at work.

But, in the motorvehicle account, we all pay the same, and ACC are very firm on the division.

So if a minimum wage earner has an accident, he gets ERC of 80% of the minimum wage.

If someone earning $750k a year has an accident, they get 80% of $750K.

Effectively, in the motorvehicle account, low income earners subsidise high income earners.

Actually, I thought there was an upper limit on the amount high earners pay (not sure if there is an upper limit on the amount they can claim though)

Originally Posted by NighthawkNZ

Put ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved... its on petrol, booze every thing you buy and sell, covers yah paper cuts, it covers your tourists and covers cyclists and bikers as you are paying it on every thing you buy for you bike. It covers those that are working, even kids when will be paying ACC out of there pocket money (all business have to is up GST) the IRD goons do the rest.

Employers (by and large) don't pay GST, they tend to pass their charge on to thier consumers and claim back what they have had to pay out

**imdying** · 19th November 2009, 10:34

Originally Posted by StoneY

Do you truly think a molested child, and a rape victim are not worthy of a 'no fault compensation'?

There's no helping them, they never recover from that sort of shit, better to save the money and put a bullet into their skulls. Of course that pales in comparison to what we should do to the rapists...

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 19th November 2009, 10:44

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Employers (by and large) don't pay GST, they tend to pass their charge on to thier consumers and claim back what they have had to pay out

while they can claim the 12.5% GSt they won't be able to claim the levy and business buy stock

doing this way overall would probably generate more than the 4.2 bilion dollars required

**candor** · 19th November 2009, 11:48

Originally Posted by davereid

So if a minimum wage earner has an accident, he gets ERC of 80% of the minimum wage.

If someone earning $750k a year has an accident, they get 80% of $750K.

This is history already, while everyone has been distracted by the mc hike.

The Accident Injury prevention rehabilitation compensation bill, going through parliament now removes right to earnings related compo per the Greens, tho I haven't read it in full to confirm.

Apparently if you were on 100k or anything decent a year and the ACC can find a way to get you into a minimum wage job worth $375 per week then you have to do it and get off ACC
eg Dr suffers brain injury riding bike is asked to collect supermarket trolleys. No more ACC entitlement, bye bye nice house as mortgage too high etc

I'd suggest this is a bigger net loss than a few hundy a year if bike fees rise.