Understanding the difference, if there really is one!

**oldrider** · 29th January 2010, 14:10

I have been searching and reading about "welfare" and "insurance" to try and convince myself that if there is a difference, do I really understand what it is!

The current ACC debacle has caused me to dig about for material and review the subject.

I have always considered welfare and insurance to mean the same thing, any argument has always seemed to arise more from political positioning and posturing about control and managing at either end of the political spectrum!

I found an interesting paper by Owen Woodhouse and as his opinions are currently very topical I offer it here for anyone else who may like to read it.

Here this link: http://www.accfutures.org.nz/assets/...use_speech.pdf

**pete376403** · 30th January 2010, 22:48

My take on the difference between welfare and insurance -
Welfare - doing the right thing, even if there is no profit in it.
Insurance - doing the right thing as long as there is a profit in it.

**oldrider** · 31st January 2010, 09:14

Originally Posted by pete376403

My take on the difference between welfare and insurance -
Welfare - doing the right thing, even if there is no profit in it.
Insurance - doing the right thing as long as there is a profit in it.

True, a rose by any other name, is but a rose!

Political ideology then extends to the control mechanism of the "welfare/insurance" by it being a forced State monopoly or a competitive freedom of choice system!

Either way it seems "greed" will always intervene and destroy whatever system is employed regardless!

I think I would prefer to see a mix of "doing the right thing and making a profit" where there is a choice and the profit includes the welfare of the less fortunate as well.

Probably best described by Sir Thomas More (1516) in his version of "utopia"!

Fear, need and greed, are probably the greatest barriers to the existence of any harmonic society.

To return to the Woodhouse concept of ACC would probably be the quickest and easiest solution for New Zealand but even if that were possible the political tinkering and client abuse would simply begin all over again and we would be back where we are now in another forty years!

**Pedrostt500** · 31st January 2010, 19:41

My take on insurance, is that insurance is much like taking a gamble, you place your bet/ pay premium incase of a specific type of incident, that may have a cost to you of X$, so yoy pay a % of X$ as a premium, calculated on the chances of said incident happening, if the incident does not happen you loose your premium, if the incident happens then the house pays out X$ to you.

Welfare is the cost of keeping a minimum standard of life, regardless of being insured or not.

Well thats my take on it, but I geuss some one will be along shortly to tell me how wrong I am.

**pete376403** · 31st January 2010, 20:18

Don't think you are wrong at all - insurance is not too different in concept to a casino. Some *may* win, but in the long run the majority will certainly loose, that is they will pay the premium and not receive anything back apart from knowing that if something did happen, they should get something back, which may or may not be equal to the loss incurred. Just like the casino, the insurance company knows the odds of paying out, and they will adjust premiums, terms and conditions to ensure that over the long run, they recieve more in income than they pay out.
Possibly casinos are a little more honest.

IMHO, anyway

**Winston001** · 31st January 2010, 20:27

Originally Posted by pete376403

Don't think you are wrong at all - insurance is not too different in concept to a casino. Some *may* win, but in the long run the majority will certainly loose, that is they will pay the premium and not receive anything back apart from knowing that if something did happen, they should get something back, which may or may not be equal to the loss incurred. Just like the casino, the insurance company knows the odds of paying out, and they will adjust premiums, terms and conditions to ensure that over the long run, they recieve more in income than they pay out.

You've just described the tax system. Many of us pay and never claim but a small percentage collect.

**Winston001** · 31st January 2010, 20:32

Originally Posted by pete376403

My take on the difference between welfare and insurance -
Welfare - doing the right thing, even if there is no profit in it.
Insurance - doing the right thing as long as there is a profit in it.

With respect you are overlooking the fundamental point of insurance and welfare - protection. Insurance can be provided by the government - State Insurance was exactly that. It doesn't have to make a profit - NZ Railways didn't bother.

John - in essence I don't think there is any difference. Call it insurance or welfare, its a payment to help through the bad times.

In the USA, they pay unemployment insurance which only runs for a few months. Then you drop down onto welfare at a lower level.

**pete376403** · 31st January 2010, 20:34

Not at all - you claim against the tax system every time you drive on a public road, if you attended a public school, if you require treatment in a public hospital, if you've ever been stopped by a cop. Even the dubious benefit of having an elected representative in Parliament.

**oldrider** · 31st January 2010, 22:52

Owen Woodhouse mentioned five critical principals required for successful ACC "welfare" to succeed.

1) Community responsibility.
2) Comprehensive entitlement.
3) Complete rehabilitation.
4) Real compensation.
5) Administration efficiency.

If ACC has consistently failed in the past forty years, which of the five principals has consistently featured as the Achilles heel of the system?

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to spot number 5 as a consistent leading contender for the prize, does it?

Who has been responsible for the performance of principal number five?

Consecutive governments of course and who have been the principal critics of ACC performance throughout the forty years?

Consecutive governments, every time!

Is it time for some accountability by the ruling power in government to take responsibility for sorting out the problems with principal five rather than punishing the taxpayers for "their" transgressions!

Better to tidy up their own performance before they change the system which is not as broken as they would have us believe!

Note worthy is the comment by Owen Woodhouse in the above paper.

"Merrill Lynch view ACC as a well nourished commercial target"!

The adage: "He who pays the piper, usually calls the tune" springs to mind!

Could the current self appointed government be trying to overprice ACC in order to entice the taxpayers to demand the alternative's that companies, such as Merrill Lynch will conveniently place before us?

The government is self appointed because all that MMP does is authorise them to choose among themselves, who will occupy the treasury benches and dictate policy for the next three years!

Democracy, New Zealand style! Pffft!

**mashman** · 1st February 2010, 11:34

My take. Insurance is a profit making industry, always has been. Welfare is a "non-profit" based organisation/coalition/corporation that puts 100% of any profit back from whence it came, be it for more nurses, resources etc...

In the real world, Insurance uses Welfare resources, i.e. paid for by us (doctors, nurses, things that go beep beep boing). Take the following for instance. A guy at work had a massive heart attack. He wanted to get himself sorted out ASAFP, and why wouldn't you. He's taken in, patched up, told no no to lifestyle choices and is sent on his merry way. He develops complications with his legs, where the docs have poked, prodded etc... Next time he rocks up at the hospital, the doctor suggest that he'll be waiting for 6 months to get done what he needs done. Informs his insurance... come back in 2 weeks. He's now been told that the op didn't go as well as they'd thought, so he needs a bypass on the artery in his leg. Double the cost, i guess that makes sense, but he'll have to wait 18 months to get that done. Insurance says. Great, see you in 2 weeks...

And you wonder why there are waiting lists when you claim through Welfare!!! Have you ever actually wondered why there are waiting lists all of a sudden... especially for people getting operations under the Welfare state? Seriously. Insurance and Welfare both need to use hospitals, doctors, nurses etc... Unfortunately they use the same hospitals, doctors, nurses etc... Who loses out? The person that doesn't pay the bill through an Insurance company. If the Government are picking up the tab, fuck it, cross your fingers that all the guys who hold insurance are keeping healthy, otherwise it may be your life!

Somehow people who have Insurance get to jump the queue. There's something very wrong there. So by all means carry on discussing the differences between Insurance and Welfare. But the reality is already staring you in the face!

**Winston001** · 1st February 2010, 19:31

Originally Posted by oldrider

Owen Woodhouse mentioned five critical principals required for successful ACC "welfare" to succeed.

1) Community responsibility.
2) Comprehensive entitlement.
3) Complete rehabilitation.
4) Real compensation.
5) Administration efficiency.

If ACC has consistently failed in the past forty years, which of the five principals has consistently featured as the Achilles heel of the system?

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to spot number 5 as a consistent leading contender for the prize, does it?

Well John I'd pick 1 and 4 as being the real problems.

For the first 18 years of ACC it became an easy mark for false and exaggerated claims. Some of the community saw ACC as an easy income source. I can remember people from my days at the freezing works celebrating getting ACC. It was like a win at the races and still happens.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/8...ilty-acc-fraud

The consequence was that in 1992 ACC was toughened up and lump sum payments were removed. The downside is what we have today: an Accident Compensation system which aims to get you off their books asap. The idea of getting people back to work is good. Unfortunately there are cases where more rehabilitation is required but it doesn't happen. ACC will try to persuade you to contribute to the cost of private surgery, their position being that maybe the injury was an existing condition.

Don't attack the ACC staff. They have an impossible job. Caring for and managing a claimant while being told by their computer that the injury has a maximum number of days. Dealing with sick and injured people who aren't always interested in helping themselves. Pressure pressure pressure from senior staff to clear files and insist claimants return to work. Trying to work out the odd fraudster from the rest.

**oldrider** · 1st February 2010, 21:52

Originally Posted by Winston001

Well John I'd pick 1 and 4 as being the real problems.
Don't attack the ACC staff. They have an impossible job. Caring for and managing a claimant while being told by their computer that the injury has a maximum number of days. Dealing with sick and injured people who aren't always interested in helping themselves. Pressure pressure pressure from senior staff to clear files and insist claimants return to work. Trying to work out the odd fraudster from the rest.

I just read my post again, can't see any attack on the ACC staff, executive by implication yes but general staff no!

Winston, 5 is about the incumbent government of the day!

They have responsibility for 5, the staff just have to do what they are told to do.

Public servants are not employed to, or paid to, think for themselves!

The government of the day sets the policy and the rules, they should also be held accountable but they simply blame everybody else and tinker with policies and rules again! (Sigh)

The government do not accept any responsibility or accountability for anything!

They simply disperse at the end of the term, wait for the "lotto" election results then they gather to reassemble and appoint themselves to the available vacancies in the government dictatorship or to the opposition rest camp!

MMP really means, "Media Manipulated Procrastination" everything changes but "essentially" everything stays the same!

I.E. "The Taxpayer gets screwed"

**oldrider** · 1st February 2010, 22:08

Originally Posted by mashman

My take. Insurance is a profit making industry, always has been. Welfare is a "non-profit" based organisation/coalition/corporation that puts 100% of any profit back from whence it came, be it for more nurses, resources etc...

In the real world, Insurance uses Welfare resources, i.e. paid for by us (doctors, nurses, things that go beep beep boing). Take the following for instance. A guy at work had a massive heart attack. He wanted to get himself sorted out ASAFP, and why wouldn't you. He's taken in, patched up, told no no to lifestyle choices and is sent on his merry way. He develops complications with his legs, where the docs have poked, prodded etc... Next time he rocks up at the hospital, the doctor suggest that he'll be waiting for 6 months to get done what he needs done. Informs his insurance... come back in 2 weeks. He's now been told that the op didn't go as well as they'd thought, so he needs a bypass on the artery in his leg. Double the cost, i guess that makes sense, but he'll have to wait 18 months to get that done. Insurance says. Great, see you in 2 weeks...

And you wonder why there are waiting lists when you claim through Welfare!!! Have you ever actually wondered why there are waiting lists all of a sudden... especially for people getting operations under the Welfare state? Seriously. Insurance and Welfare both need to use hospitals, doctors, nurses etc... Unfortunately they use the same hospitals, doctors, nurses etc... Who loses out? The person that doesn't pay the bill through an Insurance company. If the Government are picking up the tab, fuck it, cross your fingers that all the guys who hold insurance are keeping healthy, otherwise it may be your life!

Somehow people who have Insurance get to jump the queue. There's something very wrong there. So by all means carry on discussing the differences between Insurance and Welfare. But the reality is already staring you in the face!

While I am not controdicting your experiences, I myself have had health insurance for years and have had a few procedures done under that policy but never in a Public Hospital by Public Hospital paid staff!

I have never heard of any private patients having preference over general patients in public hospitals but if I am wrong please correct me!

ACC and general health are two very different things and Health Insurance is pretty carefull to keep ACC and health apart!

I do not have any private accident insurance other than ACC, with all due respect, are you confusing accident and health?

**mashman** · 2nd February 2010, 13:16

Originally Posted by oldrider

While I am not controdicting your experiences, I myself have had health insurance for years and have had a few procedures done under that policy but never in a Public Hospital by Public Hospital paid staff!

I have never heard of any private patients having preference over general patients in public hospitals but if I am wrong please correct me!

ACC and general health are two very different things and Health Insurance is pretty carefull to keep ACC and health apart!

I do not have any private accident insurance other than ACC, with all due respect, are you confusing accident and health?

Originally Posted by oldrider

While I am not controdicting your experiences, I myself have had health insurance for years and have had a few procedures done under that policy but never in a Public Hospital by Public Hospital paid staff!

I have never heard of any private patients having preference over general patients in public hospitals but if I am wrong please correct me!

ACC and general health are two very different things and Health Insurance is pretty carefull to keep ACC and health apart!

I do not have any private accident insurance other than ACC, with all due respect, are you confusing accident and health?

Ach, i'm up to my old tricks again, equating the UK and NZ. There have been instances of "cross resourcing" in the UK before, sometimes under a moonlighting guise... I can only assume the "cross resourcing" was paid for by the Insurance company too, to be fair... Even still it kinda irks me that someone's operation has to be put on hold because a paying patient has the power to reappropriate the doctor/medical team... meh!!!

I understand the "difference" between accident and health, but I see the 2 as the same... just physical issues with classification...

My apologies for flying off on a rant (and on re-read a rather poorly worded, overly emotive, ill-informed one), I really need to start reading about how NZ does things instead of just assuming that everything from the UK inevitably lands here and follows the same pattern...

Originally Posted by oldrider

The government do not accept any responsibility or accountability for anything!

that's because there's no "body" to hold them accountable...