Full funding?

[Winston001]

"By any definition" surely not.
ACC is not now, nor has it ever been an insurance sheme/scam. Why are the apologists for the NATS and Judge so bloody determined to push this line in the face of the evidence?

Ok, what evidence? FYI the 1992 version of the law was: The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992

That was superceded by the Accident Compensation Act 2001.



Trying to redefine ACC as say, a social contract, doesn't change the core reality that its insurance. A spade is a spade.

[MSTRS:Me]

Compensation. Not insurance. There is a difference. Albeit subtle.
Insurance suggests policies tailored to the individual, based on their personal risk assessment. We don't have that, do we?

[Winston001]

Compensation. Not insurance. There is a difference. Albeit subtle.
Insurance suggests policies tailored to the individual, based on their personal risk assessment. We don't have that, do we?

Well yes we do. Forestry workers are charged the highest rate of cover, office staff the lowest.

[porky]

Dont want to bore you with bullshit, but the scheme was fully funded from 1972 to 82. 82 saw the govt have a change of heart, (Quigley and co) and went for a pay as you go scheme, reducing levies. just about screwed ACC as they just about spent every last penny and in 87 were forced to hike the levies. Whats changed since the woodhouse report is the number of leaches hanging on, for longer, for more $$$$$ and for more "dodgy" type conditions getting paid out=> fully funded

[Winston001]

Dont want to bore you with bullshit, but the scheme was fully funded from 1972 to 82. 82 saw the govt have a change of heart, (Quigley and co) and went for a pay as you go scheme, reducing levies. just about screwed ACC as they just about spent every last penny and in 87 were forced to hike the levies. Whats changed since the woodhouse report is the number of leaches hanging on, for longer, for more $$$$$ and for more "dodgy" type conditions getting paid out=> fully funded

Agreed. In fact I meant to say in response to Ocean's doubt that ACC levies would fall in the future, that this did in fact happen in the 1990s. It was quite a surprise to see an annual bill fall which is why I remember it.

Sir Owen Woodhouse recommended that Workers Compensation be replaced by a no-fault universal compensation scheme on a social welfare basis. Essentially the same as the dole, old age pensions etc. However by 1972 the Department of Social Welfare and Parliament come to the view that the (revolutionary new) scheme needed to be separate and fully funded. And thats how the Accident Compensation Act 1972 proceeded.

We've turned full circle and gone back to the original idea.

ACC still stands head and shoulders above any other social accident protection system in the world. I do not believe that any private insurance company could compete with it. I've mentioned before that our business took up with a private insurer in 1999 when ACC was sidelined - and that insurer went into liquidation in 2003. I wonder what happened to the people on claim.......

[MSTRS:Me]

Well yes we do. Forestry workers are charged the highest rate of cover, office staff the lowest.

That is still a collective risk. Through good luck or good management, some people avoid work-based injury right through their working careers, whilst others...well...
So Mr Safe and Sensible's employer gets to pay the same premium for all his employees.
That's where ACC differs from Insurance. The collective risk is borne by all, for the benefit of all.
The other difference is in the reason for the very existence of either entity. Acc exists for the benefit of it's 'members'. Insurance exists for the benefit of it's shareholders.

[BoristheBiter]

Which is why I feel no obligation to play the game by the rules.

When the rules are obviously no form of socially constructive agreement but instructions for some fucking herd animal to be harvseted for maximum return then I'll make up my own rules to match my own agenda.

I can do this with a clear concience because my contribution over the last few decades has been at least two orders of magnitude greater than either my current costs to the system or my likely liability over the next couple.

So what you are saying is that you want it to be based on each individual case as in your case you seem not to be high risk.
I like that idea, stop all ACC levies from everything and charge every person a fixed amount based on their risk.
Then you have have the option not to pay anything if you think it is a "crock of shite" but you have no cover as you have not paid your levies.

OH hang on doesn't this sound like the USA system??

[Winston001]

That is still a collective risk. Through good luck or good management, some people avoid work-based injury right through their working careers, whilst others...well...
So Mr Safe and Sensible's employer gets to pay the same premium for all his employees.
That's where ACC differs from Insurance. The collective risk is borne by all, for the benefit of all.

Mmmm....so why not have just a single levy on each individual across the nation taken as tax? Just as we do for the dole, DPB, national super etc? Leave employers and job risk out of it if accident compensation is truely a national collective risk. Sir Owen Woodhouse thought it was workable. You'd have to accept paying a lot more ACC though.

The other difference is in the reason for the very existence of either entity. Acc exists for the benefit of it's 'members'. Insurance exists for the benefit of it's shareholders.

Southern Cross is owned by members. As is Medical Assurance. AMI certainly used to be. Civic-assurance also.

[MSTRS:Me]

Mmmm....so why not have just a single levy on each individual across the nation taken as tax? Just as we do for the dole, DPB, national super etc? Leave employers and job risk out of it if accident compensation is truely a national collective risk. Sir Owen Woodhouse thought it was workable. You'd have to accept paying a lot more ACC though.

And that is exactly what we got in 1974...

[BoristheBiter]

And that is exactly what we got in 1974...

I can see it all falling into shape.
pitty its a circle.

[MSTRS:Me]

I can see it all falling into shape.
pitty its a circle.

Ya what? There's no way that Nick the Prick or ACC is going in that direction.
It was a Labour/Socialist system that successive National govts have tried to undermine and/or get rid of since it's inception.
Now all parties see it as a cashcow, so there's no way they are going to reinstate it's original principles and means of funding.
No way, unless forced to. Got any ideas?

[BoristheBiter]

Ya what? There's no way that Nick the Prick or ACC is going in that direction.
It was a Labour/Socialist system that successive National govts have tried to undermine and/or get rid of since it's inception.
Now all parties see it as a cashcow, so there's no way they are going to reinstate it's original principles and means of funding.
No way, unless forced to. Got any ideas?

other than the use of my shotgun.... no.
What makes you think lab/soc would do any better, they didn't for the last 9 years they were in.
Just like the consoladated fund, its just money for bribes come election time.

we (nz) are in the same place the uk was (around 70/80) and are heading in the same direction. election bribes from both sides have become unsustanable but neither will remove them because it would be political sucide to do so.
our biggest mistake was mmp, not the fpp was any better, but it started there and it has been going down eversince.

[avgas]

So fully funded is a (political) crock.

Yes and No - fully funded means that. Funds covers costs. Fully funded means that in theory it could cover "all" costs - for the case of insurance this adds a fictitious figure according to claims that "could" happen. Unfortunately it seems that they have taken the concept that a "large proportion" will claim.

True term to use in this instance to measure the performance would be liquidity, using existing claims. Multiplied by a factor of systematic risk......
But that would not make a good press document......

[Ocean1]

So what you are saying is that you want it to be based on each individual case as in your case you seem not to be high risk.
I like that idea, stop all ACC levies from everything and charge every person a fixed amount based on their risk.
Then you have have the option not to pay anything if you think it is a "crock of shite" but you have no cover as you have not paid your levies.

OH hang on doesn't this sound like the USA system??

Wasn't my idea to charge a subset of "clients" more based on their risk profile. But if that’s the rules then I’ll use actual stat's if it’s all the same to you, not some obvious construct pulled out of thin air to support a policy change which has only one possible function: to increase revenue from those best able to pay it.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, either charge me for the services I use individually or collectively. In the first case I’ve already paid enough to cover the cost of any likely incident. Enough, in fact to pay for a great deal of carnage, an unattractively large number of very serious and likely very painful incidents. I’m OK with continuing to pay merely ten times what the service is worth.

In the second case we’re obviously talking about everyone paying enough to cover each other’s arses, and I’m more than happy to carry my share of the cost. Again, I’m even OK with paying a bit more to make up for the lazy pricks that don’t bother contributing.

What I’m not happy to do is to pay a shitload more based on the say-so of a bunch of grasping pricks who can’t be bothered to lie even slightly convincingly about their motives. It’s extortion, pure and simple, a classic protection racket.

All of which has fuck all to do with "the USA system". They don’t have one.

[Winston001]

And that is exactly what we got in 1974...

No. You are mistaken. The original ACC scheme was entirely funded by employers and motorists. Different levies applied to different work, and to different types of vehicles - trailer, car, truck etc. Have a look at Section 72 of the original ACC Act 1972 http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/legal.../SS_WCM_050074 and more specifically the Statutory Regulations 1973/290.

It was a Labour/Socialist system that successive National govts have tried to undermine and/or get rid of since it's inception.
Now all parties see it as a cashcow, so there's no way they are going to reinstate it's original principles and means of funding.

I respect your views and admire your passion. There is a lot of misinformation about ACC and I'm certainly no expert either but not everything you read is true.

Neither National nor Labour have tried to comprehensively get rid of ACC. The original Woodhouse Report was prepared under National - and passed into law by Labour. Since then the Act has been reformed 3 times and the reason was public dissatisfaction with the scheme. Some of the changes such as in 1992 made ACC very complex. For a very brief 2 years private insurance companies were allowed to compete but ACC itself carried on. No sale, no money grab.