As I said: Fair warning

[Skyryder]

At last someone (SPman) who knows what they are talking about.

Skyryder

[p.dath]

If you take that approach to its logical end, everyone should self insure. ie just not have insurance at all, then we can all be solely responsible for funding our own lifestyles.
...

If you have sufficient cash assets to be able to sustain the largest payout required then you should be able to self insure - just realise you stand to loose a lot.
Quite a few policies offer liability cover of $1m to $10m against third parties.

Even a lot of insurance companies don't take the whole risk on, and use larger foreign underwriters to cover them against large wide spread losses.

[Ixion]

Why do you feel a public based ACC is better than having the option of private insurance?

I think this question has largely been answered by others whilst I was shovelling shit.

But, to explicitly cover it:

Firstly, let us turn that question on its head. We have a multi billion dollar business , which generates its income from compulsory levies, delivered by an organisation that is (at least indirectly ) answerable to the people of New Zealand , which is obliged by law to comply with Government policy,and which is specifically tasked, by statute , with delivering universal and equitable coverage to all New Zealanders. You would turn that over to foreign corporations , who have no interest in anything other than maximising the amount they move off shore each year to their owners, and who demonstrably have the morals and ethics of a hyena. Why?

Now, let us, right at the beginning , explode the blithe myth of competition. Yeah, sure. Competition just like the fuel companies? Or the banks? Or the power companies ? There will be no competition, it is not in the nature of oligopolies. The insurance companies will gouge the prices up (remember, this is mandatory - you don't have the "I won't pay that" option), there being no practical limit on what they choose to charge.

At present insurance company premiums are not extortionate - not cheap or good value either but not stratospheric. That is ONLY because insurance is not compulsory. If they get too greedy people will just not bother. But ACC insurance IS compulsory. So , you must pay whatever the insurance company demands. And all the "opposition" companies will demand just the same.

What will happen if ACC is privatised is exactly what happened last time. The insurance companies will move in, cherry pick the "fat" business (insuring office workers is pretty safe, how dangerous can a paper cut be): while leaving the "hard" business , where people really are likely to be injured either to the Gods or to a rump ACC. Which, landed with all the expensive cases, plus the back log of residual claims (like, the insurance companies will be picking up their share of that? Sure they will), will end up actually raising levies to more than they are at present.

Moreover: ACC at present is a universal insurer. Noone can be denied insurance.Bear in mind, we are not just talking motor vehicle insurance here. ACC also cover work injuries and "home" injuries. Once privatised that would go. Insurance companies are only interested in the low hanging fruit. Little old lady ? No way, too likely to slip in the shower. Invalid ? Forget it.
Disabled, oh dear me no.

Now, inability to obtain insurance in such cases will not mean "merely" being unable to drive or ride. It may mean not being able to work - you have insurance cover in your job through ACC. It may mean employers closing down.

Following from the fact that in a privatised environment there will be many people unable to obtain insurance, it inevitably follows that it will be necessary to return to those people the right to sue. Can't have it both ways. Welcome to the wonderful USA world of litigation. And watch things like doctors malpractice insurance premiums (which they'll need - most of the people they treat won't be able to get insurance) go into orbit.

Your example of hospitals is fallacious: every hospital is obliged by medical ethics (a word insurance companies do not understand) to offer treatment to any patient who can pay (assuming they have such treatment available). If I am sick or injured and am willing to pay I can turn up at a private hospital and ask to be treated. The hospital will not say "No go away we do not want to treat people like you, we do not think we will make a profit from you ". Or I can go to the public hospital (where I also pay, though not so much ) who are also obliged to treat me.

Ask yourself - would you ever expect to see the news headline : "Child dies in street after hospital refuse to treat her because they would not make a profit doing so" ? I think not. Yet that is exactly what the insurance companies want to do - and so much do we expect it that it would not even be newsworthy.


And finally: a mandatory requirement by the Crown should never be handed over to private enterprise. It is an abuse of the prerogative of the Crown, and a return to the practice of monopoly farming outlawed in the 17th century.

[Brian d marge]

And finally: a mandatory requirement by the Crown should never be handed over to private enterprise. It is an abuse of the prerogative of the Crown, and a return to the practice of monopoly farming outlawed in the 17th century.

Have Crafar farms gone under then ???


I wonder how far this ACC thing will go ..... Where is Mz Richardson when you need her , no, she was one who could get the party line though the hurdles thrown up by the common man

luckily popcorn is of a lower calorie

Stephen

[Ixion]

Have Crafar farms gone under then ???


..

Yes. Receivers appointed.

[davereid]

I think this question has largely been answered by others whilst I was shovelling shit.

A good arguement, well defendable.

But it is also fair to say that a lot of the current problem is a smokes and mirrors kind of situation.

ACC is now required to (start a program to) cover its future obligations, in the year it invoices.

So it has to charge every plumber, a premium that will cover all losses for all plumbers that occur in that year, as well as the consequential losses of all the accidents for all time.

So, in times of poor investment performance, ACC has to charge a lot more to ensure it has the money in the bank so to speak.

Secondly, the law of diminishing returns applies.

Say they double car rego.

Some will choose to drive unregistered, because lets be honest, you have to be pretty unlucky to be caught. And even then the fine is lower than the rego, and its easy as pie to get off.

Others will say "Gee, we have two cars, lets sell one."

This doesn't help ACC at all.

The single car will still be doing the same trips as two cars were previously doing, so ACC face exactly the same liability, but have halved income.

[Ixion]

Yes indeed. The huge "deficit" when analysed turns out to be mainly a matter of bean counters juggling the figures. Some of the "deficit" is simply that investments are paying less than in the boom (everyone's- ACC have done much better than most). A lot of it is because interest rates are now very low - and the beanies have "assumed" that these low interest rates will continue indefinitely - which means much more must be put in the kitty now to cover the future cost of the plumber's bad back .

The diminishing returns problems is not limited to the motor vehicle account. Put ACC levies up too much, and that plumber decides not to take on an apprentice or labourer - not worth it.

And everyone's wage packet gets smaller - because all workers pay (directly) a considerable sum each year for their ACC cover. More money to ACC, less in the pay packet, less to spend , gee I wonder why the recession is hanging on.

And a lot of ACC claims are funded directly from taxes 9the ones you and I pay). that old lady who slipped in the shower, f'instance. ACC levies for that account go up, taxes have to go up to pay for it (anyone still remember the tax cuts we were promised, BTW?). Higher taxes hello BIGGER recession.

Why should I pay higher taxes, on a reduced pay packet, to allow foreign corporations to make billion dollar profits? Which don't even stay in New Zealand ?b=

[jono035]

I really can't even be bothered thinking about this any more.

If ACC is privatised I think I'll just get out while the going is good and move somewhere that is civilised.

[Robert Taylor]

Yet another poisoned chalice inherited by the current Government. I have to wonder aloud on two points,

1) How many specialists / private companies etc that invoice to ACC have been milking the gravy train and hiking their charges for too long?

2) And heres a hot potatoe....sport is a discretionary activity. I wonder what percentage of claims are sporting injuries.

In a country of over 4 million can we afford such a liberal ACC system? And what sections of society are doing most to effectively subdisdise all of this nonsense?

[p.dath]

I really can't even be bothered thinking about this any more.

If ACC is privatised I think I'll just get out while the going is good and move somewhere that is civilised.

Like the USA?

[jono035]

Like the USA?

I said somewhere civilised

[Jonno.]

Opps. Delete wrong thread.

[StoneY]

But, to explicitly cover it:

Yep, you nailed that one mate
Best synopsis of the why we should NOT go private I ever read

Ixion for PM

[Rayray401]

And they wonder so many NZers are leaving NZ. Another reason to get out, then come back to retire and eat off the government, then its another excuse for Winston to bitch on...

[jono035]

And they wonder so many NZers are leaving NZ. Another reason to get out, then come back to retire and eat off the government, then its another excuse for Winston to bitch on...

I'm confused, are you suggesting that people are leaving due to ACC or will leave due to possible privatisation?