Excess

**dmc** · 18th October 2009, 09:33

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2975...ll-victims-100

So car owners subside us but there could be an excess?

**YellowDog** · 18th October 2009, 09:50

The excess idea is a pretty good one however I do wonder how much of a difference it would make.

IMO - ACC should be scrapped in favour of private health insurance.

It was a good idea at the time however is now completely open to abuse from the health industry and also bogus claimants.

You'll soon have the entire third world coming to NZ to have an accident.

**dmc** · 18th October 2009, 09:57

I'd prefer an excess as its directly tied to you needing ACC, but it does point towards everyone having to pay alot more for ACC so hopefully all the sports people in NZ will see the ACC levies being proposed for Motorcycles are only the first step and they should be backing us now or expect their pass times to be next.

**Pussy** · 18th October 2009, 09:58

Originally Posted by YellowDog

It was a good idea at the time however is now completely open to abuse from the health industry and also bogus claimants.

You'll soon have the entire third world coming to NZ to have an accident.

Haha! Herein lies one of the causes of financial problems in ACC!
How many career "bad backs" are getting the gravy train? Alcohol impaired causers of crashes getting a pay out?
The system would be in a LOT better shape if it was only used as intended

**Big Dan** · 18th October 2009, 10:16

Just read this and further things for us to worry about

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2975...ll-victims-100

It will get to the point where it would be cheaper to by on the dole

We should form our own political party and take over gubbermint and form a coalition with the B & B Party

**dmc** · 18th October 2009, 10:22

Its worse when you read that a long time drunk drive gets their license back after killing someone, how hard is it to make these people pay for the damage they are causing by including a large ACC levy in their fines.

**Ocean1** · 18th October 2009, 10:25

Originally Posted by Stuff

Publication of ACC's hard-nosed measures is bad timing for the state insurer. As it prepares to slash entitlements, it was revealed that the wages bill for ACC staff in the last year had blown out from $187m to $217m. While the government preaches restraint in the public sector, two ACC executives are now being paid more than $500,000 a year, with eight others on salaries of $300,000 or more. A further 18 ACC executives are taking home between $200,000 and $300,000.

Usefull amunition, there, worth adding it to any wee soundbite the Motorcycle ACC campaign manages to deliver...

But as for the proposed policy changes? Damn fine ideas.

**dmc** · 18th October 2009, 10:28

They sure as hell aint being paid on performance, my dealings with ACC were shocking.

**YellowDog** · 18th October 2009, 11:17

Originally Posted by Pussy

Haha! Herein lies one of the causes of financial problems in ACC!
How many career "bad backs" are getting the gravy train? Alcohol impaired causers of crashes getting a pay out?
The system would be in a LOT better shape if it was only used as intended

My point exactly.

ACC has not been used as intended and is now defunct.

It has been abused to the extreme by all and encouraged so by an unscruplously greedy medical profession.

Southern Cross will not pay for anything they can palm off on to ACC.

The bad back example is a very good one.

**rainman** · 18th October 2009, 11:29

Originally Posted by Pussy

How many career "bad backs" are getting the gravy train?

How do you tell the difference? I have a dodgy back: I injured it in a sporting activity, needed surgery, and occasionally need physio to keep from needing more surgery. I do all I can to avoid this - in the way I move, work, and exercise - but it is a long term condition and can't be "fixed". Over time I will cost some quantum of ACC money - does that make me a career "bad back"? If I ignore it (don't maintain it), or have any significant stress on the injury, I will end up in the situation I was in pre-surgery: couldn't walk, couldn't drive, couldn't ride, couldn't work, couldn't earn, couldn't pay tax... and in considerable pain, requiring permanent and expensive pain-killing meds. This is not a condition that can be fixed with a dose of HTFU.

I've been paying (a considerable chunk of) taxes and levies over the years and have been covered by ACC, as was the deal (the "contract" if you will) at the time. I have always carried private disability cover so won't need ACC income replacement if I am disabled - and didn't when I stuffed my back in the first place, although they did fund the surgery.

If the Nats and ACT get what they want with ACC one of the following will result:

ACC stays, but doesn't cover me (they're proposing past 2 years), or reduces cover
ACC is privatised, and I need to get new cover, but with a pre-existing condition

Both of these cost me more money - when I have already paid this in past taxes and levies (and continue to do so). I view this as a form of breach of contract. It's just like your insurer saying - sorry, we know you've paid us all those premiums, and we promised to look after you, but you know, times are hard and we're not covering you anymore. Oops. Best of luck finding new cover. Bye!

And it's all just in aid of propping up the Nats' dodgy ideology and transferring a bunch of cash to their mates in the insurance industry. Perhaps you could explain how that is a moral and equitable solution?

Here's the real agenda:

Name: acc-undermine-200.jpg
Views: 5
Size: 5.6 KB

**rainman** · 18th October 2009, 11:35

Originally Posted by YellowDog

My point exactly.

ACC has not been used as intended and is now defunct.

It has been abused to the extreme by all and encouraged so by an unscruplously greedy medical profession.

Southern Cross will not pay for anything they can palm off on to ACC.

The bad back example is a very good one.

I will disagree with you about the virtues of privatisation, but not the greed of the medical profession.

How to fix the latter is a different question - conventional markets plain do not work for medical services, mostly due to asymmetry of information - and we don't like state regulation, which would be an obvious way to fix this. (It's no accident Cuba has a fantastic medical service in terms of outcomes, yet pays gravediggers more than doctors. But the state sets the pay rates).