ACC is inefficient/wasteful-real example

[Silage]

I didn't want to fill up the main ACC protest section to have a rant, so here it is. This is an example of how inefficient and wasteful the current ACC system is and why it costs so much to operate. The following was commented by my cousin who lives near a guy who turned in front of a bike on the main road, killing the rider and pillion and injuring himself. I won't put more details as it is not about this guy but what ACC shells out.

The story is:
Guy causes accident and is injured (looses a leg). ACC pay for a ramp into his home and rebuild the bathroom with full wet floor, new shower etc etc. Thousands of dollars. The guy shifts a year or so later and ACC do it all over again in his new house.

Secondly, the new equipment is not the cheap end and while there are cheaper alternatives of a similar quality, ACC have preferred suppliers and thus there is little competition on price.

Thirdly, the guy isn't in a wheel chair or similar, but the mods were done "as you may need it in a year or so".

As commented by my cousin, the family who had members killed in this "accident" probably are not elligible for much assistance. And this is probably in the stats as a motorcycle accident!!

ACC in concept seems good to me and privatising it seems the wrong way to go. However examples like this should not happen and something has to change.

My rant.....

[Fatt Max]

A classic example.

The more you dig, the more of this kind of thing you find unfortunatley. It also seems that the people who actually need this service are the last ones to receive it.

Good rant bro

[Mully]

The more you dig, the more of this kind of thing you find unfortunatley. It also seems that the people who actually need this service are the last ones to receive it.

And, in fairness, not just ACC either. Most Govt departments have similar stories.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

And, in fairness, not just ACC either. Most Govt departments have similar stories.

you don't think a they paid $100,000 for a hammer do you? oh wait this isn't a movie thread

[Fatt Max]

And, in fairness, not just ACC either. Most Govt departments have similar stories.

Too true mate, and it's the same the world over.

[rainman]

And, in fairness, not just ACC either. Most companies have similar stories.

Fixed that for you.

[Mully]

Fixed that for you.

Well yeah. I've always wondered why ACC had a .co.nz web address.

[rainman]

Well yeah. I've always wondered why ACC had a .co.nz web address.

Well, I'm an economics idiot, I'm sure, but I've always wondered one thing about the "perfect firm":

If everyone (government or private) were optimally efficient, surely all the money they saved would in fact be money not spent in the economy (by their suppliers), so we'd all fall down a bit deflationary hole? Isn't a moderate degree of "inefficiency" actually good for the economy? Otherwise we all just have to keep working harder to stay in the same place. Seems stoopid to me.

[Jantar]

Another example of where ACC paid, but I believe they shouldn't have:

My accident in Australia happened on an Australian registered motorcycle, but off road. I had travel insurance specifically for this ride as it was a challenge and there was a risk. Following my accident, and a tour of outback hospitals, the injury was finally diagnosed, and the orthopediac doctor stated that I needed surgery, and quickly. It could be done in Australia at no cost to me or the New Zealand taxpayer, but I had to stay in Australia for an extra 2 - 3 weeks. My travel insurance company said "No" when asked to pay for the extra accomadation, and instead told me to get back to New Zealand where I would be treated just as quickly under the New Zealand health system.

I returned to New Zealand and presented myself at hospital as per their instructions, and went on a waiting list. 6 months later I had the surgery, paid for by ACC, but because of the delay it was only 50% successfull, and it looks like I'll have to go through the process again.

ACC paid once, and will pay again, for something that could have been done in Australia, and for which I believed I had insurance. For my type of claim ACC should not pay, but the insurance company should.

[FJRider]

My last motorcycle accident, I broke my collarbone. Not a major ... But as I was working as a casual worker at the time, ACC said NO to any funding?benefits as I was a "casual" worker and not entitled to any .... it was not untill I got them to check my pay history, that they found I was "casual" for the same firm for three years. It was not untill six weeks after my accident, did I recieve any assistance.

[Hans]

Preferred supplier... Means the one who has given the largest envelope.

[pzkpfw]

And, in fairness, not just ACC either. Most Govt departments have similar stories.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Ministry-of-E...4/Default.aspx

Twenty flippin' million.

[kwaka_crasher]

Fixed that for you.

The key difference being if you don't like what a company you pay money to for a services is wasting it on, you can change. With ACC you have no choice. But that's just the way commies like it.

[jono035]

I would rather have some measure of false positives (people getting overcompensated) in a scheme like that than any false negatives (people who need it not getting anything) but it sounds like we have too many of both.

I like ACC and firmly believe that it is fundamentally a good system that has been railroaded by bureaucracy, bloat and wastefulness. The answer to this is not privatisation but to work to decrease that wastefulness and red tape BS while making the information on how and why money is spent so that the people with the most vested interest in keeping the system honest (the taxpayers who fund it) can participate.

Edit: btw, lol at the 'commie' quips, what is this, McCarthy era USA?

[Goblin]

Another example of the waste. Not bike related.
A woman had a problem with her pinky finger. Doctor refered her to surgeon who told her they need to operate to repair tendons. She goes in and the surgeon finds he cant repair her finger so he amputates it (just the tip of it). Now she says she cant work so gets onto a sickness benefit for a number of years.

A few more years pass by and this year she's about to lose her benefit so she goes to ACC and claims for loss of earnings. She's expecting close to a million but she cant have both ACC and the sickness benefit so ACC deducts what she recieved on the SB and she gets a lump sum of $95k. Now she's trying to get the tax back that she paid on her SB!

Now what pisses me off the most is that this woman injured her finger when she stabbed her ex in the back and her hand slipped down the knife blade and cut herself.

I'm all for the no fault system but criminals should not get a cent.