Full funding?

[BoristheBiter]

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.
Its the way it has allways been, nothing has changed on this.

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.
So again, would you rather have a system based on each case?

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.
Well i am, its user pays now and while i know some people need a hand from time to time i refuse to pay for some one that wont get off there arse to help themselves as they know the tasb will be paid for by somone else.

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.
Agreed

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

I was drawing a very long bow

[MSTRS:Me]

No. You are mistaken.
So it seems...my bad.

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.
I realise that Keith Holyoake's govt may have initiated the report, but in 1972 Norm Kirk and Labour were in govt so would have put their own spin on the report and not simply ratified it. What we can't know is what a National govt would have passed into law, compared with what the Labour govt did. Schemes of this nature are Socialist in nature, in that the individual cannot make their own choice and the state controls the lot. So I stand by my earlier assertion...

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.
1992 saw a National govt doing the tinkering. It was also under a National govt later in the 90s that saw some privatising happen. Labour quickly revoked that right. I 'recall' the reason given that ACC was losing money. So I also stand by my assertion that National govts have tinkered with ACC the most and that tinkering has not necessarily been in the interests of ACC continuing in whatever form was first envisaged.

I sometimes think that the more simplistic view is the more accurate...

[Winston001]

I sometimes think that the more simplistic view is the more accurate...

LOL good point. The thing is though, ACC, health care, taxation, and social welfare (just examples) are all incredibly complex because they have to treat 4 million people fairly. There just aren't many simple answers. In many ways the US approach of leaving everything to private insurance is the easiest but it is also harsh and I'm not impressed by it.

So to understand issues we all have to do a bit of research rather than believing anything a politican or activist says. The various ACC arguments on KB are excellent examples of analysis of faulty ACC data. The people like Ixion who put it up don't manage that with only 5 minutes on Stuff. It takes hours, days, and weeks for them to dig out the errors.

Anyway if anyone is interested here is an article on the early ACC from Victoria Law Review 2002. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...sWa6VSXJIql_Pg

[Pixie]

Full funding is used in the insurance industry so that the existing claimants are covered if the company fails.
It also means that a company can be sold debt free.