National opens ACC to private sector

[Bald Eagle]

We will be riding again I predict as also included in Nick the P ..'s release is this little gem

"Officials will now also investigate introducing "choice" or private sector competition in other ACC accounts such as the earners and motor vehicle accounts, Dr Smith said."

2011 is going to be a busy year if want to stop them ruining a world class system .

[phill-k]

This is the area that needs to be focused on.

Bludgers have systematically fucked our entire welfare system as well as the ACC system.

I agree with you totally but why destroy a very sound system for the sake of a very small minority who attempt to abuse the system.

I'd like to know just how many people are believed to be abusing the system, because to do so you need a doctor to be signing you off and pass ACC's many specialist medical personal who are engaged to continually review said doctors decisions.

[Katman]

2011 is going to be a busy year if want to stop them ruining a world class system .

New Zealand society set about ruining the system long before the politicians got involved.

[yungatart]

But this isn't the UK, and the fundamental tenets of ACC are not being challenged. Notwithstanding that, as I said to the previous poster NZ had an optional privatised system (such as is being proposed now), a few years back. So based on the actual facts - how did this change workplace safety?

As for the private system: firstly it's optional - the ACC would still exist. Secondly, if an employer has a bad record - their premiums go up and ACC/OSH inspectors are on yer arse.

You what?
The tenets of ACC are most definitely being challenged...to the point where the original Woodhouse principles have been diluted. The moment governments instructed ACC to introduce risk rating, ACC began its slide down the slippery slope.

[Oscar]

You what?
The tenets of ACC are most definitely being challenged...to the point where the original Woodhouse principles have been diluted. The moment governments instructed ACC to introduce risk rating, ACC began its slide down the slippery slope.

So you want to continue with the original full on, no fault system?
How much do you suppose it would cost?
Would you pay?

[mashman]

Its about a treasured Kiwi institution that needs to be managed better, not competed with, sold, or privateized

"He said that advice was "somewhat contradictory" as it was suggested ACC would have difficulty competing with private insurers but would at the same time be able to compete unfairly "as it does not have to provide a return on capital"."

It looks like the money is there , ACC does SAVE money each year doesn't it?

Must be the management. Legislation, expensive fuckin legislation.

[mashman]

Fuck u are funny mate, we have a system (see stoney's post) thats regarded as one of the best in the world.
NZ has an issue with overseas debt, why bust up a NZ owned system that works and is profitable, and give the profits of such to overseas companies and add to our overseas debt.

cannot give again etc...

In a nutshell.

[mashman]

So you want to continue with the original full on, no fault system?
How much do you suppose it would cost?
Would you pay?

it looks to be much cheaper than the alternative. "He said that advice was "somewhat contradictory" as it was suggested ACC would have difficulty competing with private insurers but would at the same time be able to compete unfairly "as it does not have to provide a return on capital"."

[yungatart]

So you want to continue with the original full on, no fault system?
How much do you suppose it would cost?
Would you pay?

Yes.

I have no idea, but since ACC is there to provide cover for everyone regardless of fault, and insurance is there to make a profit for its shareholders, I know which one I would rather go with.

Again, yes.

[Str8 Jacket]

So will the situation arise where motorcycle clubs will not allow someone to race at there events unless they have their own personal insurance?

If this happens, what are the chances that those who have private insurance won't be covered in a racing scenario?

Not saying that this will be the case but when you are creating a user-pays system its almost inevitable, aint it??

[StoneY]

So you want to continue with the original full on, no fault system?
How much do you suppose it would cost?
Would you pay?

It costs a lot less than private or even some hybrid attempt at 'competition' based as per the late 90's when it was last tried (and epically failed because insurers denied claims that ACC will cover)

Yes.

I have no idea, but since ACC is there to provide cover for everyone regardless of fault, and insurance is there to make a profit for its shareholders, I know which one I would rather go with.

Again, yes.

And yep I agree with your comments 100% +10 char for good measure


Last time it was tried the bastards at the private insurance firm wanted 1600 a year in premiums, yet would not cover ANY portion of my body that had previously had ANY form of injury... thats right leg, spine, head, left arm, and right arm.
As I worked on Roofs for a portion of my day I was deemed 'High risk' by both ACC and the private firm, at that time named Tower.
Even at roofers rates the ACC levy was cheaper and I was guaranteed cover regardless of prior incidents in my medical history

Funny thing is not ONE of my past injuries is from Motorcycling....... yet thats what I now pay over $1700 per annum for the privellege of participating ........... (3 bikes all over 601cc)

The ONLY way I would even consider private as an option is if it meant I paid ONE levy for ALL my vehicles.....and that will not happen.
I know it wont because I recently sat in a room on a steering committee where we had this exact discussion with Kieth McKlea...

Oh yeah he happens to be GM ACC Insurance
I asked the man face to face "IF Private Insurance becomes an option, will this allow for us to take private road user cover and not pay ACC levy fees on our motorcycles?"

Answer:
"No because someone without private cover might borrow your bike, or your passenger may have no insurance, and we still have to cover your injuries even if you have not paid rego fee's....."

So where is there ANY advantage to going private?

Pay more, get less, and as we keep explaining over and over to those with blinders and earp[lugs in place,who think ACC is in trouble...... ACC IS CASH RICH and takes OVER 1.7 BILLION more than its SPENDS

There is no need for these changes, except to look after Mr Key's old mates in Merril Lynch and co.

[MSTRS:Me]

So where is there ANY advantage to going private?

None. To the end user, that is.

Pay more, get less, and as we keep explaining over and over to those with blinders and earp[lugs in place,who think ACC is in trouble...... ACC IS CASH RICH and takes OVER 1.7 BILLION more than its SPENDS

But...but...But...Nick said ACC was broke...he wouldn't LIE to us, would he? Nah...course not.

[riffer]

But...but...But...Nick said ACC was broke...he wouldn't LIE to us, would he? Nah...course not.

Aye... there's the rub. You see, us mere mortals don't understand the difference between cash in the bank and cash after contingent liabilities.

It's a long story, and complicated, but basically it works out that we're all fucked, and the only possible remedy is some more and vigorous fucking.

[Katman]

None. To the end user, that is.

There is if they start dishing out no claim bonuses.

[MSTRS:Me]

There is if they start dishing out no claim bonuses.

Big if. There's none on Medical. Or Life. In fact, they both get more expensive as one gets older...