National opens ACC to private sector

[Oscar]

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)



.

Here's another one that confuses opinion with facts.
Epically failed?
Says who?

Do you have some proof of this assertion?

I can't understand why some here are whinging about being screwed by a govt. monopoly (rego costs) one minute and defending it's right to be the sole provider of other services the next.

[SPman]

Bugger the nanny state liarbour

You'd rather have Big Brother state, Nactional?

[riffer]

I can't understand why some here are whinging about being screwed by a govt. monopoly (rego costs) one minute and defending it's right to be the sole provider of other services the next.

Really? Then you can't have read much at the time it was all going down.

You're still confusing ACC with insurance. Just like the current government. It isn't.

[Scuba_Steve]

I can't understand why some here are whinging about being screwed by a govt. monopoly (rego costs) one minute and defending it's right to be the sole provider of other services the next.

Quite simple if the costs are justified all good-ish, fact is they aren't as for wanting to remain ACC that's simple too they're are there for cover ONLY, that is they're purpose NOT to make a profit as it is with insurers where profit comes before all else and maximising that is the ultimate goal. Thinking it any different is ignorant or just plain retarded!

[Brian d marge]

Evidence?
What of the mish mash above actually has to do with ACC?

Energy costs?
Student loans?
Ireland?

Step away from the bong...

Ill step away from the bong if you take the blinkers off

How plainly do I have to spell it out ( and As I have some time today I will try )

Can you not see that it is those that set the Bond rate , and "advise us on good economic practice , - not labour or national ~ that want NZ to loosen up the controls on our ACC .
this has been done in Many other countries that the IMF have "advised " and NZ is right there at the front

Now Im am not going to wait while the " never had it so good generation , who I might add received free or near enough to free Tertiary education as well enjoying an unmodified pre Rogernomic NZ

Im not going to wait while you destroy NZ with your blindness.... Your ACC (IMHO) WILL go up ,,,and IF I am wrong it will stay the same or go down ...please let me be wrong.
BTW YOUR REGO HAS GONE UP

And I will After coffee sit down and and walk you through, ( you can still vote National thats fine , as they are both as bad but at least labour had half a concience for the working stiff ,,,,)

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

The original ACC concept was an ideal that was always doomed to failure as we increasingly became a 'Fuck you Jack' society.

agreed 100% ( its happening slowly here in the Japan to)

Stephen

[SPman]

National Party leader John Key has been forced to confirm plans to open workplace accident insurance to private competition, but has denied that amounts to privatising ACC.

His comments followed revelations by The Dominion Post that a Merrill Lynch broker's report tipped Australian insurers to make a $200 million killing if National went ahead with an "informal" plan to privatise ACC.

Insurance companies expect National to privatise ACC, but their would-be customers, the business community, are surprisingly unenthusiastic.
Insurance Council chief executive Chris Ryan said there was an appetite among insurers to re-enter the workplace accident compensation market.
The Merrill Lynch report suggests privatisation could unlock $2.1 billion in new premium income. Mr Key once worked for Merrill Lynch. Prime candidates for privatisation were the workers' compensation and motor accident accounts.

....................cynical......moi?

If someone thinks they can save a few bucks, they'd happily throw ACC out and embrace private inurance - after all, it's the NZ way!
Trying to turn ACC into a facscimile private insurer, in attitude if not reality has been a softening up process to get you all used to how you'll be treated - believe me, if you think you're being shafted by ACC - you aint seen nothing yet!

[Voltaire]

Now Im am not going to wait while the " never had it so good generation , who I might add received free or near enough to free Tertiary education as well enjoying an unmodified pre Rogernomic NZ

I remember the pre pre Rogernomic days....leaving NZ on $10 NZ an hour and arriving in sydney on $14 AU....pubs open on Sundays.....shops open on weekends.....a variety of take away food.....way cheaper stuff....but.....Vehicle rego on a bike $350.00....compulsory vehicle insurance,Union Membership, Workers Comp...but I had a bevel drive Ducati so life was good.
It would appear that for everything you gain...you lose something.

[StoneY]

Here's another one that confuses opinion with facts.
Epically failed?
Says who?

Do you have some proof of this assertion?

I can't understand why some here are whinging about being screwed by a govt. monopoly (rego costs) one minute and defending it's right to be the sole provider of other services the next.

Proof?
I lived through it you sanctimonious #$%@!!! did you?
It WAS an epic fail, it lasted no more than 2 years before it was turned over and ACC restored to its original form with the exception of a re-calculation of levy rates, and discounts for self managing risk, or having fewer accidents in your workplace

My BEST MATE was one of the brokers who set his business up totally around private insurance options for workers, and he had 12 months of good revenue, before the public started refusing to play the game and his clients all returned to an ACC model.

So, if you can prove other than the situation I just described go ahead.
Where is YOUR proof Oscar?
Show us ONE single success case from when thay last did this!
You cant coz none exist

It was reversed because our Nation lost millions of dollars to underperforming insurance companies that simply lawyered up and refused to pay out injury claims, FACT!
And the Government had to step up and take it back to ensure our workforce was covered for any accidents.
Its all on public record, do you dare to imply I am making this up?

And while we are at it when did YOU last have a no topic barred conversation with Kieth McLea from ACC...I did less than 2 months ago and remember the conversation very clearly.

[Quasievil]

You'd rather have Big Brother state, Nactional?

Labour = social engineering , what are you on about.................anti success ?

[MSTRS:Me]

It was reversed because our Nation lost millions of dollars to underperforming insurance companies that simply lawyered up and refused to pay out injury claims, FACT!
And the Government had to step up and take it back to ensure our workforce was covered for any accidents.
Its all on public record, do you dare to imply I am making this up?

There was another reason...
ACC was hemorrhaging money from the work account due to payouts to existing claimants and not having enough new levies to keep it topped up.

I can understand that there is something to say about ACC having an enormous balance of reserves. If it's big enough, it will become self-sustaining. In which case, levies go down (ha!) or the lost income from those that go private won't be such an issue.

Believe what you like, but none of what is happening is being done for the benefit of the common wo/man...

[Oscar]

Proof?
I lived through it you sanctimonious #$%@!!! did you?
It WAS an epic fail, it lasted no more than 2 years before it was turned over and ACC restored to its original form with the exception of a re-calculation of levy rates, and discounts for self managing risk, or having fewer accidents in your workplace

My BEST MATE was one of the brokers who set his business up totally around private insurance options for workers, and he had 12 months of good revenue, before the public started refusing to play the game and his clients all returned to an ACC model.

So, if you can prove other than the situation I just described go ahead.
Where is YOUR proof Oscar?
Show us ONE single success case from when thay last did this!
You cant coz none exist

It was reversed because our Nation lost millions of dollars to underperforming insurance companies that simply lawyered up and refused to pay out injury claims, FACT!
And the Government had to step up and take it back to ensure our workforce was covered for any accidents.
Its all on public record, do you dare to imply I am making this up?

And while we are at it when did YOU last have a no topic barred conversation with Kieth McLea from ACC...I did less than 2 months ago and remember the conversation very clearly.

My, my you do get excited, don't you?‎
As a matter of fact, I did live through it.‎
I've also spent a considerable part of my working life helping with actions against ‎insurers and the ACC in respect of compensation claims.‎

As for facts, you're another nupty doing the "my mate said" dance.‎
Why would I accept your word for something just because you finish your sentence ‎with FACT! If it's a matter of public record, why don't you post the figures?‎

It's my recollection that the reason the last one scheme was abandoned was ‎ideological - i.e. the Labour Govt. killed it.‎

[MSTRS:Me]

Does anyone remember what happened in the carpark of the meatworks in Wairoa a few years ago?
A worker, with gang affiliations, was at work but on a break having a smoke. He got shot by a rival gang member, and was paralysed as a result.
Now - this company had done a deal with ACC, and agreed to cover their staff through their own insurance. Fine, in principle. Except, the company's insurer didn't want a bar of covering the injured worker. He was on a break. He was in an area with access for the public. He wasn't injured accidentally. Whatever. Any excuse to dodge payment was rolled out.
12 months down the line, the insurer and ACC struck a deal and paid out 1/2 each to the victim.
Now, you could argue that workers there still paid ACC levies for leisure-time cover. If he'd been shot outside of work and off the premises, then ACC should pay the lot. Is smoko classed as 'leisure time'? I don't think so.

[Oscar]

Really? Then you can't have read much at the time it was all going down.

You're still confusing ACC with insurance. Just like the current government. It isn't.

You're asking me to trust an organisation that plainly screwed up the calculations for mc rego charge?

You're confusing the compensation aspect of ACC with the legislative side.

[Oscar]

Quite simple if the costs are justified all good-ish, fact is they aren't as for wanting to remain ACC that's simple too they're are there for cover ONLY, that is they're purpose NOT to make a profit as it is with insurers where profit comes before all else and maximising that is the ultimate goal. Thinking it any different is ignorant or just plain retarded!

On that basis the state would run every service.
And history proves that the State is actually not that good at providing services. In the past Govt. monoplies were used to hide unemploment (NZR), to suppress diversity (NZBC) or just to be downright hopelessly inefficient (NZPO).

No one is saying that the ACC should be done away with, but to intoduce a bit of competition to the market can hardly hurt. And it's not like the ACC have a spotless history of service and claims payment is it? The NZ Herald have been running feature stories on the ACC's propensity toward shitty claims service for several weeks now.