National opens ACC to private sector

[Robert Taylor]

and your point is?

I dont think I can make it any clearer. But to simplify it we live in a world of hypocrisy, we also live in a bubble where we think ''the Government should provide this and provide that'' but we forget where all the money comes from in the first place.

[Oscar]

Freudian Slip I think that's called..just before you correct it...
Rude? you don't know the half of it...
By the way, only 2 types of blokes in this world, wankers and liars...which are you I wonder?
Oh, sorry 3 types, wankers, liars and The Brethren..........
Nuff said..Troll....much?

You can crap on all you like, but everything you've written here is either your opinion or that of someone else. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertions on the future of ACC such as these:

ACC done and dusted.
Won't be long now before we are paying huge legal fees and waiting , sometimes years, in order to have our claims sorted out.

So I guess that makes you a liar.

[Winston001]

I haven't kept up with the thread but here's my 2 cents: Incidentally I'm generally to the right of the political spectrum.

I believe ACC is a world-leading concept. The certainty it provides injured people far outweighs the loss of the right to sue for compensation.

I do not believe insurance companies can provide the same level of support which ACC currently provides. Well, they could, but they won't. It goes completely against the grain for restricting claims which is the careful practise of all insurance companies. Perfectly reasonable for them.

I remember the 1999 change to private cover. The cost was certainly lower than ACC. I also remember the insurance company went into liquidation in 2002.

As for large businesses covering themselves - some of you will remember the AFFCO saga. A freezing worker went out to the carpark during a break to smoke some dope. He was shot by other gang members. Bummer. ACC refused to pay the $1 million in medical etc costs saying AFFCO had to cover it. That was nuts but we are on the same track again.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/6...ooting-dispute

[Brian d marge]

I owe my mate 60 bucks

had a beer after work , that surely is a work related incident


Stephen

[Brian d marge]

I dont think I can make it any clearer. But to simplify it we live in a world of hypocrisy, we also live in a bubble where we think ''the Government should provide this and provide that'' but we forget where all the money comes from in the first place.

Huh???

the little bit of paper every month that says " give me " is enough for me

I pay , I get ,,,,,

Stephen

[NONONO]

ou can crap on all you like, but everything you've written here is either your opinion or that of someone else. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertions on the future of ACC such as these:

Wait, wait.....I get it
You work in the insurance industry, don't you? You good dog you..........

[Oscar]

I haven't kept up with the thread but here's my 2 cents: Incidentally I'm generally to the right of the political spectrum.

I believe ACC is a world-leading concept. The certainty it provides injured people far outweighs the loss of the right to sue for compensation.

I do not believe insurance companies can provide the same level of support which ACC currently provides. Well, they could, but they won't. It goes completely against the grain for restricting claims which is the careful practise of all insurance companies. Perfectly reasonable for them.

I remember the 1999 change to private cover. The cost was certainly lower than ACC. I also remember the insurance company went into liquidation in 2002.

As for large businesses covering themselves - some of you will remember the AFFCO saga. A freezing worker went out to the carpark during a break to smoke some dope. He was shot by other gang members. Bummer. ACC refused to pay the $1 million in medical etc costs saying AFFCO had to cover it. That was nuts but we are on the same track again.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/6...ooting-dispute

Are you referring to HIH in respect of the insurer going bust?

Interestingly enough that shooting was used earlier in this thread as an example of an insurer avoiding a claim.

[Oscar]

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.

Would you like to retract this propaganda now?
See Winstons post - the deal was done between the employer and ACC.

[StoneY]

Ah! Thank you.
The premium was better. But eventually the facts of just what it covered showed that it wasn't so 'cheap' afterall?

Yeah mate that was the kicker

One of the team had his ladder collapse in a freak failure (pedentic guy too, always super efficient always mr super safe) a bolt on the ladder broke it tipped sideways.
He broke his collar bone

Private firm tried saying he had been negligent, wtf? Guy was Mr Safety with a 100% never had an incident at work record

Short version we went back to ACC en masse as they cant say 'no your not covered for this incident'

SKy TV themselves assisted us with legal support to do so as they wanted assurance the installer force was able to work in confidence that they were covered in any circumstance

[Oscar]

Wait, wait.....I get it
You work in the insurance industry, don't you? You good dog you..........

A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you?

You slow witted lumpen proletariat types are why the corporate Nazi conspiracy is finding it so easy to take over the world...

[MSTRS:Me]

Would you like to retract this propaganda now?
See Winstons post - the deal was done between the employer and ACC.

I will not retract any of it. Doesn't matter whether the Insurer was the Employer...by agreement, ACC were out of the picture for workplace injuries. The guy was shot on company premises, whilst on company time. Affco or their insurer (and the lawyers) still tried everything possible to not pay out. In the end a deal was done with ACC for each to pay half. I believe the payout was $1M total.

[Oscar]

I will not retract any of it. Doesn't matter whether the Insurer was the Employer...by agreement, ACC were out of the picture for workplace injuries. The guy was shot on company premises, whilst on company time. Affco or their insurer (and the lawyers) still tried everything possible to not pay out. In the end a deal was done with ACC for each to pay half. I believe the payout was $1M total.

No problem. As long as the facts don't get in the way of a good story.

[MSTRS:Me]

No problem. As long as the facts don't get in the way of a good story.

What are you on about? There was nothing in my original post that was misleading, or emotively sensational. Simply facts.

[AllanB]

Odd that they are rolling out this old one. I did not think it worked last time and cannot see it succeeding again.

The public will be very suspicious of it and they have indicated it would require public approval first - the unions and opposing government parties will still up enough backlash to kill a favorable public vote.

However - what worries me is that this may then be a good excuse to justify increasing ACC charges even more!

I noticed a pattern during Helen Clarks 9 year dictatorship - often a statement was released 'we re considering XXXXX' usually it was something way out with no hope of public support (capital gains tax on your private home is one I remember) - now this hits the media for a week or more and during that uproar something slightly unsavory that it totally unrelated gets quietly passed through parliament.

Sneaky buggers.


Side note - why do political discussions get so heated? I am a bit of a voting slut - I'll vote for whoever appears to be offering the best deal for me and my family - I have no allegiances to a specific party. I do not understand people who are dedicated to one specific party for absolute decades despite evidence of that party fucking up badly somewhere down the track.

Vote em in, vote em out.

[Spearfish]

Perhaps opening up ACC to competition will leave ACC with a higher concentration of the professional ACC claimant?

No company will be interested in supporting a work capable but not interested victim of the disease boneidlesclarosis.


Maybe now the language the politicians use has changed to calling ACC an insurance company then I want an individual ACC account based on my own personal risk history with a farken big no claims discount!!