National opens ACC to private sector

[RiderInBlack]

No surprise there. They have been fattening the ACC "Calf" for awhile at our cost Now it is fat enough ta sell to the greedy Corporate World, and NZ will become as sue crazy as the US.
But then you guys voted for that as soon as ya let Nation in. They made it quite clear that it was part of their plan. Thanks alot

[avgas]

Remeber to make your vote count next year

I am getting sick of this statement.

How do we make it count???
Who do you think we should vote for???

- I don't want taxes to go up
- I don't want a relaxed prison system
- I don't want Waitangi Tribunal to continual
- I don't want to pay more for rego....

and many other things I don't want.

Surely the best thing for me to do with my vote is to not vote - and buy a lotto ticket as the others go to polls to decides which morons are in charge.
Statistically speaking the chances of a payoff are much greater.
I mean if I have enough money - then like others in NZ in that position.....that is the only way I could truly say "FUCK YOU" to the politicians. You gotta have money or people. And it seems "people" means > 200,000 as this is why the whole ACC protest fell over.

So yes make your vote count! because its going to determine how you will be raped by either party a or party b in future.....and if your lucky they might use lube.

[avgas]

But then you guys voted for that as soon as ya let Nation in. They made it quite clear that it was part of their plan. Thanks alot

Because labour was doing such an awesome job......

face it Labour or National - your gonna get fucked

[Ocean1]

I believe Cherry picking the most profitable aspects out of the organisation and leaving the less profitable parts (the "social promise stuff") to fall over so that we can emprofit overseas corporations is not the way to do it.

Why are there cherries to pick? Why should there be instances where specific groups are paying more for the services they receive than they’re worth?

The “social promise stuff” needs to be paid for somehow? Other groups can’t afford to pay for what they get?

Fuck that, that’s what the sliding income tax is supposed to be all about, why do some groups have to pay the same “extras” half a dozen different ways? ‘Cause they can afford to?

You're a typical NZer - you're so determined to get yourself the biggest bargain that you'll happily accept crap. Get out of your Warehouse mentality and figure out that privatisation and globalisation is going to screw the country in the end.

I don't have so much of a problem with the competition aspect - I just don't trust the insurance companies to play fair - they're not in business to accept risk.

Why does the competitive element have to be an off shore one? Why couldn’t NZ insurance companies bid for controlled access to bits of the market?

And what on earth leads you to believe the current charges are fair? You lot are fookin’ quick to bleat when they decide to charge higher ACC levies for bikers. Whether that’s based on genuine statistical data or rank bullshit why should any other group pay for more than they get?

Let’s start a wee poll eh?

ACC supplies me personally exactly the same bundle of services as every other Kiwi. That service costs me personally around $8.5k P.A.

You?

[RiderInBlack]

Why does the competitive element have to be an off shore one? Why couldn’t NZ insurance companies bid for controlled access to bits of the market?

Bet ya can't name one NZ Insurance Company that is not owned by a larger Off-Shore Company, that is big enough to handle ACC If ya can't, then that answers ya above two questions

[Scuba_Steve]

Because labour was doing such an awesome job......

face it Labour or National - your gonna get fucked

True that your only choice in NZ is who you don't want more

[Winston001]

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.

Yes ta, HIH was the one.

I don't know if AFFCO reinsured but essentially it was their risk which was argued over.

I must say I don't get it. If the guy in the case was inside or outside the gate on his break and got shot, should the employer still have to cover it? Not a work related accident. I'd be pretty dark too if I was AFFCO. I'll bet the average KBer wouldn't want to pay up either.

[StoneY]

I am getting sick of this statement.

So stop reading KB then, coz its exactly what the situation is.

While you may believe one party is no better than the other, thats your choice in a democracy.
I for one disagree that my vote would be wasted

Its apathy like you just displayed that got our ACC levy increased by the Nat's

[SPman]

How about lifestyle beneficiaries, how about politicians? The worst ones are the left wing politicians because they espouse equality but they are happy to be pigs at the feeding trough to suit their own pockets. Bloody hypocrites.

The worst ones are the ACT MP's, who espouse individual freedoms, anti rorting and honesty, and are conspicuously none of these things....

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

All governments engage in social engineering of one form or another. The nats are really good at it - with the help of their PR companies you hardly notice it going on - well - if you have to rely on the MSM to hear about it......... success is good, however no governments in NZ seem to be in favour of success, unless they can make some personal capital out of it. National just prattle on about successful business, but do as little as any other party to actually engender this....unless you're good mates with a politico. Most success stories in NZ have happened, despite the government of the day, very seldom with the help of!
The opening of the ACC section to private insurers will not benefit the citizens of the country as a whole - as before, the lucrative bits (if there are any) will be picked up by the private sector, leaving the ACC to carry the can for everything else.

True that your only choice in NZ is who you don't want more

...which is a sad indictment on the state of politics and polititians in this country (and overseas)

[MSTRS:Me]

... Not a work related accident....

I guess that was the sticking point. Not work related, but it did happen on company time, on company premises. Hence the eventual sharing of the payout. It's a moot point, but I guess ACC used the non-work fund?
At the time this happened, ACC were not quite the ogre they are now, so they prolly would have paid out without too much fuss.

[wharfy]

ACC supplies me personally exactly the same bundle of services as every other Kiwi. That service costs me personally around $8.5k P.A.

You?

So how does that work ?
I pay ACC through vehicle rego and ACC earner levies but that is a long way from $8.5k ?

[Oscar]

Yes ta, HIH was the one.

I don't know if AFFCO reinsured but essentially it was their risk which was argued over.

I must say I don't get it. If the guy in the case was inside or outside the gate on his break and got shot, should the employer still have to cover it? Not a work related accident. I'd be pretty dark too if I was AFFCO. I'll bet the average KBer wouldn't want to pay up either.

Yeah the HIH thing was very dodgey - I seem to recall the MD going to jail or somesuch.

[motor_mayhem]

There is if they start dishing out no claim bonuses.

What's the good of having a no claims bonus if you have to waste time and money on litigation when you actually need them to pay out a claim?

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.‎

So let me get this straight - to argue that this is a bad idea we need absolute substantiated proof but when you want to prove your case, you claim life experience which is the same as "my mate said" to anyone you're telling.

On the contrary - I won't accept crap, and I think that the ACC has been delivering crap for some time now.

You think? Well that "definitely" sells it to me, given your demands for proof of any statements made against your view.

Why should i be the only one on this thread actually backing up what they're saying? I was actually referring to their claims processes - their habit of using distant and vaguely qualified "experts" when determining claims. I had a guy with a head injury locally who had been going to a psychiatrist (i.e. ‎medical degree and PHD) for treatment, but the ACC rolled out a psychologist (no ‎medical training) to prove our boy was faking. ‎

So you think an insurance company wouldn't roll out a psychologist AND a lawyer just to make sure they didn't pay any more than they are forced to? (note use of the phrase "are forced to" rather than "are responsible for")

Here's an interesting article for you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664727...h-health_care/

Particularly read further down to the bit that reads "In Perfect Health but still denied".

So to summarise.

The partial privatisation of ACC is a bad thing because:

• My Mate Said So.
• Anything I Say In Capitals Is True
• All Insurance Comapany's Are Bastards
• ACC Fucked Up My Rego, But They Can Trusted Otherwise
• Childbirth In Toyko Is Expensive
• All Politicians Are Liars (Except The Ones Who Agree With Me).

As a general starter try googling denied health claims and read through how much crap you would have to go through to appeal. Now add to that you are doing battle with a company who's arguments are driven by a profit increase when your claim is rejected so they are very determined. Provided ACC are actually run as a service rather than a company, their only interest should be to weed out the tools who are trying to use the system.

I don't know that all politicians are liars but how truthful would you say Nats were when they said "We won't privatise ACC in this term" compared with what we're reading now?

And I'm sure the govt would never influence what ACC make the fees for rego or whatever....

[wharfy]

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.

Well I support Labour, the principles the party was founded on are sound - support for the workers - I did vote Green for a time after Roger Douglas hijacked the party and may do so again unless Labour figures out that they need to get back to their original principles.
National's policies are diametrically opposed to my belief's and no matter how relaxed John Key is or how Telegenic, he is still just window dressing for the National Party - Their agenda is simple - Big Business rules, and they will always favor them at the expense of the "ordinary" citizen (whose only purpose as far as Business is concerned is to work and consume to keep the machine running.)

Don't be a voting slut !!! - Think about what sort of society you want to live in and vote for a party that supports that.

Remember that Politicians will offer almost anything to get elected !! You must bear in mind what their belief system is, to quote The right Honorable Dr Lockwood Smith " you have to swallow a few dead fish to get elected "

( I just wish Phil Goff would relax a bit - He is a smart witty guy, and easily as likable as John Key if he wasn't trying so hard )

[Oscar]

What's the good of having a no claims bonus if you have to waste time and money on litigation when you actually need them to pay out a claim?



So let me get this straight - to argue that this is a bad idea we need absolute substantiated proof but when you want to prove your case, you claim life experience which is the same as "my mate said" to anyone you're telling.



You think? Well that "definitely" sells it to me, given your demands for proof of any statements made against your view.



So you think an insurance company wouldn't roll out a psychologist AND a lawyer just to make sure they didn't pay any more than they are forced to? (note use of the phrase "are forced to" rather than "are responsible for")

Here's an interesting article for you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664727...h-health_care/

Particularly read further down to the bit that reads "In Perfect Health but still denied".



As a general starter try googling denied health claims and read through how much crap you would have to go through to appeal. Now add to that you are doing battle with a company who's arguments are driven by a profit increase when your claim is rejected so they are very determined. Provided ACC are actually run as a service rather than a company, their only interest should be to weed out the tools who are trying to use the system.

I don't know that all politicians are liars but how truthful would you say Nats were when they said "We won't privatise ACC in this term" compared with what we're reading now?

And I'm sure the govt would never influence what ACC make the fees for rego or whatever....

This is getting a bit old now and most of that discussion is out of context as it goes ‎back to older (and unquoted) posts. For example the post you quote where I say "I ‎was there" was a response to an older post that inferred that I wasn't. I was merely ‎responding to posters that are against any private involvement and rail against both ‎the Govt. and the Insurance sector with no supporting evidence.‎

I merely asked these chaps to post some supporting evidence for these assertions - I ‎wasn't actually trying to make a case either way.‎

In respect of the changes to be made, I can see that opening the area to competition ‎may have drawbacks (and it could probably use an oversight authority of some sort to ‎monitor claims performance), but perhaps ACC could use a wake up call. What I ‎would vehemently oppose is any change to the "no fault" philosophy of ACC, but I ‎can't see how changing that is to anyone’s advantage. I don't believe anyone in Govt. ‎is dumb enough to open up this area to the sort of litigation that ensue.‎

As far as election promises, I can't fathom your point - they said they wouldn't change ‎it in this term, and they're giving everyone fair notice that they will do something ‎‎after the next election.‎