National opens ACC to private sector

[StoneY]

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?

With 4 motorcycles (3 over 601cc) and a car, and two fully employed professionals who earn above the average income in our household, NOT counting whats on our fuel (would have to do some pretty hard our math to get down to that figure) we pay about 4k a year, earners and vehicles

Your so full of shit dude

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

Yep, exactly what the rest of us feel, and Mom has nailed it in relation to what we expect and what we get

I spent half this year as a self emoployed contractor to MOH before I took on my current role (in another high profile govt dept) and my ACC bill against my PAYE is only $1600,for the whole YEAR salary time as well as contract. The missus contribution is around 1100 in PAYE associated levy, add our bikes its a round figure of 4k and a bit of change

He has to be counting his 'employees' fee's he pays as well or commercial vehicle rates (again not a PERSONAL EXPENSE)

Oscar and co, you've trolled us enough, return to your masters and report you have epically failed to convince the nasty bikers that the scheme is a good one

Time to use the ignore function before I vomit, this moron thinks he can reason us into swallowing bullshit and thanking them for the supply

[Oscar]

Oscar and co, you've trolled us enough, return to your masters and report you have epically failed to convince the nasty bikers that the scheme is a good one

Time to use the ignore function before I vomit, this moron thinks he can reason us into swallowing bullshit and thanking them for the supply

Typical propagandist maroon.
I didn't post an opinion much one way or another as I think any privatisation needs more regulation - merely asked some of you lefty idiots to explain your outlandish claims.


You wouldn't dare putting me on ignore - you'd be laying awake at nights wondering what the big nasty corporate bogeyman was saying...

[AllanB]

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.

( 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 )

My issue with 'life time supporters' of any party is that they get inground beliefs that are often untrue.
Business - where would the country be without it? And in the present global enviroment if business is constantly being screwed it will just got off shore.

Social values - great in theory but from what I see in practice it is the same slackers getting hand outs decade affter decade - yep the career benificaries. I'm sick of paying for the bastards.

Somewhere in the middle would presumably be OK.

Heres my big rub - MP's are (or were) voted in to do the best for their country, so if ANY party has a good idea the lot of them should be voting for it instead of wanking on moaning about 'but we would do ....'


Phil Goff - his biggest mistake was accepting the leadership after Helen Clarke resigned - who ever took that roll was only going to be a fall-guy until the public tired of John Kay. Consquently we will never get to see Phill as PM. God help the country if Andrew Little wins!

[Ocean1]

Your so full of shit dude

So you don't own a small business then?

[pete376403]

I didn't post an opinion much one way or another as I think any privatisation needs more regulation - ...

But doesn't this really fly in the face of the (mostly) ACT and the National agendas -Privatisation = good, regulation = bad ?
If after the next election National still need the support of ACT (assuming Hide gets back in) and they go ahead with the ACC privatisation, it will have to be as unregulated as possible to keep ACT happy.

[SPman]

Disagree, that arrogant and TOTALLY UNREPENTANT fag Carter is 10 times worse than any other pig at the feeding trough.

Chris Carter is an egotistic shithead with a chip on his shoulder the size of Egmont! He's not worse - only publicly as bad as about 60 other MP's playing the system for all they can get out of it! The sooner he's gone, as with all the others, the better.

We get the Governments we deserve because too many voters are infirm of purpose and are looking for easy handouts, fact.

Yep!

[StoneY]

So you don't own a small business then?

Have owned 4 small businesses and still Gst registered as a sole trader

Unless your claiming the rate for your commercial vehicle and staff levy's as 'your expenditure' and not a business cost, I stand by my post

Had a painting contractors crew with 5 staff and the whole years ACC levies for all of them AND me was only 7k, granted it was 2004, but c'mon stating you pay 8+k for YOU personally is as bogus as it gets unless your a roofer turning over 500k a year?

[StoneY]

Chris Carter is an egotistic shithead with a chip on his shoulder the size of Egmont! He's not worse - only publicly as bad as about 60 other MP's playing the system for all they can get out of it! The sooner he's gone, as with all the others, the better.

Nailed!
Wouldnt matter what party the MP is in, its the man/woman who decides 'will I ply fair, or will I glut myself at the trough due to a loophole and Carter is the worst example in years
Dmage he has done to the reputation of his party is immeasurable, but still pales to the rorting and sheer robbery of Bill English and his 'rentals' IMO

[phill-k]

My Question to
Oscar an co, tell me what opening up the profitable side of ACC to overseas insurance companies so that they can remove further funds in the way of profits from NZ will do for the ordinary average NZer. Many who has been putting their points of view to you and you continually rubbish in this forum.

Show me somewhere in the world that has private insurers doing a better job than ACC do in NZ.

One of the reasons ACC was originally set up was to remove the opportunity for NZ workers to sue their employers when things went wrong. National now want to break apart ACC to Benoit big business in NZ at the expense on the ordinary bloke, but they won't be giving you back the right to sue said employers as that's the part they want still bound up in ACC's social contract.

[MSTRS:Me]

Not get back the right to sue?
Not quite - since if you go private, and get shafted, suing is exactly what you will have to do. And you have the right to do that now...although it is very rare.

[Winston001]

He has to be counting his 'employees' fee's he pays as well or commercial vehicle rates (again not a PERSONAL EXPENSE)

I have no problem understanding and accepting Ocean's figures for ACC payments. Just for clarity, ACC premiums for an employer are:

1. An annual payroll levy calculated on total wages for the business. That can be a large sum particularly for any higher risk jobs such as builder, forestry worker etc.

2. A levy on the employers salary.

3. Residual levies to cover all claims made in NZ in the past for which there is not enough money. That usually comes as a nasty surprise because it is outside the standard payments.

4. Catchup levy based on last years ACC claims data for the employers industry. In other words, what your business paid last year was not enough, so here's another.

Plus GST on top.

Its all in bits and pieces rather than a lump sum bill so most employers don't add up what they pay each year.

It is easy to say this isn't a personal cost but every dollar which goes out of a business, becomes one more reason not to own it.

I can think of a shearing contractor who owed so much ACC (high risk) that he closed his business.

Heres my big rub - MP's are (or were) voted in to do the best for their country, so if ANY party has a good idea the lot of them should be voting for it instead of wanking on moaning about 'but we would do ....'

In a small country like NZ I believe most MPs are genuine and dedicated. They are also human and fallible.

The real problem is we are tiny, have a high standard of living, and sod all valuable resources. Unlike Australia which can dig wealth out of the ground. We are also a long long way from the people we want to sell stuff to which puts us at the bottom of the queue.

Our politicians can't influence the global economy or do much at all to help. The best they can hope for is to provide a stable fair-minded society which encourages people to try their ideas.

[Oscar]

But doesn't this really fly in the face of the (mostly) ACT and the National agendas -Privatisation = good, regulation = bad ?
If after the next election National still need the support of ACT (assuming Hide gets back in) and they go ahead with the ACC privatisation, it will have to be as unregulated as possible to keep ACT happy.

ACT surviving the next election?
I doubt it.
Even if they do, will National need them?

I think the sector needs some independat regulatory authority, privatisation or not.
Even without private insurers the ACC seem to be developing a nasty culture.

[phill-k]

Not get back the right to sue?
Not quite - since if you go private, and get shafted, suing is exactly what you will have to do. And you have the right to do that now...although it is very rare.

Yes you can sue for contractual performance but you can not sue for personal injury through negligence, if for instance your employer doesn't bother with safety aspects of your work, or if someone does a "U" turn in front of you.

ACC stopped employees being able to sue employers in relation to the work accidents, eg health & safety issues, negligence causing injury etc.

[Winston001]

My Question to

Oscar an co, tell me what opening up the profitable side of ACC to overseas insurance companies so that they can remove further funds in the way of profits from NZ will do for the ordinary average NZer. Many who has been putting their points of view to you and you continually rubbish in this forum.

I don't think Oscar has rubbished anything. In fact he's been infallibly polite and reasonable.

Not the KB way I know.... Shame on him!

One of the reasons ACC was originally set up was to remove the opportunity for NZ workers to sue their employers when things went wrong. National now want to break apart ACC to Benoit big business in NZ at the expense on the ordinary bloke, but they won't be giving you back the right to sue said employers as that's the part they want still bound up in ACC's social contract.

Actually we had the Workers Compensation Scheme which was a rough sort of ACC system, before 1972.

The main reason NZ moved to the revolutionary ACC scheme was to get rid of the centuries old civil liability law. If a car hit you, you sued the driver for your personal injury plus the damage to the car. If you had no insurance yourself you'd find that you were battling with the other person's insurance company in the Courts. No fun and very expensive.

[Winston001]

Not get back the right to sue?
Not quite - since if you go private, and get shafted, suing is exactly what you will have to do. And you have the right to do that now...although it is very rare.

Not exactly. There is a very limited right to sue for punitive damages founded on personal injury. Not actual damages (medical care) or consequent damages (loss of income).

Punitive damages is extra compensation to punish the wrong-doer and is rare in law. Usually the fault has to be gross and inexcusable. I think the current case against Corrections in respect of the RSA murders may be based on punitive damages.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_story_sk...%3Fformat=html