ACC shafts the little guy

[warewolf]

I make the point that if anyone is involved in hazardous sporting activities in their own time then it should be their responsibility to arrange their own cover should the worst happen, rather than expecting the state ( taxpayers ) to fund the cost of healthcare etc. And many of those taxpayers bear a disproportionate load. User pays.

Except that risk-taking sportspeople are better for the community because they are healthier long-term and more entrepreneurial than couch potatoes who are a drain on the taxpayer with their chronic health issues. You can't just look at one part of the economics and ignore the rest.

[tigertim20]

Except that risk-taking sportspeople are better for the community because they are healthier long-term and more entrepreneurial than couch potatoes who are a drain on the taxpayer with their chronic health issues. You can't just look at one part of the economics and ignore the rest.

yes he can, this is KB

sit at home, youll get lazy fat eat shit food and have health concerns paid for by tax dollars.
be outgoing, youll get hurt, abd youll live longer, providing more years in which you can injure yourself and again cost the tax payers.

Maori are more prone to a variety of health concerns - which the tax payer has to fund, should we euthanise them all?

[pritch]

But thats just me, it appears

No, that's about how I see it too. The original idea was good. The political tinkering that has gone on and the way it has been run, basically since day one, have meant it never really functioned as it should.

[MSTRS:Me]

The reality is that I treat my employees well and they respond in kind. I was making no such crude criticism of employess that you insinuate. I make the point that if anyone is involved in hazardous sporting activities in their own time then it should be their responsibility to arrange their own cover should the worst happen, rather than expecting the state ( taxpayers ) to fund the cost of healthcare etc. And many of those taxpayers bear a disproportionate load. User pays.

Employees do pay a levy for leisure-time injuries.
It's just that everyone pays the same per $100 earned, regardless of the activities they might indulge in. The collective covers the individual. As ACC was intended.
Which is precisely why so many of us were (and still are) so upset over Nick the Prick's shenanigans with the motor fund.

[Swoop]

Get used to it, the longest sufferers of big ACC levies are employers. It seems we are subsidising sporting injuries because people are largely not prepared to pay into private cover for their often dangerous pursuits.

Many moons ago... Where I worked had quite a few people who played thugby onn the weekend. Come Monday morning, around 8.30-9.30, these people strangely injured themselves and proceeded to the clinic for treatment of injuries which appeared to be a couple of days old...

Hopefully that rort has ceased nowadays.

[oneofsix]

Many moons ago... Where I worked had quite a few people who played thugby onn the weekend. Come Monday morning, around 8.30-9.30, these people strangely injured themselves and proceeded to the clinic for treatment of injuries which appeared to be a couple of days old...

Hopefully that rort has ceased nowadays.

yep now they don't have to wait until Monday. Visit an A&E on Saturday to see them. But the clubs do pay ACC as do they so I guess the 'rort' has ended.

Interesting how horse riding is the big ACC cost but they don't have rugby clubs to be charged ACC.

[Ocean1]

Hopefully that rort has ceased nowadays.

I suspect even more moons ago, in London I watched as workmates carried a comatose guy past the timeclock and down the stairs, where they laid him gently on the floor.

He'd had a wee run in with one of the Kray boys the night before. He was off work for three months.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Interesting how horse riding is the big ACC cost but they don't have rugby clubs to be charged ACC.

source please.

[PrincessBandit]

..... I make the point that if anyone is involved in hazardous sporting activities in their own time then it should be their responsibility to arrange their own cover should the worst happen, rather than expecting the state ( taxpayers ) to fund the cost of healthcare etc. And many of those taxpayers bear a disproportionate load. User pays.

My mum said back in the day (when she was heavily involved in sports as a young person - quite a while back now... ) you had to show you had medical insurance before being able to sign up. Pretty sure that's what she said.
Nowadays my own example is that despite asking for my own medical insurance to cover my treatment (and surgery) when I came off my bike I was told "no, it has to be through ACC".

[oldrider]

My mum said back in the day (when she was heavily involved in sports as a young person - quite a while back now... ) you had to show you had medical insurance before being able to sign up. Pretty sure that's what she said.
Nowadays my own example is that despite asking for my own medical insurance to cover my treatment (and surgery) when I came off my bike I was told "no, it has to be through ACC".

You have a choice with medical insurance, shop around if you are not satisfied with their performance!

ACC is a state own monopoly absolutely no competition, they can charge you whatever they like!

Original Woodhouse ACC worked well but the politicians can't have it both ways, either it is insurance or it is not!

It's their (All party politicians) deception and duplicity about ACC that is unbearably disgusting! IMHO anyway.

[MSTRS:Me]

My mum said back in the day (when she was heavily involved in sports as a young person - quite a while back now... ) you had to show you had medical insurance before being able to sign up. Pretty sure that's what she said.
Nowadays my own example is that despite asking for my own medical insurance to cover my treatment (and surgery) when I came off my bike I was told "no, it has to be through ACC".

Nothing stopping you from having medical insurance. Many people do. But it will do you no good in the event of accident, as any/all injuries you sustain are covered by ACC. Even years later, if you develop a medical condition that can be traced to the accident - your private cover will be no good, ACC is still in force. But if ACC tell you to take a hike, then you're screwed...

[Ocean1]

Nothing stopping you from having medical insurance. Many people do. But it will do you no good in the event of accident, as any/all injuries you sustain are covered by ACC. Even years later, if you develop a medical condition that can be traced to the accident - your private cover will be no good, ACC is still in force. But if ACC tell you to take a hike, then you're screwed...

However, if you are covered by ACC, but you're on a waiting list that'll see you dead or crippled before you get treated then private cover can be very handy.

[Robert Taylor]

Except that risk-taking sportspeople are better for the community because they are healthier long-term and more entrepreneurial than couch potatoes who are a drain on the taxpayer with their chronic health issues. You can't just look at one part of the economics and ignore the rest.

Fair point, I was just quoting one fairly well realised example and to illustrate that user pays has merit.

[dmc]

However, if you are covered by ACC, but you're on a waiting list that'll see you dead or crippled before you get treated then private cover can be very handy.

Thats ok if you have the injury after you have the insurance, I found out when I had insurance they exempt any cover for any part of you thats had an ACC claim even if it was a full recovery, can't blame them for major stuff but it did rule out half my body so was kind of pointless in the end.

[Magnum Noel]

Bit of a ramble I know, but does it make any sense?

Sure does. Agree whole heartedly. I write to [Hon] Nick Smith every so often reminding him motorcyclists are being wrongly punished.