ACC is not invincible

**mashman** · 1st December 2013, 08:19

Originally Posted by Edbear

There are things that need addressing here for sure, but I challenge anyone to seriously look into the issues of Government funding and make workable suggestions. Levies on users is open to examination at least and most think it's a fairer way of funding.

Ooooo, oo, oo, I know what we could do. However, I don't believe that user pays is the way to go... like most things in life, it's cheaper when you buy as a group.

**Zedder** · 1st December 2013, 08:28

Originally Posted by mashman

NHS, ACC, Private, Private/Public etc... all "different" models that can supposedly work. To an extent, they all do exactly the same thing. The only things that are really different are the parameters of cover and funding models. They all churn out fixed people after all. The parameters of cover and funding models are becoming the core of the business, not the fixing of people... which means that people are going to get fucked over, because that's how it translates innit. We all have story's. Something is broken.

No disagreeement from me there masho.

**Zedder** · 1st December 2013, 08:36

Originally Posted by Edbear

However it's funded, it's funded by taxes, either from the general taxes or specific taxes. The public fund the service. As Ocean1 points out, everyone wants everything for free, provided by a mysterious Government fund that gets money from trees.

Reality is that NZ has a shrinking tax base along with greatly increasing costs. Without immigration and overseas investment we are going to go backwards very quickly. Scandinavia is having funding issues as well. England is practically broke and too feudally fragmented to get its act together. The USA is an absolute shambles, financially, and Australia is having issues despite the far larger tax base.

There are things that need addressing here for sure, but I challenge anyone to seriously look into the issues of Government funding and make workable suggestions. Levies on users is open to examination at least and most think it's a fairer way of funding.

It's not a case of people wanting something for nothing at all. There are getting bloody well charged for it through taxation and levies. means.

Here's a radical idea, Government should get more paid employment organised for people. It seems to be the way things should work.

**Edbear** · 1st December 2013, 08:57

Originally Posted by mashman

Ooooo, oo, oo, I know what we could do. However, I don't believe that user pays is the way to go... like most things in life, it's cheaper when you buy as a group.

For sure. That's why I suggest looking into the issues of Government funding and seeing for ourselves what those are. It may be that the Government is doing the best it can in the political arena, but I have found that ministers are usually open to questions and suggestions.

What is clearly obvious is that regardless of financial issues, I couldn't fault in any way the treatment I got when I crashed. From the response of the immediate witnesses to the ambulance and fire services, to the emergency department, and right through to rehabilitation, the care was immediate and thorough. I didn't have to even think about money or insurance. The wheels fell off after a year on weekly compo when someone seemed to decide I needed to go. Even then, the accident remained covered by ACC and I could still go and see my surgeon or get any other ongoing treatment.

Now they have agreed to reinstate my weekly compo, I can get more funding for physiotherapy and be reassessed for fitness.

I had my first assessment on Thursday which was a shock! A computer calculates your strength and endurance by reading a set of exercises, and bases it on age, height and weight. Then prints out a chart giving you a percentage reading compared to a normal person.

So a normal person of my age, etc. who is fully fit and functional is rated 100%. My rating is 1%! Yup, one percent! I am barely functioning and one small step from a wheelchair. He hadn't seen anyone in memory with such an extensive surgery and fusion, or as low as I was, despite running rehab and physio centre's here and in Australia. Using all of my body, I could reach 7%, but separately, I registered 1%.

When asked how on earth I am standing up and walking, I just say I won't consider the alternative as an option. So with strong meds and stubborn willpower, I get up and function.

**Katman** · 1st December 2013, 09:09

Originally Posted by Edbear

So with strong meds and a voracious addiction to feed, I get up and function.

Fixed that for you Ed.

**bucket boy** · 1st December 2013, 11:08

The problem with those test are if you are a week person before crash you even a bigger sook afterwards.And 1 percent able, you do realize Acc counts a tet or para as 80 percent impaired.

**Ocean1** · 1st December 2013, 12:14

Originally Posted by mashman

Ooooo, oo, oo, I know what we could do. However, I don't believe that user pays is the way to go... like most things in life, it's cheaper when you buy as a group.

We don't have a user pays system.

And bulk buying, (and parallel importing) is exactly how Farmac manages to buy a metric shitload of drugs more than their budget would normally run to. In spite of significant pressure from off-shore administrations, (mostly US) and legal threats from manufacturers.

**husaberg** · 1st December 2013, 12:51

Originally Posted by Ocean1

We don't have a user pays system.

And bulk buying, (and parallel importing) is exactly how Farmac manages to buy a metric shitload of drugs more than their budget would normally run to. In spite of significant pressure from off-shore administrations, (mostly US) and legal threats from manufacturers.

Pharmac is not the best example Ocean due to the fact the pharmac is going to be hamstrung soon to protect the interests of the large pharmaceutical companies. This is happening as part of a deal done rather covertly. In the name the "Free Market" lol.
http://www.healthpolicyjrnl.com/arti...210-8/abstract

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/blo...s-to-medicine/

**Edbear** · 1st December 2013, 13:33

Originally Posted by bucket boy

The problem with those test are if you are a week person before crash you even a bigger sook afterwards.And 1 percent able, you do realize Acc counts a tet or para as 80 percent impaired.

It will be interesting to see how ACC take the report. It's not the opinion of a medical person, but a computer program which simply measures strength and endurance against a set of parameters. One of the tests, I couldn't do at all. Another simple test was how many times I could raise my arms straight up above my head. I managed three.

The rest of his report will cover other issues relating to my physical state.

**bucket boy** · 1st December 2013, 14:04

lucky it wasnt a typing test.

**Ocean1** · 1st December 2013, 14:08

Originally Posted by husaberg

Pharmac is not the best example Ocean due to the fact the pharmac is going to be hamstrung soon to protect the interests of the large pharmaceutical companies. This is happening as part of a deal done rather covertly. In the name the "Free Market" lol.
http://www.healthpolicyjrnl.com/arti...210-8/abstract

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/blo...s-to-medicine/

Aye, I know. And it'll hurt.

But it's not a move towards a "free market". You can tell, someone's market options are being restricted, which is a dead giveaway. In spite of the American's view on the subject, a free market is one where anyone is free to buy from or sell to anyone else.

Would serve them right if we cobbled up some sort of cartel amongst the southern hemisphere buyers and put some of their own practices into effect to our advantage.

Or even ask to see their books, to ascertain exactly what they're charging their larger American and European clients. Reckon they'd oblige?

**husaberg** · 1st December 2013, 14:16

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Aye, I know. And it'll hurt.

But it's not a move towards a "free market". You can tell, someone's market options are being restricted, which is a dead giveaway. In spite of the American's view on the subject, a free market is one where anyone is free to buy from or sell to anyone else.

Would serve them right if we cobbled up some sort of cartel amongst the southern hemisphere buyers and put some of their own practices into effect to our advantage.

Or even ask to see their books, to ascertain exactly what they're charging their larger American and European clients. Reckon they'd oblige?

Cartel of Opec springs to mind lol
they used the same reasoning to get rid of NZ Co-OP marketing with the Dairy Board.
The used the Meat industry as a model of the free market helping the producers get great returns lol

**mashman** · 1st December 2013, 15:08

Originally Posted by Ocean1

We don't have a user pays system.

And bulk buying, (and parallel importing) is exactly how Farmac manages to buy a metric shitload of drugs more than their budget would normally run to. In spite of significant pressure from off-shore administrations, (mostly US) and legal threats from manufacturers.

It was a response to a comment by Ed, not me expressing how I see ACC working. Although given there's ACC on fuel and "charges" applied on businesses groups/people groups at different rates, one could argue the case for ACC being part user pays. Either way, the core doesn't seem to be, fix 'em, anymore.

Wasn't knocking bulk buying and am fully aware that it takes place... in quantities more than 10 sometimes too.