Bikes don't make the dangerous list?

[idleidolidyll]

ACC is not free and is therefore insurance but paid by the employer, which supports my thread discussing why everything is overpriced in NZ.

Also, should you require critical or emergency services, NZ's third world hospitals wouldn't come close to the US, assuming you had health insurance and weren't left out in the corridor to die.

What I am saying is you can't have your cake and eat it too. Personally, the user pay system works well for me. Let me decide what services I want covered and let the fat lazy people die in the gutter.

actually NZ's medical services trounced those of the US in a recent international survey. The only thing the US beat NZ in was having the latest technology.
However, that technology just wasn't available to most people, only to heavily insured people.
NZ beat the US hands down on access to healthcare and the cost of our health system was one of the lowest in the developed world.

BTW: ACC is not only paid by the employer, it is obviously collected from other sources too, ie; registration.

Companies can also opt out of the ACC system by providing their own ACC services (if that service meets regs). They are then responsible for their own claims, payments, assessments etc.

Quite often though, this system had led to abuse by employers who refuse to recognise OOS etc.

any real comparison between the costs and benefits of NZ's health system vs that of the USA will show that Kiwis are far better off on average. Only the very very wealthy get better care in the USA.

But hey, don't take my word, do some research, I have

[idleidolidyll]

ACC is not free and is therefore insurance but paid by the employer, which supports my thread discussing why everything is overpriced in NZ.

Also, should you require critical or emergency services, NZ's third world hospitals wouldn't come close to the US, assuming you had health insurance and weren't left out in the corridor to die.

What I am saying is you can't have your cake and eat it too. Personally, the user pay system works well for me. Let me decide what services I want covered and let the fat lazy people die in the gutter.

actually NZ's medical services trounced those of the US in a recent international survey (2006). The only thing the US beat NZ in was having the latest technology.
However, that technology just wasn't available to most people, only to heavily insured people.
NZ beat the US hands down on access to healthcare and the cost of our health system was one of the lowest in the developed world.

BTW: ACC is not only paid by the employer, it is obviously collected from other sources too, ie; registration.

Companies can also opt out of the ACC system by providing their own ACC services (if that service meets regs). They are then responsible for their own claims, payments, assessments etc.

Quite often though, this system had led to abuse by employers who refuse to recognise OOS etc.

any real comparison between the costs and benefits of NZ's health system vs that of the USA will show that Kiwis are far better off on average. Only the very very wealthy get better care in the USA.

Waiting times in the US are also longer than in NZ for most people. It is silly to compare NZ's service with the very best exclusive services in tyhe US, to compare rationally one must compare overall access and cost etc. NZ wins hands down, only Britains service had better access for instance but they failed on many other standards measured.

But hey, don't take my word, do some research, I have

[Finn]

actually NZ's medical services trounced those of the US in a recent international survey (2006).

Can you provide a link to this survey?

[idleidolidyll]

Can you provide a link to this survey?

I'll see if I can find it and will post here within a quote to you so you receive notification.

I post often on a political discussion website and the topic was raised regarding Canada, NZ, UK, Australia and the USA's health services.

Right at the time the survey/research came out and validated my arguments.

[idleidolidyll]

Can you provide a link to this survey?

Here's an article on the survey (NZ came out best by a long way)

Tuesday, April 04, 2006
By Todd Zwillich

U.S. patients rate their health care among the worst in the industrialized world, despite spending more on medical care than patients in other countries, a multinational report concluded Tuesday.
Americans were more likely than patients in four other rich countries to report poor care coordination, lab test and diagnostic errors, and high costs that stand in the way of obtaining needed care. The report also shows that low-income Americans have far more difficulty with most areas of their medical care than similar patients in other nations.
The report is not the first to expose glaring shortcomings in the U.S health system when compared to other countries.
Low Rankings
The U.S. ranks 33rd in infant mortality and 28th in disease-free life expectancy, according to the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, the U.S. spent $6,280 per capita on medical care in 2004, more than twice as much as any other industrialized nation.
In the survey, Americans were more likely than residents of the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, or Canada to report having spent $1,000 or more of their own money for medical care in the last year. Lower-income Americans were also far more likely than lower-income patients of those nations to say they’ve gone without a needed medical test or treatment because of cost.

“Higher spending doesn’t mean we receive more or better care. We simply pay more,” said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group that issued the report.
Poor Coordination of Health Care
The report notes that the U.S. does a particularly poor job of organizing care for patients with chronic diseases, though such patients use close to 80 percent of all health care dollars.
Nearly one-quarter of U.S patients told researchers they had received incorrect lab results vs. 9 percent to 18 percent of patients from the other countries. American patients were in some cases twice as likely to report that their medical records did not make it to a doctor’s office in time for an appointment.
The U.S system did show a few bright spots. American patients were equally or more likely to receive preventive medical services like blood pressure screening or Pap smear tests for cervical cancer.
But experts said the overall health picture for Americans is marked by inefficiency, duplication, and a lack of coordination that often leaves patients to navigate the system with little guidance from a doctor or other expert.
Primary Care Shortcomings
Andrew Bindman, MD, chief of the internal medicine division at San Francisco General Hospital, says fewer and fewer young doctors are choosing to train in primary care, a dynamic that tilts the U.S. system toward more expensive specialty care.
“We’re seeing an erosion in the primary care infrastructure,” Bindman says.
Donald M. Berwick, MD, president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, says the nation is making some strides toward improving efficiency. The Bush administration has spearheaded efforts to increase the use of electronic medical records and to tie health payments to quality of care.
But the U.S. system still relies too heavily on new technologies and hi-tech tests that sometimes drive up the cost of care without improving overall health, he says.
“We have a big job here, to wean ourselves from the ‘more is better’ philosophy,” Berwick says.

By Todd Zwillich, reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
SOURCES: Commonwealth Fund 2004 International Health Policy Survey, April 4, 2006. Karen Davis, president, the Commonwealth Fund. World Health Organization. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Andrew Bindman, MD, chief, department of general internal medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California at San Francisco. Donald M. Berwick, MD, president, Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

[Ixion]

Motorcycling is not a sport or pastime, it's transport. With benefits.

Actually NZ hospital services (tertiary health services) are some of the best in the world, our problem there is that we can't afford enough of them. But what there is is top class.

Our secondary health systems (GPs etc ) are mediocre at best

Our primary health systems are near enough non existent.

[The_Dover]

I post often on a political discussion website.

your all personality huh?

[idleidolidyll]

your all personality huh?

i enjoy nothing more than winding up neoclown yanks and rednecks wherever they are

[Timber020]

The US hospital system is the pits, it like walking into a mexican bank. 3 tellers, a half dozen forms to fill out and up to 24 hours (yes 24 HOURS) of waiting unless your really urgent.

Insurance for me was going to be $600 a month. They do this cool collection of tests to see how healthy you are, now apparently something like a third of people have a heart murmur or get diagnosed with one for these tests, and 2.5% of those might have a certain heart problem, and 10% of them may have a problem that actually needs something done at some time. But to get insurance, if you have a heart murmur you have to have a echo which costs $1000 just in case you the .25% pf the population with that problem.
Just applying for insurance can cost thousands.

A mate broke his arm in New Jersey, we went to a local A&E at 9am and he got it seen at about 12 and then had to have "tests" done. Had to give blood and have a few different scans. Then the cast. By 4pm it was fixed and he had a bill for $8,000. Sweet!

Finnja, your welcome to that system, PS they rip you off really bad if your rich to.

[The_Dover]

i enjoy nothing more than winding up neoclown yanks and rednecks wherever they are

now that, I like.

have a brown star.

[doc]

ie; equivalent to my current mtb is a lightspeed or merlin titanium frame, latest XTR disc brakes, lightest hand built wheels etc etc.
Oh yeah, a singlespeed with a titanium ridgid fork.......in the USA it would cost almost double what I paid for it...............[IMG]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Mike/Desktop/Bad%20News.jpg[/IMG]

Sounds sort as as exclusive as Finns MV

[idleidolidyll]

Sounds sort as as exclusive as Finns MV

ha! ha! but nowhere near the cost!
A Lightspeed with gears and susp forks will set you back abt $7.5k, a Merlin abt 10k, mine to similar spec abt 6k

that's only a middling expensive bike really.

[Coyote]

perhaps we should petition to make motorcycling a Sport instead of a vehicle or mode of transport...

A race bike that isn't rego'd doesn't have an acc levy on it

If they rego'd push bikes, which once they realise they could make money from it I'm sure they will, there will be a levy

[Lias]

probably because we pay registeration therefore the govt has a valid way of charging us, it woudl be impossible to acc levy mountain bikers or surfers etc..

it is ridiculious thou, sports dont pay any acc as far as i'm aware, and yet the acc claims from sports are huge..

perhaps we should petition to make motorcycling a Sport instead of a vehicle or mode of transport...

Take the expected lifetime of a surfboard / mountain bike (what 10-20 years?), multiply that by an annual fee, and and that as a tax to every bike/board sold in the shops.

If nothign else it would cut down on the surfies and cyclists :-)

[avgas]

Take the expected lifetime of a surfboard / mountain bike (what 10-20 years?), multiply that by an annual fee, and and that as a tax to every bike/board sold in the shops.

If nothign else it would cut down on the surfies and cyclists :-)

Fact of the mater is a mountain bike of any decent quality, is still fecking expensive - and i dont see bike shop owners rolling in it.
I was cheaper to by my misses a brand new moped than it was for me to buy myself a newish mountainbike (misses could have mine)