| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 104901 | 2009-11-12 03:03:00 | Burton guilty | leonidas5 (2306) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 829436 | 2009-11-13 20:20:00 | mmmmmm (www.nzherald.co.nz)maybe be has some friends on the ACC. | ronyville (10611) | ||
| 829437 | 2009-11-13 22:01:00 | You don't need friends on ACC (whatever that means) to qualify for a pegleg. ACC is a no fault scheme, and everyone is entitled to ACC benefits no matter what they did to sustain an injury by accident. That is the deal the country made when it gave away the right to sue whoever caused the injury. Prior to ACC the only people who made money out of injury accidents were the legal fraternity who had to prove something like negligence on the part of the person sued, so as to obtain damages. By the time they (the lawyers) had finished with you, there was often little left from the damages obtained on your behalf. I am not defending this sort of anomaly in the scheme - simply pointing out that Burton was entitled in law to this level of treatment. The gumberment is going to close that off as far as ACC is concerned, but as far as I know, people like Burton will still be able to get free medical treatment the way any of us do when we go into A & E and go through the public health system. It will be the taxpayer who picks up the tab then, rather than those of us who pay into the ACC scheme through employer contributions and motor vehicle levies. |
John H (8) | ||
| 829438 | 2009-11-14 00:36:00 | How can being intentionally shot by the police, be considered an accident. The police intended on causing it. It was no more an 'accident' as contracting a disease is an accident. As ACC is an insurer, shouldn't they be then going after the police, to retrieve that money, as that is what insurers do, they then go after the party at fault. | robbyp (2751) | ||
| 829439 | 2009-11-14 00:54:00 | No. Your ignorance is phenomenal. ACC isn't an insure in that sense, it's a state run no fault scheme. | roddy_boy (4115) | ||
| 829440 | 2009-11-14 01:51:00 | **** em. If ACC can make managerial decisions for tax paying non-murdering people such as myself , then they can do so for this p.o.s. Shouldn't even have given him a crutch, walking stick of wheelchair, Never mind a ten thousand dollar stump. They should just cut his other leg off to make him even. And possibly his head. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 829441 | 2009-11-14 02:44:00 | How can being intentionally shot by the police, be considered an accident. The police intended on causing it. It was no more an 'accident' as contracting a disease is an accident. As ACC is an insurer, shouldn't they be then going after the police, to retrieve that money, as that is what insurers do, they then go after the party at fault. As I said, ACC is a no fault scheme, so ACC can't go after anyone who caused the injury. As a country, we got that system in return for giving up the right to sue. In addition, if the system works as it should, ACC should be paying you out your entitlement much quicker and less painlessly than would happen if you have to pursue someone through the courts. Anyway, being shot by the Police isn't any less an "accident" (in the common use of that term), than being injured by someone who is driving whilst drunk. The use of the term "accident" for what happens as a result of intentional drinking and driving is just as nonsensical. How can you call the killing of Frank van Klampen by that woman who already had two convictions for drunk driving "an accident" if you use common sense? Phil Doole and Mark Inglis got full ACC for the injuries caused in their climbing days, and Inglis was eligible yet again when he climbed Everest and made his injuries worse - were those accidents? Should we have had to pay for Inglis injuries on Everest, seeing he went there knowing what would probably happen? That is what happens with a no fault system. Howsomever, whatever you and I think of what is meant by "injury caused by an accident" is irrelevant - that is the way the ACC law is, and Burton was entitled under the law to compensation. And if crims are prevented from accessing ACC by a Tory change to the law, he and his ilk will still get treatment through the public health system. The main difference will be who pays for it - all taxpayers, or those who pay ACC levies. I am not sure whether the public health system will stretch to a titanium leg or a wooden peg. |
John H (8) | ||
| 829442 | 2009-11-14 02:47:00 | And there was no-one else in all of NZ that could have got some sort of ACC treatment before Burton? No-one who has legally contributed to the tax take in NZ? No-one who isn't a convicted double murderer? Maybe he was at the end of the queue, which explains why ACC is out of money! {yeah right!} Bring on the law change I say.......yet another example of the pathetic PC Nanny state the previous Government left us with. |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 829443 | 2009-11-14 03:27:00 | (snip) Bring on the law change I say.......yet another example of the pathetic PC Nanny state the previous Government left us with. ACC has been going since 1972, and apart from some changes around the edges, the system has been supported by both National and Labour governments. The major difference between them being the tories wanted to open the thing up to competition between ACC and their mates (and fellow shareholders) in private insurance companies. From Wikipedia: "in 1967, a Royal Commission report ('The Woodhouse Report') recommended that (worker's) compensation should be extended to all injuries on a no-fault basis. Following this report, on 1 April 1974 the Accident Compensation Commission was established, to operate the 1972 Accident Compensation Act, and the 1973 Amendments. It is such a boring cliche to use terms like "pathetic PC Nanny state" to refer to the previous gumberment. Engage your brain and find out whether you can blame something on the last government; you may just find out that the previous government had nothing to do with what you are complaining about. That is in fact what you would find out in this case - ACC legislation was passed by a Labour government in 1972 AFAIK, but National has never seen fit to repeal it or change the entitlements you are complaining about - until now. |
John H (8) | ||
| 829444 | 2009-11-14 03:41:00 | They were going to make him walk backward on his hands, but he looked too much like Rodney Hyde. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 829445 | 2009-11-14 05:29:00 | They were going to make him walk backward on his hands, but he looked too much like Rodney Hyde. I know what you mean,why these gits choose to sport the bald look is beyond me. Such a lot of horrible heads,like Rodney's backside. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||