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
829446	2009-11-14 05:59:00	They should have just lopped of his other leg instead of spending 10k on a fake one.	Fifthdawn (9467)
829447	2009-11-14 06:07:00	They should have just lopped of his other leg instead of spending 10k on a fake one. I go along with that. It would make him well balanced.	Sweep (90)
829448	2009-11-14 09:55:00	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. That will change though won't it, now ACC is going to be opened up to competition. Private insurers will want to get the money off someone, as they do this if you have a car accident, and the party who was at fault was uninsured, the insurance company will go after their assets. I don't know how Inglis got ACC for the harm he caused himself on everest, as it wasn't caused by an external force, plus it didn't even happen in the country. I mean that wouldn't be any different from an OOS computer related injury, which isn't covered by ACC, as they consider that a self inflicted injury. LIkewise I believe being injured during a crime is self inflicted. Sporting injuries which are covered by ACC, are also sometimes self inflicted. ACC is such a grey area, and it is often the ones that are most in need, that end up not qualifying, even though they probably deserve to qualify. This is due to how 'subjective' the whole thing is, and different doctors have different interpretations when they are assessed.	robbyp (2751)
829449	2009-11-14 09:59:00	I am not sure whether the public health system will stretch to a titanium leg or a wooden peg. If it was done through the public system, he probably wouldn't have got the titanium leg , they would have probably just given him a wheelchair. Far cheaper, and it would make it more difficult for him to cause the sort of chaos he has been causing in prison. It would also make it a lot more difficult for him to escape.	robbyp (2751)
829450	2009-11-14 19:50:00	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. It may be boring to you but it is true. In the context of the rest of my post, criminals being treated better than victims is a hangover from the previous Government, and is yet another example of the pc nanny state we inherited from the Helen & Cullen circus of clowns. The Government of today reducing entitlements for some criminals is a good thing. So I stand by what I said in "bring on the law change" - maybe you should consider the inaction of the previous Government (in not reducing entitlements for criminals) before slagging off this one. The previous Government compensated a criminal who broke his leg attempting to escape from prison. Another example of the pathetic PC nanny state we had under Labour. Good riddance. I'm not disputing the no-fault aspect, I'm talking about the inequity of the quality of care given to the double murderer Burton, versus others who IMO are more deserving (ah - I see you didn't quote that part of my post so you could argue off topic....). If you want to dispute the inequity of entitlements then I suggest you have this discussion with Mr Kuchenbecker's wife and children, or the family of Paul Anderson, and see how far that gets you.	andrew93 (249)
829451	2009-11-14 20:37:00	That will change though won't it, now ACC is going to be opened up to competition. (snip) I don't think the current govt is going to do that - they haven't said so thus far. They tried it once, and the next govt rolled it back to return monopoly status to ACC. I think this govt is being careful not to scare the horses this time. I don't know how Inglis got ACC for the harm he caused himself on everest, as it wasn't caused by an external force, plus it didn't even happen in the country. Everyone who is injured by an accident in NZ is covered; NZ citizens are also covered for injury by accident whilst outside the country. I mean that wouldn't be any different from an OOS computer related injury, which isn't covered by ACC, as they consider that a self inflicted injury. Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that OOS injuries are covered by ACC. Perhaps the law changed over the past decade?	John H (8)
829452	2009-11-14 20:39:00	If it was done through the public system, he probably wouldn't have got the titanium leg , they would have probably just given him a wheelchair. Far cheaper, and it would make it more difficult for him to cause the sort of chaos he has been causing in prison. It would also make it a lot more difficult for him to escape. I'm not sure about that - as long as doctors have the say so (and ACC probably followed medical advice on the appropriate form of treatment), then the outcome may be similar through the public health system. Although ACC has a legislative duty to rehabilitate people for work, and that is not the case with the public health system - that may change things.	John H (8)
829453	2009-11-14 21:06:00	It may be boring to you but it is true. In the context of the rest of my post, criminals being treated better than victims is a hangover from the previous Government, and is yet another example of the pc nanny state we inherited from the Helen & Cullen circus of clowns. Balls. It isn't true - the only thing that is true is that you have a short memory or no knowledge of your history. The current penal system philosophy really got off the ground with the publication in 1968 of "Crime in NZ" by the Dept of Justice under a National Govt (at the time, Hanan was the Minister of Justice - he famously crossed the floor and voted against his own bill and party in 1961 when the Nats tried to re-introduce the death penalty). The penal policy that is at the root of the issues you complain about (rightly or wrongly) was introduced by National 40 years ago, and despite all the lauranorder fuss just prior to each election since then, where each party promises to be tough on crime, both National and Labour have persisted with the same approach. If any blame is to be attached to govt regarding victims' rights and criminals' rights, it has no more to do with the last govt than any other for the past 40 years. Usually cliches have some grain of truth - yours does not. It is just a symptom of ignorance, unexamined propaganda, or a lazy mind. The Government of today reducing entitlements for some criminals is a good thing. So I stand by what I said in "bring on the law change" - maybe you should consider the inaction of the previous Government (in not reducing entitlements for criminals) before slagging off this one. The previous Government compensated a criminal who broke his leg attempting to escape from prison. Another example of the pathetic PC nanny state we had under Labour. Good riddance. See above. Also if you had actually read my post and understood it, you might have noticed that nowhere did I argue for the current system. I was just trying to bring some relevant accurate information to your notice so you didn't keep floundering around in ridiculous and inaccurate catch phrases. And where did I "slag off" the current govt? I could have, but didn't. And the "previous Government (did not) compensate a criminal who broke his leg..." - ACC did. And this has happened many times under both National and Labour. Indeed I knew a prisoner in pre-ACC days who deliberately chopped off a digit with an axe in an attempt to gain compensation from the Dept of Justice - he was compensated by the National Government of the day. My point is that this has been going on for years, and both govt's are equally to blame. I'm not disputing the no-fault aspect, I'm talking about the inequity of the quality of care given to the double murderer Burton, versus others who IMO are more deserving (ah - I see you didn't quote that part of my post so you could argue off topic....). If you want to dispute the inequity of entitlements then I suggest you have this discussion with Mr Kuchenbecker's wife and children, or the family of Paul Anderson, and see how far that gets you. As I have pointed out, it is a fantasy in your own mind that I expressed any support at all for the current approach (or opposition for that matter either). Go back and read my posts - you will find you are just being over sensitive. I was simply arguing on a factual basis that you were wrong to lay blame for the current ACC approach at the feet of one political party in their term of government. Both major parties have taken the same basic approach on ACC and penal policy for the past 40 years - they are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. However, I can see it is a waste of time to try to bring a few facts into a discussion as far as you are concerned. I didn't quote your first three sentences because they were such gobbledegook I couldn't work out what you meant.	John H (8)
829454	2009-11-15 00:17:00	Chop off his other leg x2 And his middle leg, that will calm him down. The twit at ACC who approved that payment should be put in the same cell as Burton !	Digby (677)
829455	2009-11-15 06:25:00	Usually cliches have some grain of truth - yours does not. Who was trying to tell us what sort of shower heads and light bulbs we could use? And the Labour Government were not a nanny state? There's no denying the nanny state under the Labour Government so you may want to check who is being delusional and over-sensitive....nice one Deano!	andrew93 (249)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7