Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 104297	2009-10-23 05:22:00	ACC-what is the truth?	martynz (5445)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
823395	2009-10-23 05:22:00	For an alternative take on the ACC's financial problems read the editorial in the new issue of The Listener (October 24-30). Martynz	martynz (5445)
823396	2009-10-23 05:38:00	Anything that disagrees with politicians has a logical boost in credibility.	R2x1 (4628)
823397	2009-10-23 07:10:00	COPIED FROM KIWIBIKER Dear Jed, Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to increase the ACC levy payable by owners of motor bikes, in some cases by several hundred per cent. I am opposed to this for two principal reasons: The first is that it is not necessary. The ACC fund is not in a financial crisis as the current National led government claims. The scheme as originally constituted was a ‘pay as you go’ scheme i.e. the levies received in any one year meet the requirements for payments in that year. In fact the recent history of the scheme has been that the income more than meets the payment requirements. The same applies to, for example, national superannuation. In that case the identification of the effect of the ‘baby boom’ generation coming to retirement and creating a demand ‘bulge’ on the commitment to pay universal pensions at a reasonable level can be anticipated and planned for ( the so-called ‘Cullen’ fund). If the ACC funding was in crisis this could be handled in the same way, but it is not in crisis and no amount of insisting that it is on the part of the present Minister can make it so. The problem arises because the current government insists that all of the future financial obligations of the fund must be funded in the present. That would make sense if the ACC was an insurance scheme – which it is not and was never intended to be. It makes even more sense if the government has a hidden agenda – which looks increasingly likely – to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies. In those circumstances, a fully funded scheme in which the fund has been paid for by taxpayers would look a very attractive proposition to a private insurer, but it is one to which I am entirely opposed. The second reason is that the ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they cannot afford treatment or rehabilitation, or meet the expenses associated with a lengthy court case. I note that Sir Owen Woodhouse, whose report led to the setting up of the scheme in 1973 has very recently said precisely that. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it. Please be assured that I will be opposing the proposed increased levy and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the scheme to its original basis when we return to government. Warm regards, Jim Anderton MP for Wigram Progressive Party Leader	Metla (12)
823398	2009-10-23 07:19:00	The National party in cahoots with ACT are obviously spreading a pack of lies to justify privatisation. What's next on the agenda? Martynz	martynz (5445)
823399	2009-10-23 07:55:00	I do not trust the national Party with anything that would make money for private sector companies. Private accident schemes have been tried before with varying results. As is normal with the human mind, I only remember the bad claims/outcomes from these. Remember...These companies are there to make a profit. Therefore all of the premiums paid in do not go to paying out on an accident. Then there are staff wages & some fantastic astronomical costing building & millionare salaries for top officials.(Even worse than the ACC setup!!!) It all spells disaster to me. Am I to believe that with private companies operating, that ACC levies will go down? If people DO opt out of ACC & go into a private company, how will they reclai, all the ACC levies that are on petrol, motor vehicles & the like? This in itself will create another level of beurocrats to opperate it. ACC is an outfit that is funded from Levies & at no cost to the government of the day. Or shouldnt be. However it is still a govt dept. Why is it neccessary for the ACC to have the biggest & flashest building in town? With massive salaries & bonuses? Bonuses for what? Overspending? Will people opt out of ACC to go with a private company? I doubt that the oldies amongst us will, long memories. The youngers might & they will learn the hard way. You cannot get something for nothing in this life, from Insurance companies. They will put clauses in the small print to not have to pat out.I remember those questions like " Have you any existing conditions? When one of those pops up again, a repeat of a condition, it will be "Sorry that is not our problem, go see the ACC. Yeah right. My advice to this Govt is "To leave it alone.Reduce the number of high/overpaid chiefs & look for wats of saving internal costs". Rant over. PJ	Poppa John (284)
823400	2009-10-23 08:00:00	Don't forget that fully-funding ACC was a change introduced by the last Labour government. Jim Anderton seems to have forgotten that minor detail. In any case, if privatisation happens, then so be it - I already choose who I insure my car with based on what's being offered for the price they're asking me to pay. If I own a high-risk car, my premiums are higher - if I don't, they're lower. The same thing should apply to accident insurance - if I decide to go downhill mountain biking every weekend, then I expect to pay more than someone who plays bingo on the weekend because I'm more likely to be injured and need medical treatment. If a state-run monopoly for accident insurance is a such a good thing, then why don't we have an ACC equivalent for car insurance, home & contents insurance, professional indemnity insurance? With the motorcycle levy increases, surely privatisation would be a good thing. Instead of paying high levies to ACC which is run by bureaucrats and politicians in Wellington, motorcycle clubs and similar organisations could organise their own accident insurance scheme for their members. Then it would be run by people who actually understand motorbikes, understand the risks involved, and charge sensible premiums. Disclaimer: I have not read the Listener editorial as I am not a subscriber. I also do not take part in downhill mountain biking, or any activity involving motorbikes.	somebody (208)
823401	2009-10-23 08:03:00	Look at how deregulation has affected electricity prices. If definately won't mena cheaper premiums. You are duplicating administration, so it will us who end up paying more. Also in the late 90's when the same thing was introduced, there were major problems at the hospitals, as it was an admin headache for the hosptial staff, as they didn't know who were paying the bills.	robbyp (2751)
823402	2009-10-23 08:04:00	We are on a very dangerous turf here... We don't have the infrastructure for the privatization of ACC and opening up the market for insurance. We as a country are too small, and too poor for it. And we have to face the realities of this. We don't have the financial capabilities of our prime minister. This will immediately destroy lives, and create a new underclass. As socialistic as this may seem - without ACC that's where we will be. Those unable to work etc will have lives far lower than the livable standard, and it will prepetuate. And this is what I see as National's plan. Make everyone hate ACC by forcing idiotic levies with idiotic nonsense (against a minority and work their way up to everyone else from there) and bang. Mark my words, this unless stopped here and now, we will see an inflation to a crazy level unseen in NZ and it will effect every single one of us. Welcome to Detroit.	Cato (6936)
823403	2009-10-23 08:08:00	In any case, if privatisation happens, then so be it - I already choose who I insure my car with based on what's being offered for the price they're asking me to pay. If I own a high-risk car, my premiums are higher - if I don't, they're lower. The same thing should apply to accident insurance - if I decide to go downhill mountain biking every weekend, then I expect to pay more than someone who plays bingo on the weekend because I'm more likely to be injured and need medical treatment. If a state-run monopoly for accident insurance is a such a good thing, then why don't we have an ACC equivalent for car insurance, home & contents insurance, professional indemnity insurance? Again, that's all nice and well. But the realities are, ACC kinda provides a guarantee, if it was privatized, sure maybe you will get something out of them. But it will not be as easy as ACC. It will involve the blame game, and it will involve court action. And that will not end well for anyone. We are going from one extreme to another. Edit: If there are real statistics anywhere, it would show that ACC pays more for sport related injuries than cars and bikes. And I am sure, even at that then, bicyclists are involved in more accidents than motorcyclists. Why aren't they taxed? ACC is about lives, not materialism so it can't be compared. Before hitting ACC, hit the beneficiaries. Accidents do happen, people claiming they are too depressed or too fat to work, or someone with other lame excuses like giving birth to 7 kids while being unable to take proper care of one. This ain't about choosing not to work or choosing a cheap car or cheap goods. This is about lives. You can survive if you lose your house. Can you survive with a broken back?	Cato (6936)
823404	2009-10-23 08:35:00	Cato - you're right. I don't know any more about the govt's plans than what is in the media, and by the sounds of it any privatisation plan will be on an opt-out basis (where you're covered by ACC unless you specify otherwise), rather than making everyone find their own insurance. This is an issue I'd like to hear more rational debate about from both sides, rather than the mudslinging, scaremongering, and outright lying some politicians seem to be resorting to.	somebody (208)
1 2 3 4