Comments on: National’s not so secret privatisation agenda for ACC

By: Self-employed

Self-employed — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:49:37 +0000

Sorry Lianne, while I support many things Labour, it was ACC under Labour that encouraged me to vote National. In 2007 ACC increased the transport levies by 100% with practically no public consultation, outside the media’s radar and gave us all only 10 weeks to come up with what amount to be several thousand dollars in extra levies. I definitely do not agree with the complete privatisation of ACC as I think it would cripple us hugely in the long term. But opening the Workers Account to competition, well I’m all for it. Why should I, doing the same job as someone else who is an employee have to pay an earners levy $1.43 per $100 PLUS an income related levy of $2.52 per $100 whereas an employee doing the SAME job, only has to pay an earner levy of $1.70 per $100. Even with their employers contribution of $0.78 per $100, their contribution falls well short of mine. Bottom line, the system IS broken and it DOES need to be fixed – fix it or go user pays. You can afford to pay for your own health care and work related injury cover, I can afford it, but the average wage earner can’t. Instead of attacking the government perhaps you could come up with solutions for a system that your party had domain over for 9 years. While I agree with the no faults policy in theory, criminals do not deserve the same grace. How can you possibly justify your views when ACC under labour has paid out support for people who received injuries while committing a crime and were sometimes not even accidental – Graeme Burton was deliberately shot by the police because he is a psycho, there was nothing accidental about it. Labour has to get their head out of the 80s and 90s and start focusing on the now. Spitting out the same old rhetoric will not get you back into government. New Zealanders have had a gutsfall of the amount of irresponsible spending and wastage of the tax payer dollar. It’s time you all faced up to this.

By: sean14

sean14 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:55:03 +0000

Indeed Pat, but you should never let answering a difficult question get in the way of a photo opportunity!

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:59:44 +0000

sean14 – those figures are from an ACC Coverplus presentation by ACC to a group of insurance brokers on Friday.

So it would be good that when Goff and the rest of his bikie gang arrive at the Beehive, they can explain why they deserve such a generous subsidy from the rest of us.

By: sean14

sean14 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:20:35 +0000

Millsy – I’m against paying the same or more for cover than people who involve themselves in more risky activities than I do. Money is an incentive to work, why shouldn’t the ability to pay less money be an incentive to engage in less risky activities?

Do you have home and contents insurance, car insurance or maybe even health insurance? Are you begging insurance “barons” for that cover? I’m not, I’m engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Why should accident cover be any different?

By: sean14

sean14 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:12:31 +0000

Lianne – with respect, you didn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask about the founding principles of ACC, I asked how opening ACC up to competition means the privatisation of ACC.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but unless ACC is sold, I don’t see how it can be privatised. Do you have information to suggest ACC will be sold, or is it more that you are trying to startle some horses with the dirty ‘P’ word?

Ghost – what I’m essentially asking is why should I pay the same as people who engage in riskier behaviour than I do? On top of that, why should I pay to cover people who don’t pay at all? If someone is injured in a vehicle accident, I’ll bet ACC will still cover them even if their vehicle is unregistered.

Your question about health care is disingenuous, I’m talking about pricing risk, not getting more care because you have more money.

If Pat’s figures are correct, surely that says it all? Presuming you want a more equal society, shouldn’t the amount bikies, for example, pay in equal the amount they pay out?

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:27:06 +0000

ACC levies from Road Bikes – $12M p.a.

ACC claims paid for Road Bikes – $62M p.a.

Why is everyone so keen to subsidise a minority’s dangerous choice of transport and/or hobby?

By: Lianne Dalziel

Lianne Dalziel — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:33:23 +0000

@Steven Gilberd – You seem to have overlooked the underlying social contract that forms the basis of this unique scheme – New Zealanders gave up the right to sue in order to obtain a comprehensive no-fault scheme. The insurance principles you extol as virtues of competition are the antithesis of this principle. I don’t need to read a dictionary to understand that the word “code” is used to describe the difference between what National say they are going to do and what they will do in practice. I am happy to obtain details of the comparative rates of premium charged by private sector insurance companies in other countries vs the comparative ACC levies. The best examples are in workplace insurance – where Australian state comparisons range between twice to three times the amount paid here. Finally, and for @CuriO too, ACC collects more in levies each year than it spends in that year – the debate is around the out-year funding of present year injuries, but I am sure you knew that already!
@Sean14 – I am not sure whether I have explained the founding principles of the scheme well enough – no fault means the cost is shared rather than the risk priced – that’s the difference between ACC and insurance.
The other cost that none of the National Party apologists will confront is the cost imposed on society when they have to insure for public liability – remember the Council in Sydney that had to pay out $5m to the person who dived between the flags and broke his neck. The cost of health care in the US is virtually twice the proportion of GDP that it is in NZ – mainly because of the cost of insurance and litigation.

By: millsy

millsy — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:09:26 +0000

Sean14, why are you so against a no fault accident compensation scheme? Why do you want people to have to beg for cover from the insurance barons?

By: ghostwhowalksnz

ghostwhowalksnz — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:51:26 +0000

sean14 are you saying previous claim history should count in assessing your premiums.
Do you support the same approach for hospital care by the state. ie the more taxes you pay the better the care you should get.

By: sean14

sean14 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:36:52 +0000

Just to add another point if I may Lianne.

Can you please explain to me why, as a motorist of 15 years experience with 0 collisions under my belt operating vehicles that are always registered, I should pay the same as people who people who frequently have collisions, who drive drunk, who drive unregistered vehicles, or sometimes a combination of all three?