ACCforum: Privatisation Of The Acc - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Privatisation Of The Acc Naturally Automated Integrity Resulting from Market Forces

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10584
  • Joined: 10-June 06

  Posted 26 April 2007 - 01:42 AM

In the event of the National Party becoming the next government it is a given that the ACC will be privatised. This is not hypothetical but a direct result. With that in mind I propose we prepare our thinking for that eventuality.

If the National party becomes the next government the lives of all ACC claimants will be changed. The question is will we be a part of controlling that change. We should be giving this issue some serious thought. My own thinking is that any kind of state monopoly is doomed to failure. Historically state monopolies never ever function properly. I am prepared to be proven wrong but the proof to my viewpoint ranges from communism through to the buying and selling of railways, the state health system etc etc. I also follow the wisdom of Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize-winning economist and his thoughts on such matters.

Essentially there are two options:
Repair the state-owned monopoly.
Privatise ACC and let market forces take over.

I believe that all government parties in New Zealand have the intention that the burden of incapacity be carried by the invalid himself rather than the party that caused the injury.

I believe that privatisation is the better option even though it won't be perfect. I would propose that the ACC insurance be set loose into the open environment of market forces with an increased level of legal recourse by way of increased motivation for legal professionals to get paid properly by a percentage of the winnings taken from the insurance companies. This will put the fear of God into insurance companies so as to reduce any temptation to cheat a human being that is incapacitated as opposed to the current circumstance where the state has removed virtually all access to judicial remedy.

I realise that these sorts are not necessarily very popular but I do think the subject is worthy of some considerable discussion. Even if the ACC is not privatised many of the thoughts that will be raised and developed as a consequence of this thread will be beneficial. This thread should stimulate significant innovative thinking. <_<

Imagine what would happen if the State did not own the global insurance scheme we know as the ACC.

Imagine that we had 20 different insurance companies from which we could choose who was our insurer.

Imagine that the only way the insurance companies could have customers is to be competitive and by that I mean payout on their liability.

Imagine if one of these insurance companies failed to pay out on their liability. Would they stay in business. Would everybody upon learning of this dishonest insurance company transferred the policy to another insurance company.

Imagine what would happen if an employee of a private insurance company falsified your insurance documentation. Could you imagine that they would not go to jail..

Imagine if private investigators produced false documents for a private insurance company. Could you imagine that they would not go to jail..

Imagine if medical professionals produced false documents for a private insurance company. Could you imagine that they would not go to jail.

Imagine if we were not happy with our case manager and insurance company and could transfer at cover to a different insurance company has simply as transferring your vehicle or household insurance.

Imagine if Disputes Resolution Services Limited did not have the ACC as his master but was a stand-alone judicial authority that had loyalties to nobody but the rule of law. Imagine if DRSL had no quotas, no targets and no key performance indicators.

Imagine if lawyers were paid a percentage of what they win in the form equivalent to that of a fine against the insurance company as a deterrent against the insurance companies. Surely we would then have an army of eager lawyers learning ACC insurance law.

I propose that there is considerable benefit from privatising the ACC completely out of state monopoly control as fragmentation amongst many competing companies creates an honesty all of its own when subject to competing market forces.


During the course of my rehabilitation I had occasion to express my viewpoints on the direction of the process of privatisation and economic development of New Zealand. The ACC is well aware of my viewpoints and the way in which I have openly and publicly challenged how various state-owned entities government departments should be run. I haven't lobbied for promoting any particular government party but I have not held back from promoting my viewpoint to those in power. This photo is of myself Bill Birch MP when I cohosted a presentation to a significant number of very wealthy business professionals seeking to invest in New Zealand's future. Obviously I was also promoting myself and courting rehabilitation opportunity utilising my residual capacity (as one should) shortly after this presentation the ACC savaged me. Coincidence, who knows.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 26 April 2007 - 07:53 AM

"The Hollow Men" by Nicky Hager
Under the Headings 'THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR KIND DONATION'
page 246 ;
4th paragraph 246
" The other possible million-dollar donation story is also unconfirmed.
During the research of this book, a senior National Party figure provided
details of various National Party funders and stated the largest single
election donation, believed to be well over $1million, had come from
the Insurance Council and was given to National because the party was
known to be intending, if elected to privatise the Accident Compensation
Commision [ACC].{61}It is a believeable story - the insurance companies
specialising in accident insurance had billions of dollars to gain from
privatisation - but this does not mean it is true. Like the Talley plan, the
story will probably remain a mystery."

page 321 refer {61}
" Confidential source. If this story is correct, the money was not being given to influence
the policy, which National intended, but to help ensure the election of the
party"
0

#3 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 26 April 2007 - 08:51 AM

GREETINGS,
What ever ones views are on "Privatisation"... It is not the answer...

What is needed is... for THE RIGHT TO SUE, to be reinstated,= "Some how"... ???
And exactly what is a breach of the ACC legislation, in terms of the crimes Act, to be clearly defined...

Then you will see things change REAL FAST... :D :P ...

Attached File(s)


0

#4 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 26 April 2007 - 09:39 AM

View PostTomcat, on Apr 26 2007, 08:51 AM, said:

GREETINGS,
What ever ones views are on "Privatisation"... It is not the answer...

What is needed is... for THE RIGHT TO SUE, to be reinstated,= "Some how"... ???
And exactly what is a breach of the ACC legislation, in terms of the crimes Act, to be clearly defined...

Then you will see things change REAL FAST... :D :P ...


Yes - but a return to the right to sue will mean those of us with "no fault" injuries will be completely without cover, and thus even worse off than we are now. Think this through very carefully!

On the positive side, the system in operation in Australia appears to provide far better cover that we are all getting in NZ. Perhaps we could lean from this?

Just as communism was a ghastly experiment carried out on the Russian people, ACC is a ghastly experiment carried out on the NZ people. Just as Stalin had to bully and terrorise the Russian people to try to make communism work, the Govt passes laws that allow ACC to bully and terrorise to try to make the insurance sceme work. Just as Stalin disempowered the Russian people and used the NKVD, the IPR&C Act disempowers the NZ people and we are terrorised their their Fraud Unit.
0

#5 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 26 April 2007 - 10:23 AM

Greetings,

It was meant as...
THE RIGHT TO SUE... without the loss of "No Fault"...
(which is what we PAY FOR. ??? but still must fight for what little we get)...

Ausie (not sure of details) has something on the lines of "Cover" up to the point, where those responsible are sued for damages...

When and where ACC blatantly breaches the legislation and our "Compulsary Paid for, Rights and Entitlements",
there should be something in law to allow us to sue... without the huge costs...
Changes of the law to accomodate this point, would go a long way to correcting the daily crap from ACC...
What we have at present is not good, and can be discribed as "corrupt."...
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10584
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 April 2007 - 11:00 AM

I think we should retain the no-faults concept to the insurance so there is total cover for the claimant.

I think that when the injury has been caused by a third-party, say a drunk driver smashing into you or a negligent employer facing us in harm's way, that the third-party should still be exposed to liability.

I think the insurer should sue that third-party the person responsible for the injury on a commission basis so as to create a fair and reasonable exemplary damages claim and a punitive damages claim on the injured person's behalf.

I would imagine that the insurer would be delighted to go to court on our behalf on a commission basis to reduce their liabilities and earn a commission so as the profit motive will ensure that the injured person is more adequately compensated. The commission earned by the insurance company legal division should not reduce the current payout described by the current legislation. What I'm talking about is over and above current legislation

In America lawyers usually get 30% of these exemplary and punitive damages.

I do not think we can trust the current administrator of the ACC successfully prosecute the person responsible for exemplary and punitive damages but I would trust a well-trained hungry legal professional in a privatised arrangement.
0

#7 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 26 April 2007 - 03:12 PM

If ACC is privatized there will NOT be a return to the right to sue for compensatory damages following personal injury. Even if there was, most victims would not succeed in our legal system because of its systemic biases. What will happen I am fairly sure, is that employers will be made to contract with private insurers to cover work related personal injuries. Motor vehicle drivers, and probably all earners, will have to contract with insurers for cover for personal injury arising from motor vehicle accidents and non-work accidents, respectively. The stage will then be set for huge, prolonged squabbles between insurers about which of them are responsible for covering injury. At the same time, the usual bollocks about pre-existing conditions will continue. Result - the victim will suffer even more than they do at present. An inefficient, arrogant public sector monopoly will be replaced by an inefficient, arrogant private sector cartel.
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 26 April 2007 - 03:52 PM

I agree there MG .

It doesn't matter what happens unless the faults that are now happening are fixed.

Criminal charges may have to be brought to address some of the issues but unless those issues are exposed through the correct channels those charges will not be affective.

Personally we all should be working to improve the system (slowly due to the resistance of certain administrators.)

this will make it non profitable for the goverment of the day to move the administrating of the scheme onto the private insurers.

remember last time that they did this was not successful due to the management being the same personal as the ACC staff.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10584
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 April 2007 - 05:22 PM

Dopplegangger

The whole thing with privatisation is that it does as you appear to suggest remove the profit motive from the government and government agencies. It also removes decision-making from the career bureaucrat that is trying to work their way through government services.

Privatisation will instantaneously, or overnight, destroy the ACC corporate culture. It is true that some of the corporate culture might be imported by these various insurance companies that they will be managed by commercially motivated senior staff. Private enterprise is far less likely to commit fraud against claimants and state-owned entity.

The battle moves from one battlefield to another. The question is do we want to fight one multibillion-dollar Corporation that can coordinate itself or a group of insurance companies that are fiercely competing against each other who genuinely want new customers and need to keep the existing customers happy. The ACC can withstand bad publicity but private enterprise can't and still survive.

Last time the ACC was privatised the remnants of the ACC still existed of which still had a strong influence overall the insurance companies. At the legislation would have to be freshly drafted so as not to fragment the lines of communications as MG has very correctly pointed out is the great danger. The wisdom and experience MG and others that are expressed with bureaucracy is absolutely critical.

This is why we need to make sure that we are involved in the transition into private enterprise should this happen.
0

#10 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 26 April 2007 - 07:07 PM

Alan
to quote you.
Private enterprise is far less likely to commit fraud against claimants and state-owned entity.

endquote.

I may at times differ with you on matters relating to the way your situation has developed and remedies.. but seldom on commercial or legal logic ,,

but what planet are you on with this statement .. I rolled on the floor in hysterics until I concluded you might just be believing what you said and it was not a joke..

We gets screwed by an inept system that often lacks remedy at the moment... and you want us to be in the grip of clever , skilled experts at screwing us for profit.


Gimme ACC any day of the week. Its just needs a few tweeks.

tony
0

#11 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 April 2007 - 09:13 PM

Tonyj you are so right.

The workplace insurers (PPP) that I deal with on an ongoing basis are pretty much diabolical.

Not only do they provide far fewer entitlements at much less value than does ACC to similarly injured persons but they also use a number of somewhat distasteful techniques – I include here invasion of privacy, bullying (both vertical and horizontal), incredibly slow and inefficient decision making procedures (yes, even compared to ACC) and case managers with little or no understanding of the legislation or case law.

The problem, in my view, is that the non-provision versus provision of cover and entitlements becomes simply a bottom line issue determined by accountants.

Accountants would love to be human but somehow are controlled at work by their calculators.

Even such providers of compassion and good works to the community as the District Health Boards (WorkAon is their provider) were described to me in court by Judge Beattie as intransigent.

Anyone who favours private insurers over ACC is simply blinded by an irrational response reaction to ACC and does not know what he/she is talking about.

Whatever you may think of ACC just wait and see what happens should private insurance get hold of that income stream - beware!

(In passing may I add that anyone who favours 'right to sue' does not remember what an inequitable, inaccessible, poor paying, short-term, court ridden farce that was – again, beware!)





.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10584
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 April 2007 - 11:49 PM

Tony tspinoza

I understand your position regarding the appeal of socialism and communism. It cannot be denied that in a global insurance scheme the form of the ACC is a socialist/Communist style approach to a social need.

My position is that capitalism is vastly superior to communism or socialism. My rationale is based on my personal experiences being brought up in a communist environment in a socialist country. I have had extensive association with persons escaping from communism and I have been to communist countries.

It is an irrefutable fact that socialism and communism is fatally flawed solely for the reason that human beings are incapable of carrying out the duties in line with the prescribed ideals. Invariably there is power struggles within so as those who are meant to serve seek power over each other and those they are meant to serve, us.

It is an irrefutable fact that those caught in the grip of countries run out of the style of the ACC Corporation flee those countries and come to capitalist based countries. My proposition is supported by the extensive research and teaching of Milton Friedman the world renown Economist who has recently passed away. Essentially countries like Britain and New Zealand were turned back from bankruptcy by adopting free-market economies as prescribed by Milton Friedman.

Tony you are concerned that insurance companies might dare to make a profit. Of course they will make a profit but they will not squander, hide and secretly invest more than one third of the levies that is the current situation under the ACC and as such we will be better off. Make no mistake private enterprise will be rigorously controlled when it is state money they are spending. The courts will be more than ready to put dishonest private enterprise case managers in jail which is something they are reluctant to do with state servants.

I'm not saying that private enterprise is perfect. It is not. But what I am saying is that historically speaking and any projected forecast proposed by the ACC that they are doomed for failure. I am not optimistic because there is no justifiable reason to be optimistic.

Generally speaking privatising state-owned entity like the ACC will take three years shakedown and five to 10 years to come right. Legislation can limit the potential profit of the insurer's and actuaries will easily monitor the integrity of any insurer. The last time ACC was privatised the private insurers selected the best staff and trained them. There is no possibility that a private insurer would run a hodgepodge arrangement like the ACC whereby front-line staff hardly ever know what's going on and have little to no knowledge of the ACC Act.

A friend of mine in Albuquerque USA who is an exceptionally wealthy and competent worker's compensation attorney is proposing writing a book about my and other persons experiences so as to discourage any thought that the USA might adopt an ACC like scheme. I am fully aware that the private insurer in America is self-serving like any other business.

tspinoza the ACC act has got nothing to do with humanity, and that the or anything else of that socialistic type way of thinking. The act is purely an insurance scheme that is a simple contract no different to your vehicle insurance.

The concept of compassion within the ACC Act is quite irrelevant. You will find that capitalism will find an automatic balance in exactly the same manner that you find an automatic balance in nature. The insurance company that is most honest with the claimants will gain the best reputation and people will want the cases managed in that company.

If on the other hand legislation tried to control the claimant's right of choosing their own insurer by bulk funding and other such socialistic type tampering with the economy the catalyst based system is also doomed for failure.

The problem is that when privatising a state-owned entity it will be extreme opportunities of corruption and bribery to feed at the ACC trough. It is therefore very important that the handover is fully transparent so as to avoid this kind of corruption that we have seen when other state owned entities have been privatised throughout the world.

The reality is that if the National party gets into power we will be having a privatised ACC like it or not. The thing to do is to plan for that eventuality rather than simply expressing political and socialistic viewpoints.

Please go back and read the series of "Imagine if..." it would be very useful if we addressed each of those issues. I would be more than delighted with my insurance company were to sue the person responsible for my injuries, with the benefit of a team of well qualified and experienced barristers who have specialised in ACC law for a percentage of the winnings. The situation simply does not exist at the moment purely for economic reasons that will not resolve themselves under a socialist system. The current situation is that we have totally unqualified and inexperienced claimants going against a multibillion-dollar Corporation in a judicial system that is under their control.

I am simply stating that we have two possibilities one of which that will be imposed upon us like it or not. The subject concerning the merits of both systems need to be explored so as we can seek the best advantage.
0

#13 User is offline   freefallnz 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-June 04

Posted 27 April 2007 - 12:11 AM

I too look forward to when the insurance companies are allowed to use a secret court system such as DRSL... So much for human rights...

or maybe that means that Insurance companies would be answerable to the full force of New Zealand Law..

Which will it be?
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10584
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 April 2007 - 12:59 AM

Freefallnz
you may rest assured that should the ACC Act past over to private enterprise they will be subject to the full force of New Zealand law rather than a state entity being a law unto itself. Judges will not be sympathetic to private enterprise ripping off an invalid as it simply is not on the national interest as the ACC paint the picture to the judiciary at the moment. The ACC would have a judge believe invalids should be grateful for what crumbs fall from the ACC table.

The ACC portray their position and viewpoint that it is in the national interest that the few shall be sacrificed for the sake of the many, a well-known communist and socialist viewpoint. In a capitalist base system the judiciary would be totally intolerant and unsympathetic to an insurance company that ran that line. The insurance family would be laughed out of court.

We can rely upon the profit motive as a good motive. At least they will get the job done. If the insurance company provides pretending Individual Rehabilitation Plans they will be immediately prosecute for producing false documents designed for the pecuniary advantage of the insurance company. This means they will be prosecuted for fraud if they produce anything that looks like a current ACC rehabilitation plan which is nothing less than best wishes for intentions to make assessments rather than to actually rehabilitate.

Under no circumstance will then insurance companies spend more money on repetitive legal attacks as it simply is not profitable. The ACC on the other hand consider their legal budget an unlimited budget. In other words they use our money to attack us. A private insurance company will calculate what is profitable. They will assess the prospects of actual rehabilitation and then rehabilitate if that is possible. They are not going to waste a lot of money going round and round and round and round like the ACC does. The write-offs amongst us that will never work again will simply go on to a retirement type mode just like the act intended because it is not profitable to waste money on vocational rehabilitation when vocational rehabilitation cannot occur.
0

#15 User is offline   freefallnz 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-June 04

Posted 27 April 2007 - 10:18 AM

A great shame then that the long term liabilities (Claimants) wont be transferred to Public companies.

No Justice in sight for us I'm sure
0

#16 User is offline   Simple 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-August 06

  Posted 27 April 2007 - 11:31 AM

Well it certainly could not get much worse could it?

I have attempted to make a list of where and when changes have been made in my Insurocorp file and the dates those changes were made.

Unfortunately not an easy task for me nowadays as I have great deal of trouble with such things.

However in my Opinion my Income at the time my claim was accepted by Insurocorp should have been $40,000 per year, based on $20,000 being the figure earned in the six months working for Hanimex.
This included a great deal of overtime and weekend work and quite possibly, as the Night Shift Manager resigned just before I left, and I may have replaced him, increased considerably over the full twelve months.

I KNOW Insurocorp took 6 months of my income from Fisheries Research and Six months from Hamimex and intended to pay out 80% of the mean.

I am sure they actually did not use $20,000 as the six month income from Hanimex but halved that and paid out on the mean of Six Months at FRD and THREE Months (10,000) at Hanimex,

1992 –1993 it is apparent that Drew Dekefalas had considerable difficulties with my file and the “second claim” seemed to become dominant at that time creating total confusion for both Acc and IRD Child Support Agency which explains the massive penalties we were landed with at this time by child suuport for ACc's non payments.

1998 Sarah hills Livingstone appears to have done a tremendous amount of work either to try and sort the file out or to make sure that no evidence existed of the original calculation problems.

In have to the best of my current ability drawn up a “Time Line” showing some events

Included are some scanned copies from Sarah’s time showing that Insurocorp had no idea at that time of my original claim details.

The attempts she made to find out what my earnings related ccompensation and income had been over the years.

Unfortunately IRD replied in most cases no return held.



ALSO! A copy of an NZES form from the time when Sarah INSISTED I enrol as Unemployed and visit the NZES Office each week and take a receipt to show I had checked in back to her at ACC.

I had hoped this may throw some light on the Client numbers, or that the reason for the recent number may have been as a result of my only listing as unemployed in 1998.

Although I note that in December 1984 I may have been registered as unemployed in Lower Hutt for a short time.

Please note I hold short diaries for the time I was at the rehab league in Wellington at Insurocorp’s behest, and also short diaries from other periods and a couple of Post bank savings books showing insurocorp payments in 1989.

Generally it appears my Insurocorp file is simply a complete mess and possibly a fabrication in many places .

I have also noticed that my origional claim may have been ended illegally, note the inclosed Medical Certificate which was used to end the claim.

It states "Fit for normal work" However in brackets says (But not in a photographic laboratory)

Insurocorp used this certificate to end my claim, which was later reinstated when an employer became cocnerned about my failing health and I admitted to the works Doctor that I had previously been an insurocorp client but had been declared fit for work by Insurocorp

Insurocorp has repeatedly made attempts to cover attempts to hide what origionally happened, even to possibly trying to kill me off on TWO occiasions. 2001, 2004.

if you note the attempted fraud charge, which in fact was a cover for ACC demanding the Doctor remove mention of Brain Injury form the medical cert, compare the origional and replacement cert diagnosis, include the prescription of Lipex, which contains a listed Neurotoxin you may make 3!

Working on the theroy that truth is stranger than fiction and that we have no recourse by any other means, within our means, just let the story unfold then sell it as a bloody good novel!

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provided in
article 2 that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status”. Since 1948 steps have
been taken, in this country and the European Community, to give legal
effect, in part, to this general objective of non-discriminatory treatment.
0

#17 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 April 2007 - 05:21 PM

Alan Thomas,it is embarrassing to have to keep on pointing this out as I am sure you are good hearted and well meaning BUT you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

The insurance companies currently providing private ACC cover are NOT providing the insurance. They are providing a third party administration system in which the employer pays markedly less ACC premiums in return for paying on an as-you-go basis the cost of any liabilities from workplace accidents for a specified (usually three years) period.

That means that every liability (cover and/or entitlement) they can avoid is a bottom line gain TO THE EMPLOYER not to any insurer.

This is not some silly argument communism vs capitalism (old fashioned terms that they are these days) rather it is how these systems work right now.

I am glad you have such a touching faith in a belief system such as National Party ideology (hooray for Muldoon and Birch, if you like, or Brash or English or Keys, I don't mind) but do not think your statement are, what did you call them, 'irrefutable'.

May I bring to your attention that any acceptable scientific hypothesis is just that - refutable. Its virtue is not that it cannot be refuted but that when tested it is not - time after time.

More properly you are raising moot points citing blind faith and dogma.
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10584
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 April 2007 - 05:46 PM

tspinoza

I am merely putting forward a scenario of what would happen if the National Party became the next government. I am not promoting the National Party. I am not trying to argue the merits of the current mishmash the last time the ACC was privatised because that was half baked and severely compromised. I'm trying to address the competing issues in the pure form, so as we can compere the effects of either, rather than grumble about the current mishmash or what may be thrust upon us without our involvement.


Question 1

As the current ACC scheme fundamental the a Socialist/Communist scheme?

In my opinion Socialist/Communism purports to be reliant upon the integrity of the bureaucracy to manage the collective to share the wealth.


Question 2

In all human history has Socialism/Communism ever functioned in an endurable way even up to 50% of expectation?

No not once.


Question 3

Is it more probable than not that the ACC scheme will ultimately fail under a Socialist government.

In my opinion probably.


Question 4

Does the ACC scheme currently function in a deficient manner primarily because of incompetence hidden by dishonesty?

In my opinion probably.


Question 5

In all human history has capitalism ever functioned in an enjoyable way even up to 50% of expectation?

Yes always.


Question 6

If the ACC was privatised in a Capitalist format could we expect ACC to function in accordance with specification more successfully than under a Socialist/Communist scheme?

In my opinion probably.


Question 7

Between a Socialist/Communist based or capitalist based ACC scheme which would require the greater judicial enforcement and the a more transparent?


Question 8

Have we been subjected to propaganda by the current Socialist/Communist scheme?

In my opinion yes the propaganda has affected the population in general opinion and understanding about the insurance policy we call ACC.


In my opinion the capitalist base scheme for the obvious reason that capitalism does not even trust itself. One insurance company would not even trust the other. If the insurance companies formed a cartel it would be easily identified and the perpetrators would go to prison.
0

#19 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 27 April 2007 - 06:13 PM

Alan ,

I think I have in the past normally been considered for the greater part of my life a fine example of a capitalist pig . I have actually part owned insurance companies and was one of the forces behind Roger Douglas and Rogernomics as well as being NZ largest private sector land lord ( had a lot of rental flats and other property..

I personally lost millions , tens of millions due to corruption re the BNZ , DFC and private enterprise . The wine box ect are very close to my heart ..

I consider the ACC a service that is best controlled by the Govt just as i consider the whole health system should be,and frankly to me ACC is just an extension of the health system and is just as badly run at times... that is what needs addressing .... but I don;t think throwing out the baby with the bath water is the way to go..

tony
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10584
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 April 2007 - 06:43 PM

Tony the point I'm making is that mankind has never successfully administered anything that resembles the ACC. I am not suggesting that the ACC under government control would be a nice thing to have I am saying that the historical reality is that humans do not have the necessary capacity to succeed. As far as ACC becoming part of the health scheme history also shows failure there as well. We only have to look at the difference between the standard of care in England in comparison with America. They don't compare.

Suppose the ACC was simply disbanded all remaining claimants were contracted out to insurance companies with the government paying to those insurance companies for our care.

Suppose those who caused injuries, including ourselves, took responsibility for injuries. Employers would be sued and would therefore need adequate insurance before they were permitted to employ anybody. Nobody would be allowed to drive on the road unless they were insured. Etc etc.

Personally I believe and personal responsibility. If I am heard by somebody the person that had me is responsible even if it means they lose their entire savings and their families go without food.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users