ACCforum: Accforum's Hidden Agenda - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Accforum's Hidden Agenda see Privatisation Of The Acc thread

#1 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 April 2007 - 07:35 PM

So it becomes clear why this site is always attacking ACC and so very rude to anyone who reports any good thing from ACC.

I had often wondered why but with you, Alan Thomas, being a prime mover on accforum it becomes clear.

Accforum is against ACC so vehemently not through any fault of ACC (and they are many) but because you guys want a capitalist (did you call it above) dog eat dog society where employers and the courts must be involved before any accident compensation is available to anyone.

And, even though this site disparages the Courts that is where we would all end up.

Except that most of us could not afford to go to Court.

Currently only (!!!?) the 20% dissatisfied have to go through due process.

But Alan Thomas and accforum wants EVERY accident victim to have to.

That is one real retrograde step.

I think the sponsors of accforum should come clean and call the site the 'GET RID OF ACC AND LETS ALL INSTEAD HAVE FOREIGN OWNED INSURANCE COMPANIES AND LAWYERS DOING IT SITE'.

I am appalled and outraged but good on you Alan Thomas for at last coming clean!
0

#2 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 27 April 2007 - 08:12 PM

Us 20% of "dissatisfied" or ripped off accident victims have to decide to go through the due process .
This is not automatic.
Painfull and slow is the "due process" with ACC making 11th hour decisions so no chance to get to Court.

Or worse. Charges may be laid and actions taken before establishing proof.

ACC get's it wrong that's right. Often. Up to one fifth of their decisions may be wrong.

Why ACC is allowed to invest our money overseas is beyond me.

It seems to be much less painfull and far better for ones immediate and long-term overall health the "staying away and avoiding anything to do with the ACC" policy adopted by the majority.

We like to vote with our feet.
Your ACC system sucks.

It was supposed to be our's and for us all here.
We are better off staying well clear of the ACC.

The risk of a bad trip with the ACC is a huge incentive to avoid the ACC like the plaugue.

Most do.

Rather the occasional Dr's cost then a protracted ACC battle for most.
They think us that stand and fight must be addled in the head or something.

Back to work...have some time off etc etc.
The ACC screwed me when I was 18.
This embarrases and insults me today.
0

#3 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 27 April 2007 - 08:30 PM

View Posttspinoza, on Apr 27 2007, 07:35 PM, said:

So it becomes clear why this site is always attacking ACC and so very rude to anyone who reports any good thing from ACC.

I had often wondered why but with you, Alan Thomas, being a prime mover on accforum it becomes clear.

Accforum is against ACC so vehemently not through any fault of ACC (and they are many) but because you guys want a capitalist (did you call it above) dog eat dog society where employers and the courts must be involved before any accident compensation is available to anyone.

And, even though this site disparages the Courts that is where we would all end up.

Except that most of us could not afford to go to Court.

Currently only (!!!?) the 20% dissatisfied have to go through due process.

But Alan Thomas and forum wants EVERY accident victim to have to.

That is one real retrograde step.

I think the sponsors of forum should come clean and call the site the 'GET RID OF ACC AND LETS ALL INSTEAD HAVE FOREIGN OWNED INSURANCE COMPANIES AND LAWYERS DOING IT SITE'.

I am appalled and outraged but good on you Alan Thomas for at last coming clean!


Spinoza
I am appalled at your comments and can only conclude you have the brain of a miniature moron. Any forum is an anarchy, and Alan Thomas merely exercises his right of free speech - and no - I generally dont agree with him. BUT I do uphold the principles of free speech.
To label the rest of us with Alan's views is appalling,.
And the issue of a privatised ACC should be discusses freely and openly. No I don't agree with it - but I have enough intelligence to digest the argument.
0

#4 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 April 2007 - 08:46 PM

You are quite right Spacecadet. The argument being referred to is the privatisation of ACC.

Those of us with memories of the pre ACC days knows that that abolishing it is not an improvement on what we have.

Those of us with knowledge of how private workplace insurance works also know that is no improvement either.

So what are we left with?

Not voting National and getting privatised as Alan Thomas suggests, that's for sure.

Most of us are dead keen on getting more from ACC, not less, indicating that we like ACC really. Our real gripe is that we are not getting enough ACC and would like MORE.

Back to my proposition from an earlier thread:

Admit you (me, us) like ACC. Be pleased with what we do get from ACC. Then, go for MORE, MORE, MORE using all the due processes available in the legislation and case law.

And, because we really do like ACC, do it in a reasonable and courteous manner, winning with magnanimity and losing with good grace.

That is, be winners and act like winners, even in adversity.

Or, of course, as Alan Thomas suggests, vote National back in and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
0

#5 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 28 April 2007 - 07:49 AM

My Hidden Agenda.

However the election goes we are stuck with ACC. Privatisation as proposed by National, a path they started when last in power 9 years ago will have, in my humble opinion, very little effect.

The problem I am fighting is corruption within ACC. I don't call it gross incompetence because of the planned deliberate deception in the processing of claims, delivery of entitlements and exiting of claimants - And the use of the Fraud Unit to bring those to heal who dare to question what is going on, or those unable to be exited via their normal strategies.

The original ACC scheme as proposed by Woodhouse was a good socialist idea; just as communism was a good socialist idea as proposed by Marx and Engels. The problem is in the implementation; the dealing with human frailties, and of how the system regulates itself, and the abuse of absolute power that the system imposed on the people brings.
0

#6 User is offline   tonyj 

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

Posted 28 April 2007 - 08:11 AM

View PostSpacecadet, on Apr 28 2007, 07:49 AM, said:


The original ACC scheme as proposed by Woodhouse was a good socialist idea; just as communism was a good socialist idea as proposed by Marx and Engels. The problem is in the implementation; the dealing with human frailties, and of how the system regulates itself, and the abuse of absolute power that the system imposed on the people brings.



The sooner more people understand this is the fundamental problem with ACC the sooner we will effectively challenge and perhaps go somewhat towards improving things..
There is more than enough evidence that ACC can get it right or as right as one can expect ...and do most of the time....


We can work with them or against them to , I know my preference.

tony
0

#7 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 28 April 2007 - 09:35 AM

Tipsy

I am with Spacecadet. I am appalled that you should put me in the same bunch as a certain 'self servicing, manipulative' individual on this site.

Tony j says it when he says "We can work with them or against them to, I know my preference".

I am of the "softly softly catch a monkey" approach. This does not mean I let ACC walk all over me.

The end result is in how we live now, isn't it. You don't hear me yelling Help, I have nothing to eat, cannot pay my bills and need your koha.

My car is warranted, my mortage paid, food on the table. etc etc.

That does not mean I have made life easy for them or let them railroad me. I think ACC would be the first to tell you that.

Within the next few months (this year hopefully) I will be able to show everyone what I have been doing and how it is showing we are disadvantaged. In the meantime I will help anyone on here that asks for my help and is prepared to help themselves.

I do this all without charge or a lawyer, so I do lose occassionally but as you say, "lose with good grace".

It is obivous some of the front line people, even higher up, have no idea why or how policy and procedure have been initiated. They just follow the manual that tells them what to do. They have no idea that it disadvantages us, until they get the explanations that start to make sence.

It does not mean it can be changed at the bottom. It has to be changed at the top, and one has to have the power of their convictions to work hard to gather the evidence to prove they are right.

It is not up to some high paid lawyer to do it as how could we afford that. It is up to us individually, because we all have different strengths to show that we are being ripped off.

Having said that I am pleased ACC is there, as with hard yakker I have been able to partially make my way back to the position I was, when one ACC employee gave me the wrong advice, and I believed it.

This site and dare I say, even your input (at times) has made the fight easier. When you give advice to help us online, you make a welcome contribution to the people here. And that is appreciated.

It is a pity you can't assist the ones that have been labelled with fraud!! That must be a truely difficult situation to be in.

Cheers Mini
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 April 2007 - 10:18 AM

Whether or not this site has an agenda has been dealt with. The site has freedom of speech and therefore cannot have an agenda.

The issue about privatisation is back on this thread.
http://www.accforum.org/forums/index.php?s...ic=5004&hl=
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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