Of course you’re always free to start your own union, there’s nothing stopping you. But people who engage in competittive unionism usually find it’s used by the boss to divide workers and weaken their bargaining power.

We wouldn’t want people to have a choice.

Good to hear that UNITE and the NDU don’t have to demonstrate their value to their members.

I await the Commissar’s pronouncement on what brand of cereal I should buy. Thank god I no longer have to think for mysellf!!!

Two things.

1) You choose the union that’s onsite, Unite and the NDU don’t compete.
2) This is possibly the worst example you could give. Unite and the NDU have merged their operations to the point that they’re virtually the same union.

You guys like the money that goes to your union employers.

Competition means that people get to find the best option that suits them. Like choosing between UNITE and the NDU.

Oh and safer workplaces get lower premiums. Wouldn’t the workers that you organise for prefer to work in a place that is rewarded for their efforts to be safe…..

You guys need to lose the cloth cap and get into the real world.

Oh. Wait…

The PC Avenger – “Greg, are you seriously proposing a system where people have to die in order for improvement to occur? Approximately how many deaths would be acceptable to you in the transitionary period from our current system to your libertarian, divorced-from-reality fantasy?

Also name the countries where the system you propose works.”

Who said anything about dying, please explain how my post has anything to do with more people dying? The wonderful thing about economics is that prospective insurers know they won’t survive unless they provide a high quality service. Meaning the transitional period will be small. Even if you supposed worst case scenario occurs, it doesn’t result in people dying. I am not advocating a policy where hospitals ask about health insurence before they save a life, of course there will always be a role for the state to play in that extreme regard.

Most wealthy countries have a similar scheme, with changes here and there. I say we learn from where other countries have succeeded, and where others have failed. So I came up with that theory, in my opinion it seems to incorportate the best of both worlds.

i’m glad you realise that SP’s lack of experience in what he talks about is relevant.

“I’ve worked (off and on) as an advocate for ACC claimants from 1992, and am now a policy advisor on ACC. By far the worst period of claimants being denied their legal rights to cover, rehabilitation, and compensation was 1999-2000 when workplace accident insurance was privatised.”

Why is there a need for a policy advisor to ACC in the first place? In fact, why isn’t it an option for people to opt out on their own decision?

It’s about control, isn’t it.

Also name the countries where the system you propose works.

Sounds as though ACC is just as dastardly at trying to get out of liability as the private insurers supposedly are.

From my own person experience of living in America (which has privatized health insurance) I found that some of the people I worked with were afraid of getting injured. This simply didn’t register with me, in NZ I’ve been injured bad enough to need an ambulance, x-rays and all that jazz, but the entire process was smooth and I got the stitches and physio that I needed to get back to it. But in the States, what with having to pay excess and the quite possible case of the insurance company using said accident as an excuse to increase rates, people simply didn’t go to the doctor. One guy I worked with left it so long that his cold turned into pneumonia and he spent weeks in hospital.

Sure this is just my personal experience but as someone who has first hand experience living in a country with private health insurance I can knowingly say that I don’t want any of the stress and fear in my life.

I’ve worked (off and on) as an advocate for ACC claimants from 1992, and am now a policy advisor on ACC. By far the worst period of claimants being denied their legal rights to cover, rehabilitation, and compensation was 1999-2000 when workplace accident insurance was privatised.

Those grapes were sour too, I imagine.

“no it doesn’t, because insurers are constantly trying to get out of liability or trying to put it on another insurer”

I can see you haven’t dealt with very many insurers, SP. Because you’re just plain wrong there. Again.

Is there actually a point where you realise you’re just spinning and that some things are way more of a shade of grey than you’d care to admit? For instance,I thought your assertions about catholics and the pope being somehow complicit in the holocaust was complete rubbish too, but I don’t see you offering any relevant argument to your simplistic argument. It seems to me that you’re a very angry man.

I have considerable personal experience in this area, having worked for many years as an advocate for ACC claimants, and have blogged from that perspective on g.blog re this.

If National lead the next governemnt, be very, very afraid of having an accident.