A very Tory Xmas

30 comments on “A very Tory Xmas ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianmac from Prague 1

   21 December 2010 at 10:42 pm

   Oi! Its just a way to save taxpayer money and open the door to a fault scheme to enable accident hunting lawyers to hunt you down and clutter the courts with litigation and cost the taxpayer zillions more. Oops? Save taxpayers money? Yeah right…. (wing zeal!)
2. Pascal's bookie 2

   21 December 2010 at 11:14 pm

   Instead of the shiny pap that occasionally falls in my letterbox from a LP whomever…

   this.
3. LynW 3

   22 December 2010 at 6:10 am

   Perhaps this could be the catalyst, the tipping point? ACC has been a very successful model of care, available to all New Zealanders, so this change would effect a diverse population, from the medical practitioners to the end users. We are already seeing the problems experienced by some with the existing system ( wear and tear!) so it stands to reason it would far worse in private hands where the emphasis to make a profit is so much greater.
4. M 4

   22 December 2010 at 6:42 am

   Small point – it should be ‘Twas, short for, It was.

   One of my siblings who has a permanent spinal injury had better prepare himself to do even more battle if this comes to pass.
5. joe bloggs 5

   22 December 2010 at 7:53 am

   Under Labour’s Maryan Street, ACC made losses of 2.4 billion in 2007 and 4.8 billion in 2008.

   That’s an extra tax burden of $580 in 2007 and $1,100 in 2008 on every man, woman and child in NZ. Hardly successful management of a monopoly is it?

   Frankly I’d rather have a choice of service providers than continue to suffer under a poorly administered monopoly like ACC.

   And greater independence of the Disputes Resolution Service can only result in fairer decisions in dispute cases.
   • mickysavage 5.1

     22 December 2010 at 8:13 am

     Is that you Nick Smith?

     You sure sound like him. You even have that annoying habit of repeating his sloganistic crap.

     You don’t believe it do you, like that lie that ACC made a loss whereas what happened was that its reserves increased but because of a change of accounting standards the estimated cost of future accidents increased.

     Do you really believe it?

     I have this bridge going cheap I would love to show you.
   • Marty G 5.2

     22 December 2010 at 8:20 am

     “Under Labour’s Maryan Street, ACC made losses of 2.4 billion in 2007 and 4.8 billion in 2008.

     That’s an extra tax burden of $580 in 2007 and $1,100 in 2008 on every man, woman and child in NZ. ”

     no it’s not. What happened is that the value of ACC’s reserves didn’t increase as fast as the future expenses of existing claims. This was mainly due revaluing the estimates of those future costs and the financial crisis wiping vast sums off the value of those reserves. Since then, ACC’s reserves have increased in value faster than expected as asset values have recovered.

     You’re mistaking a market cycle for a fundamental problem.

     Furthermore, you haven’t explained how private providers will cut costs.

     Insurance is a pretty straightforward business: you take in premiums/levies at one end and spit out payouts at the other. ACC spends just 16% of its costs on admin, the rest goes to payouts. Private insurers don’t come close to that. They spend huge amounts on denying claims because it saves them money and means more profits.
   • millsy 5.3

     22 December 2010 at 10:39 am

     Do you accept that privat insurancers will not pay out on claims whereas ACC has a LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY OUT ON EVERY CLAIM.

     No declined claims.

     Workers get the cost of their treatment covered, and are compensated for lost wages.

     Private insurers will just screw people over and not give that coverage, because profit comes first.

     Its part of a decent society that cares for its sick, if you dont like it, go to America
     • Lanthanide 5.3.1

       22 December 2010 at 10:50 am

       There was some health insurance company advertising on TV a while ago that they had a “98% claim approval rating”.

       The devil is in the details of course: if they suspect that your claim will be declined, then they use their process to ensure that you are kicked out of the process before you make the ‘official’ claim, which is what the stats are collected on and what they are reporting on.

       Similarly, many people are denied ACC claims due to “degeneration and normal wear and tear”, so for your claim that “ACC has a LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY OUT ON EVERY CLAIM” shows that ACC must be doing the same.

       Lies, damn lies and statistics, as always.
       • Pascal's bookie 5.3.1.1

         22 December 2010 at 11:05 am

         Would be interesting to see the value of that 2% that gets denied. I suspect that it’s quite a bit higher than 2% when you look at it in terms of the financials.
6. Logie97 6

   22 December 2010 at 8:19 am

   In the vanguard of those beefing about ACC have been the self employed.
   Good luck to you brothers, because you managed your accounts too well and “paid” yourselves so little to avoid PAYE and ACC levies.

   Now try getting away with it with your beloved Multi-national Insurance companies.
7. Bill 7

   22 December 2010 at 8:39 am

   An avalanche of rejected injury claims due to supposed underlying degenerative conditions.

   An accompanying avalanche of appeals choking the appeals process.

   Workers being unnecessarily forced out of the workforce

   Instances of WINZ stumping up thousands to pay for operations instead of ACC.

   Privatisation would interact with this deliberately engineered mess, how? Em…em…oh, yup, just fine. By following the ACC precedent and externalising costs.

   I’d have thought that the way to go if people’s health and well being was a priority would be to dispense with the dodgy distinction being made between degenerative conditions and those that arise solely by injury and have ACC deal with the whole lot.

   Far more efficient.
8. Santi 8

   22 December 2010 at 9:09 am

   Good news. Time to dismantle this behemoth and sell it!
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     22 December 2010 at 9:17 am

     Speaking of selling out workers, you get the Brownlee Award.
     • Santi 8.1.1

       22 December 2010 at 9:44 am

       C.V. thank you.
       I’m honoured to be the recipient of an award for selling something bloated like ACC (in Brownlee’s league). Competion will be good for consumers.
       • Clarke 8.1.1.1

         22 December 2010 at 9:51 am

         Competion will be good for consumers.

         Right up until they get injured.
       • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.2

         22 December 2010 at 11:13 am

         The same way that “competition” was good for telecommunications?
   • Judge Holden 8.2

     22 December 2010 at 9:23 am

     Um yeah, because all good tories just know that the private sector (cough HIH cough), does absolutely everything better than the state, and only commies rely on things like facts and evidence.
   • Clarke 8.3

     22 December 2010 at 9:48 am

     Good news! $200 million in profits exported to Australia rather than remaining in New Zealand!
9. tsmithfield 9

   22 December 2010 at 10:15 am

   “It was the time to let slip, their plan for ACC privatisation”

   This is complete misinformation. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is not being privatised just as public hospitals have not been privatised with the advent of private health care.
   ACC will still be a publicly owned organisation. What could be accurately said is that the public ACC organisation will be exposed to competition from the private sector.
   • felix 9.1

     22 December 2010 at 10:31 am

     Quite right tsmithfield, that was complete misinformation. You usually don’t announce it as such though, are you not feeling well?

     Anyway, you’re just engaging in sophistry as usual. The provision of service is what’s being privatised.
10. Pascal's bookie 10

    22 December 2010 at 10:34 am

    All right then, I’ll ask the righties on this thread.

    Hypothetical.

    Let’s say you have some sort of terrible accident. The sort that makes accident insurance a necessity for any sort of life worth having. The sort of accident that getting a life back from, will cost millions over the term of that life.

    Would you want the lawyers looking over your insurance claim to:

    i) ultimately be working for a politician reliant on voters, or

    ii) ultimately be working for the insurance company’s shareholders.

    Be honest now.
    • Pascal's bookie 10.1

      22 December 2010 at 12:08 pm

      Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
11. tea 11

    22 December 2010 at 10:42 am

    Espouse doesn’t rhyme with house,

    unless you are talking about the internet wife or the e-spouse

    edit: ahh you covered that in a later stanza…!
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      22 December 2010 at 10:56 am

      Lots of Eninem’s lyrics don’t rhyme when written on paper either. It’s all in how you pronounce it.
12. Don 12

    22 December 2010 at 10:57 am

    “Tags: it’s poetry bitches”

    It isn’t even doggerel. It makes William McGonagall look like William Shakespeare.
    • Bright Red 12.1

      22 December 2010 at 11:33 am

      they’re well known for chucking in funny tags. have a sense of humour.

      check out tags like ‘lammingtons in the news’ or ‘goat issues’
      • lprent 12.1.1

        22 December 2010 at 12:33 pm

        Yeah. But I’m not sure about that tag… I would have gone with “peasants” just to get that superlicous (?sp) feel
13. Glenn 13

    22 December 2010 at 10:58 am

    If you are opposed to this then register your opposition on the ACC Futures Coalition website http://issues.co.nz/accfutures/Support+Us

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 21 December 2010 at 8:55 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS