NRT on National’s ACC antics

Written By: - Date published: 4:30 pm, March 4th, 2009 - 15 comments
Categories: ACC, national/act government, privatisation - Tags: , ,

I’ve been meaning to write something about National’s attempts to beat up ACC’s costs in order to soften the ground for privatisation (see Farrar’s latest post here as an example), but No Right Turn captures it perfectly:

During the election campaign, National attempted to minimise concerns that it would privatise ACC, saying merely that it would “investigate” opening the Work Account to competition. Subsequently, it has done its best to beat up ACC’s financial position, and has now chosen to massively increase premiums rather than spread out the costs of full-funding over a longer period of time.

We know how this goes. First, they talk down a publicly-owned asset. Then they make it suck. Then they offer privatisation as a way of “fixing” the problem they have created. The end result in this case will be reduced entitlements, higher costs to both individuals and society due to the need to make a profit, and the diversion of a public income stream into the private pockets of National’s insurance-industry donors. It is, in short, a looting of the state – and we will all be paying for it, just like we did in the 90’s.

No surprise then to see Nick Smith making dark mutterings today about the need for “big changes” at ACC. We can all guess what those might be.

15 comments on “NRT on National’s ACC antics ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. higherstandard 1
    4 March 2009 at 4:47 pm

    The obvious changes that need to be made to ACC weren’t made by the last government and they’re unlikely to be made by the current one and no I’m not talking about privatisation.

  2. Tom Semmens 2
    4 March 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Did anyone else hear that crazy old bastard Roger Douglas on NatRad this avo? Basically his prescription is to privatise ACC, but make sure all the best bits are creamed off to his rich benefactors, whilst retaining the current ban on litigation – which, in classic ACT party crony capitalism, ensures the public get royally fucked over and the loot gets shipped offshore in tanker loads for the benefit of N.Z.’s kleptocracy and Aussie shareholders.

  3. burt 3
    4 March 2009 at 9:03 pm

    That MSM guy Idiot/Savant said;

    Subsequently, it has done its best to beat up ACC’s financial position,

    I disagree, ACC have done a Stirling job of beating up their own financial position. All National needed to do was report it openly to the public like Labour were required to do before the election but choose not to….

    • Felix 3.1
      4 March 2009 at 10:30 pm

      MSM guy?

      • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1
        4 March 2009 at 10:53 pm

        Since I/S doesn’t have comments at NRT, burt thinks s/he has broken the bloggers code or something. So he’s refusing to speak to him/her directly.

        It’s kind like those 70’s sitcom domestic arguments where everyone is all “Well you can tell him that I don’t care what he thinks”, even though they’re in the same room.

        Very weird.

      • burt 3.1.2
        4 March 2009 at 11:10 pm

        Felix

        Pascal’s bookie has almost nailed it. I/S not having comments on his blog is one thing. It’s perhaps a little unusual to call a forum were comments cannot be posted a blog, but OK it’s his blog – it is what it is.

        The really weird and self indulgent bit is I/S wanting to comment about comments made about his comments in other forums when he won’t allow any dissenting opinions to be published on his own blog.

        Shit the Dom Post and writing physical letters to the editor is a more interactive media than the NRT blog.

        • Pascal's bookie 3.1.2.1
          4 March 2009 at 11:30 pm

          “It’s perhaps a little unusual to call a forum were comments cannot be posted a blog,”

          Nah. Not all blogs are forums. Secondly, Instapundit

          The really weird and self indulgent bit is I/S wanting to comment about comments made about his comments in other forums when he won’t allow any dissenting opinions to be published on his own blog

          What’s weird about it? NRT doesn’t have comments. This blog does. If someone on this blog posts about something on NRT why on earth should The Standard’s open comment policy exclude I/S? No reason at all.

          The weird thing is your idea that if I/S wants to call you out about things you say about him in an open forum, he has to open NRT up to comments again for you to respond.

          • burt 3.1.2.1.1
            4 March 2009 at 11:52 pm

            Why would I argue with a person about a blog post they have made on another blog when the original post would still stand uncontested in it’s wordsmithery ? Why would I do that?

            If he wants his spin uncontested – fine it’s his blog – how many more ways can I say that.

            However if he wants to defend his spin, he should have the balls to do it on his own turf. Hell even Trotter manages to run a blog with some interaction. Surely I/S isn’t so far up himself with his own opinions that he can’t tolerate publishing accurate dismissals of his spin from time to time – even Trotter allowed that and he makes a living writing spin under his own name.

            I/S a good read, it’s a bugger he can’t be interacted with on his own turf. This would be good for all sides of the debate as I/S seldom writes crap. His spin might not always stand up to scrutiny, which is I guess why comments are off.

          • Felix 3.1.2.1.2
            5 March 2009 at 12:15 am

            Is this what you’re talking about?

            So Irish Bill writes a post about the Graham Thomas issue. In the post he links to NRT.

            burt, rather than comment on the post itself, decides to write about Idiot/Savant’s post on the ACC/PREFU issue. Apparently it’s relevant because it’s all about “Justice” (and presumably the constitution, and Marbo, and the vibe).

            I/S responds to burt.

            Yeah, actually I see it now – that I/S is so weird and self indulgent. A real “MSM guy” whatever that is.

      • Felix 3.1.3
        4 March 2009 at 11:37 pm

        burt,

        So you think that because he/she doesn’t have comments on his/her blog, he/she isn’t allowed to engage in the comments on other people’s blogs?

        Strange stance to take, what with you not having a blog at all.

        “really weird and self indulgent” eh?

  4. George Darroch 4
    4 March 2009 at 9:37 pm

    David seems to have no idea about ACC’s change to fully funding. Which is almost entirely why that graph looks ugly – when you take on funding the life of injuries, it’s a lot more expensive to start out with.

    All he knows is that private healthcare is better. Why? Because “that is the history of the world”. National are quite nakedly softening ACC for heavy privatisation.

    • grumpy 4.1
      5 March 2009 at 10:00 am

      They probably are but it can’t be any worse than we already have.

      The funding shortfall is one thing but Labour’s stacking of the Board with Union cronies has led to this situation. At least privatisation will lead to some accountability – laughable though that might be given the craven showing of the private sector in recent months.