|
18th March 2009, 08:01 | #81 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
Those quoting the PWC report are issuing just the same amount of bullshit; although here it's blind naivity leading to people simply not understanding the words that were written. The bullshit here is deeper and smellier - quite possibly arising from those in this camp: not having access to advisors who understand what they are talking about, and some being rather too stupid to be playing in this space. So, bullshit from both sides. Both sides have a political agenda, and both sides mean well in their own twisted ways. |
|
18th March 2009, 19:14 | #82 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
18th March 2009, 19:37 | #83 |
Love, Actuary
|
I very deliberately didn't cover that. If you're intersted, any introductory text on insurance will cover why that type of benefit can't be offered.
|
18th March 2009, 20:23 | #84 | |
|
Quote:
I have no problem hearing other people's point of view, but this appears to be your stock-standard response, and it's just lame. |
|
18th March 2009, 23:20 | #85 | |
Always itchy
|
Quote:
If they remove free physio, people that can't afford it will stay injured, drawing weekly compensation for much longer. My job involves interaction with ACC, but in a vastly-removed-from-finances direction. I would appreciate further clarification from you. (and this is sincere, I'm not trying to pick a fight and would appreciate it if you could explain your point of view without vitriol.)
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
|
19th March 2009, 13:01 | #86 | |
|
Quote:
NACT thus far: Nothing but lies and misdirection. |
|
19th March 2009, 13:35 | #87 |
|
Mr. Key's new comment of the day;
"Give your tax break to charity" Certainly makes sense from "warm and fuzzy" point of view....but c'mon, what is this saying about the government in the first place? We'll ignore you, the needy, and let the rich get richer. But we'll leave it up to them if they want to give their money to you. Nice one Key. Would you like any dressing with that foot of yours? I swear - we have our own mini-Bush. Last edited by Dusty : 19th March 2009 at 13:37. |
19th March 2009, 13:44 | #88 |
Here be dragons
|
i havent been following this thread much, so can someone enlighten me as to why ACC requires competition in the first place?
__________________
Peace. |
19th March 2009, 13:50 | #89 |
|
Nick Smith (Minister for ACC) is basically claiming ACC has had a blowout of liabilities resulting from mismanagement of the board. He doesn't think they're being held to account for their actions, something he believes competition would correct.
Other people are saying that the recent increase in liabilities are as a result of the economic turmoil at the moment, and that comparatively to other international health agencies ACC is performing well. Go here for more: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-t...nd-the-reality
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is everyone so unhappy these days? |
19th March 2009, 13:51 | #90 |
Nothing to See Here!
|
Because in their worldview, not doing so is denying businesses the opportunity to make a profit.
|
19th March 2009, 23:10 | #91 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
What happens is that utilisation increases far more than the corresponding improvement in health in the population. This happens because too many people seek treatment they simply don't need. Normally, it takes several quarters for this type of problem to ramp up. Which, is exactly what has happened here. The end-game is that significantly higher premiums are needed for everyone, in return for which most people don't get anything. On the flip side, utilisation by people who need care to be free (the very poor) doesn't necessarily imporve significantly. In the worst of cases, people can't afford to get to the treatment provider, and so the fact they can't afford the treatment anyway isn't really the issue. Even tiny part-charges e.g. $5 are enough to help the people who are a problem to realise that the treatment isn't free. And, such modest part-charges don't really put off those poor that would have gone if the treatment was free. Perhaps an analogy is the need to charge a tiny amount for plastic bags. If they're free, lots of people want them. If they cost 10 cents then lots of people won't buy them, yet they get their gorceries home perfectly well - so they've not missed out on anything. And, anyone who can make it to the store can surely afford 10 cents for a bag if they really need it. I've seen this type of thing happen in the work I've done, both when ACC was open to competition, and in other lines of insurance. Also, this type of scenario really is covered in text books - it falls into the "really bad ideas" parts of the book. ACC is in a particulalry awkard position. They have staff (obviously) that fully understand the implications of doing things like this. Unfortuantely, they have to pander to politicians who need to worry about their image. And, "free physio" is going to be a vote winner. EVIL labor, and Saintly National are both telling blatant porkies about ACC at the moment. Really, it's a bit tiresome. |
|
19th March 2009, 23:17 | #92 |
|
They should just raise people's ACC levies based on their claim history, just like .. you know .. any other insurance company would be entitled (and expected) to do. People who want to damage themselves playing contact sports and jumping out of aeroplanes can pay a little more for the privilege.
|
19th March 2009, 23:39 | #93 |
|
Is it just me - or does GT turn almost every thread into a topic about his work??
|
20th March 2009, 00:16 | #94 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
20th March 2009, 20:33 | #95 | |
|
Quote:
or drivers, or junkfood eaters, etc,etc,etc
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
20th March 2009, 21:16 | #96 | |
|
Quote:
But yeah, people's ACC levies should scale depending on how much they're likely to wind up getting paid out to them. |
|
20th March 2009, 21:40 | #97 |
|
^^i agree....
im just hoping to get some input from the faux free choice/personal responsibility crowd. unlikely though, seeing as those particular self-destructive behaviors are 'normal'.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
20th March 2009, 22:14 | #98 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
20th March 2009, 22:15 | #99 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
20th March 2009, 23:15 | #100 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
21st March 2009, 00:18 | #101 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Hint: don't be surprised if someone talks about charity when he's the guest speaker at Philanthropy New Zealand's annual conference.
|
21st March 2009, 00:30 | #102 |
|
but you voted for them as a breath of fresh air, right?
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
21st March 2009, 03:03 | #103 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
I don't understand the question.
|
21st March 2009, 10:34 | #104 |
|
(while i admit that it's been real hard to keep the sulks at bay) im still blown away that people actually voted for these greedy fools, here and now.
i get your disgust with labour, but what was actually meant to change with national? they're not politicians, they dont want to run a country- just stack the deck so themselves and their mates get greater benefit-and ACT? jesus wept.*shakes head*when hydes libertarian pretensions extended to social and ethical considerations i could see the point in his oxygen quota, but c'mon- look at the fuck-knuckles that he's taken on board, and the compromises he's made to get in the job. you(Ab), among many others on this board seem to think obama is the shit-and that america should be proud of their adoption of redistributive,multi-lateral,ethically consistant leadership- and yet you condemned us here to its polar opposite for at least the next 3 years, probably 6 seeing as the standard disenfranchisement resulting from their 'fiddleing while rome burns' can be easily blamed on the Global Financial Crisis, and as our own intellectual,GT, has already pointed out, the prior administration. i guess it wasnt a question. just a disgusted noise.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
21st March 2009, 10:45 | #105 |
|
Reality check on chubby
|
21st March 2009, 11:03 | #106 |
|
Love the size changes.
Labour lackeys floundering, without being able to parrot Helen's lead = National doing GREAT so far. |
21st March 2009, 11:29 | #107 | |
I have detailed files
|
Quote:
|
|
21st March 2009, 11:31 | #108 | |
Raptus regaliter
|
Quote:
Eat that. |
|
21st March 2009, 11:43 | #109 |
|
with every post
the wingnuts make me feel vindicated. is there a grownup out of bed yet?
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
21st March 2009, 11:44 | #110 |
|
MR Key
"Imagine someone who used to give $10,000 to an organisation. "Now with the tax deductions, they get a third of that back. So they can give $15,000 and with the rebate, their net giving is the same. So there's tremendous capacity for New Zealanders to increase their giving." ----------------------------------------------------- Soo if Key gets $100 tax refund and gives $150 to charity, Government is $150 out of pocket, and Key is exactly where he was to start with, fuck your a clever cunt mr john key. |
21st March 2009, 11:54 | #111 |
|
You're.
|
21st March 2009, 11:56 | #112 |
|
didn't you get the meme?
|
21st March 2009, 11:57 | #113 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
21st March 2009, 12:02 | #114 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
21st March 2009, 12:05 | #115 | |
|
Quote:
Last edited by gentle : 21st March 2009 at 12:07. |
|
21st March 2009, 12:10 | #116 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
21st March 2009, 12:42 | #117 |
|
I love how labour supporters are wailing and waving their hands in the air with great big wracking sobs.
Many lolz. |
21st March 2009, 14:03 | #118 |
|
At least they're complaining about something with a little substance, unlike the past couple years of Nat supporters crying like bitches about retarded shit like 'nanny state'.
I love how people cry about things like ACC, which may be a bit abused, but provide an amazing service that society can more than afford to provide. We have probably a million more wasteful things in society that people should cut down on before something like ACC. Where's the harm in having extremely good coverage for once? They should do it with the entire health care system. Why not? Hell, why not education as well? It's one of the major flaws of capitalism that we hold ourselves back considerably from out potential production in these areas. The only people who it disadvantages are the wealthy who would save money getting private insurance. But fucking hell, if anyone should bare the burden it should be them. Not like they don't get more out of the system than anyone else. As for the Nat's so far. Well they haven't done anything atrocious as far as I know. But i'll be amazed if it lasts through an entire term. If it did I would be a lot happier about the NZ political system. I'd still prefer a Labour government, but if we could get strong solid long term thinking from both parties, then we'd be way ahead of most countries leadership wise. However, i'll give the NZ soccer team a better chance of winning the next world cup than that happening. But i'm open and it would be nice. Last edited by JP : 21st March 2009 at 14:05. |
21st March 2009, 15:34 | #119 |
|
Wouldn't life be more enjoyable if you didn't plan to spend the next 3 years sulking?
__________________
Weak hearts I rip. |
21st March 2009, 16:28 | #120 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
Look, I'll make it real simple. Key was guest speaker at the Philanthropy New Zealand national conference. He was addressing people who have commendably demonstrated a commitment to making significant donations to charity. He was speaking to people who donate lots of money. Key was saying "The new tax scheme is going to mean that you get a chunk of your donation back as a tax rebate. I would like to think that many of you will also donate that rebate to charity rather than pocketing it or spending it on useless shit, because at the end of the day you won't be out of pocket by any more than you are with your present donations, and that extra donation could really make a difference to some people." Wow, now I look at what I read, the guy is obviously the Antichrist. How could I have been so blind. |
|