|
5th June 2012, 16:51 | #1 |
Objection!
|
ACC clusterfuck
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10810873
Are these idiots that short of work? You would have thought after numerous recent privacy-related fuck ups they would, you know, get a grip and focus on that. Oh no. After the police and presumably the Crown Solicitors found that Pullar had made no threats ("no offence has been disclosed"), the wise thing to do is, at a minimum, shut up and go away.* WE CONSIDERED THAT A THREAT HAD BEEN MADE! Who cares what your staff "considered"? There was either a threat or there wasn't -- independent parties are saying there wasn't. Stop embarrassing yourself. * The decent thing to do would be to apologise to Pullar but that's too much to ask of ACC. |
5th June 2012, 16:53 | #2 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Yep, ACC seems to be staffed by devotees of the "if in hole, dig faster!" philosophy.
|
5th June 2012, 17:00 | #3 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
5th June 2012, 17:48 | #4 |
Stunt Pants
|
Public servants.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
5th June 2012, 20:23 | #5 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
5th June 2012, 20:25 | #6 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Have the public servitards in question misled the Minister then? Making Collins look bad does not strike me as a great idea.
|
5th June 2012, 21:18 | #7 |
|
lol at waiting months to make a complaint to the police. Coincidentally just after the whole thing blew up in the media.
ps . . .
__________________
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. |
8th June 2012, 14:59 | #8 | |
Objection!
|
O FOR AWESOME
Another breach:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10811664 Quote:
|
|
11th June 2012, 11:45 | #9 | |
Objection!
|
The LOLs keep coming
Caught out stone cold lying in relation to the so called "threat" issue and for telling another lie to Pullar.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10812163 Quote:
|
|
11th June 2012, 12:07 | #10 | |
I have detailed files
|
Quote:
|
|
11th June 2012, 13:39 | #11 |
Love, Actuary
|
Yep that's tin-foil hat stuff. What you're not aware of is what the big insurance companies thought of the basis National suggested a private market could be formed. It was a "you have to be joking" conversation.
Given that benefits are defined in law and that preventing accidents and aggressively providing care both benefit ACC insureds and the insurance company I just can't understand what precipitates the fear of privatization except perhaps the abject stupidity of those opposed who refuse to understand the motivations and needs of all parties. No private insurer would tolerate delaying treatment nor allowing an employer to have lapse safety - both cost too much money. A state insurer on the other hand is staffed by people who on the whole do not care enough about patient and policyholder outcomes. It's okay to have lapse safety and for it to take ages to treat patients since both of these allow ACC to get bigger and if ACC runs out of money it just tells the government to raise levies and everyone has to pay. The only real question is whether the profit a private insurer would require exceeds the human cost of the inefficiency of a state insurer. Profit is less than 5% of the premium and to me this seems like a tiny cost. The proof of what happens could be taken from what did happen in the year opened to competition. Employers were forced by insurance companies to introduce work place safety schemes or to pay extremely high premiums. Patients received care much faster than had occurred under ACC. ACC itself had to engage in a performance improvement programme and in fact eventually got to Silver under Baldrige. It's a pitty they didn't think to do this beforehand and it's a pitty they have since abandoned trying to improve. |
11th June 2012, 15:38 | #12 |
|
While we are putting on the tin foil hats, isn't the point when ACC starts going to real shitter for Pullar is after 2008 when National starts squeezing ACC? Isn't it National that said too many "healthy" people are with ACC?
I think privatisation and providing competition are two different issues. I've always supported opening the market currently monopolised by ACC to private sector, i.e. private insurers should be able to offer accident insurances along with ACC. However strictly privatising ACC won't solve problem cases like Pullar, when people need ACC money but weren't given. Strictly privatising ACC could make cases like Pullar even worse as long as ACC is a monopoly, because who else can they go to? Proper competition breeds efficiency, not simple privatisation. After opening accident insurance to competition, whether to further privatise ACC I think is an open question. Compared with e.g. energy retail market or banking, where state-own player can give the private players a run for their money, there is no obvious reason to further privatise ACC. |
11th June 2012, 16:12 | #13 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
For the type of insurance ACC is writing this is a very significant sum of money. If the state's involvement in ACC reduces then a large sum of money is released for investment in other activities. This release of funds is essentially what National is targeting. |
|
11th June 2012, 21:54 | #14 |
|
I'm not against privatisation per se, if the price is right and it would benefit consumers. What I'm against is pushing everything all at once. First liberalise accident insurance market, wait a few years and make sure the market is functioning properly. Then look at whether to privatise ACC completely.
If National want to fill the holes in the book, maybe they should just roll back the tax cut or raise new revenue like a capital gains tax (done right, not Labour's version) instead of selling assets that the general public aren't particularly keen on. |
12th June 2012, 09:00 | #15 |
Love, Actuary
|
ACC is a lot of money fast and with very little risk of anything going wrong - bear in mind outcomes are very highly likely to improve.
I'd like to see a proper capital gains tax too - being a tax on every capital gain say with an administrative cut off to stop the inefficiency of collecting trivial amounts of tax. I'm very against increased PAYE - it's time that everyone actually paid some tax and not just financially successful workers. It is an absurdity that home owners who pay no income tax at all (for practical purposes) can go ahead and make hundreds of thousands in tax free gains - these folk surely can afford to contribute to the tax take just like those that do. |
12th June 2012, 15:41 | #16 |
|
__________________
Carpe Diem |
12th June 2012, 15:45 | #17 |
Objection!
|
The CEO and the upper management should be next.
|
12th June 2012, 21:07 | #18 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
12th June 2012, 21:18 | #19 |
|
GT's reasoning is normally pretty well thought out. Unlike your partisan political responses.
__________________
Carpe Diem |
12th June 2012, 21:41 | #20 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
12th June 2012, 22:21 | #21 | |
|
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. |
|
12th June 2012, 22:30 | #22 | |
|
ie like last time
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. |
|
12th June 2012, 22:47 | #23 | ||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||
13th June 2012, 02:00 | #24 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
13th June 2012, 02:13 | #25 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Politics should come down to selecting one solution or set of solutions over another, but that's not what we have right now. What we have is one side having a set of potential solutions and one side attempting to undermine the system that lets you decide. |
||
13th June 2012, 12:34 | #26 |
Objection!
|
Goodbye Ralph Stewart
Let's hope you don't poison the culture of any other organisation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10812733 |
13th June 2012, 12:40 | #27 |
|
Bah-da Boom - Boom - Boom
Another one bits the dust.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
13th June 2012, 12:44 | #28 | ||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
||
14th June 2012, 14:19 | #29 |
I have detailed files
|
Has no-one posted the phantom Boag peeping pics from the live feed from Parliament? The noise on the radio this morning was that the reporter has a Twitter feed with a NZ suffix because his name is taken by a chap in England - a chap who was walking through the train station and getting tweets regarding the "Woman in red stalking him" and "Watch out for the woman behind the pillar". Much LOLs ensued.
http://twitter.com/#!/patrickgowernz Stuff article with vid |
14th June 2012, 22:16 | #30 | |
|
Quote:
That quote you had, whatever the source, does not say "liberalising accident insurance is bad for NZ". Taking it at face value, it just says the system ACC put into place to prepare to compete against private insurers were of no use to ACC once it becomes as monopoly again. That is like someone said "do project X", you pretty much finished X, but at the last minute that someone says "we are not doing project X anymore". All the sunk costs into project X is completely wasted because of that U-turn. |
|
15th June 2012, 08:47 | #31 |
|
I wasn't commenting on whether or not "liberalising accident insurance is bad for NZ". Rather I was looking at the risk/motivation of private insurers entering the market after what happened last time and what Labour have said they'll do again.
Looking at polls trends, ipredict and every political commentator I've come across; election 2014 looks like it's going to be close. As for Labour changing tack and doing the opposite of what they said they would do; yeah I guess that's a possibility in the wacky world of politics.
__________________
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. |