|
3rd July 2008, 11:52 | #1 |
|
privatising ACC
what are people's opinion on the issue of privatising ACC?
(not in terms of Labour=good... national=bad, but just in terms of the issue itself.) personally i fail to see how making a $10billion public asset (ACC) private can have any benefits for kiwis. foreign insurance companies would love it though... and then of course there's the risk of them going out of business and people ending up with no cover. fuck it, national = evil
__________________
'[]' []-[] [] []\[] []< |
3rd July 2008, 12:03 | #2 |
Here be dragons
|
privatisation has always been a stupid idea imo.
__________________
Peace. |
3rd July 2008, 12:33 | #3 |
|
Already been tried, failed miserably.
Shit idea IMO.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
3rd July 2008, 12:36 | #4 |
|
ACC is a monopoly, they earn far greater than they pay out, hence why competition should reduce the levies paid by businesses or at the least provide lower levies to those companies with lower rates of workplace injury.
As it stands business A and B are in the same industry, business A has had no workplace injuries, business B has many, they both pay equal levies per employee performing the same function. The benefit I can see is lower levies for those companies who maintain safe work environments, whether that is via training or other means. The less people injured the better imo, injuries cost the tax payer. |
3rd July 2008, 12:39 | #5 |
|
Are they actually privatising ACC, or opening up the field to competition, ie so you can sign up with a private company for accident insurance instead of ACC?
|
3rd July 2008, 12:45 | #6 |
|
A friend of mine hurt her back at work, this large compan still for some reason doesnt use ACC, when i took her to A&E she filled out the acc paperwork whilst on morphine. This added a 2 week delay as ACC had to send the paperwork over to Care Advantage. She needed 6 weeks off work and physio etc, 4months later shes onl just reciving her 80% pay for the time she had off and is still awaiting the $400 in perscription fees she had to pay.
When she hurt her hand playing netball she had 1 day off and $80 of perscriptions, was paid by ACC in a little over a week. |
3rd July 2008, 13:00 | #7 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
You can't really believe exactly what Labour says or National says. Sometimes listening to some of the minor parties are better. |
||
3rd July 2008, 13:04 | #8 | |
Stuff
|
Quote:
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity. |
|
3rd July 2008, 15:57 | #9 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
3rd July 2008, 16:19 | #10 |
Pornstar
|
I thinks its a bad idea. Health care should never be a competition, we should always get the best care possible, if we are not happy with our service we need to change the service, I for one liked the service I received over the past 12 months from ACC...no complain of product happy to pay levy
__________________
Its Business time Last edited by Waldo : 3rd July 2008 at 16:23. |
3rd July 2008, 16:43 | #11 |
|
Horrible idea. Just take a look at the fuckup that is America's health care system to see that privitisation doesn't help anything. American's pay more per capita than anyone else, and have a terrible system, unless you're wealthy (which is the point). There's a time and a place for private companies and the game they like to play. That place isn't one involving health care. I'd put water, police and a few other things in there too.
I don't get everyone's obsession with privitisation 'competition'. Especially given NZ's track record with privitsation. Competition leads to lower quality at lower cost. Which is great in some situations. But not this. Last edited by JP : 3rd July 2008 at 16:46. |
3rd July 2008, 16:58 | #12 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
|
3rd July 2008, 17:20 | #13 | |
|
Quote:
..and lol @ Sp0nge. Couldn't even let one answer in before he trashed his own 'geniunely interested' question |
|
3rd July 2008, 18:32 | #14 |
|
It happened last time National was in power or so someone told me couldn't remeber much but apparently most of the big insurance companies have some sort of ACC cover type stuff ready to go the moment National unfucks the rules.
Also on a side note that compusory third party insurance that's effective in other countries that they want to do here is not the same I do believe what that insurance covers is damage to the person but not property damage, I think that's right I can't remeber the memo too well. |
3rd July 2008, 19:26 | #15 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
ACC was revolutionised by the need to compete. And, it's almost managed to keep it up all these years on. Sure, private companies made lots of money. However, premiums went DOWN and care was IMPROVED. Why? The first one is due to competition. The second one is due to the fact that if you fix people fast then they go back to work quickly too. |
|
3rd July 2008, 19:29 | #16 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
What the government is intending is to require everyone to have insurance for the property damage piece too. |
|
3rd July 2008, 19:33 | #17 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
A state insurer should be better. But, in the real-world this never works out. |
|
3rd July 2008, 19:36 | #18 |
|
I think it was made explicitly clear when this aired the other night that it wasn't privatisation of ACC, but opening the industry up to competition.
|
3rd July 2008, 19:42 | #19 | |
|
Quote:
/sarcasm Lew here makes a good argument. Rebut his logic if you can. NZ's ACC is the cheapest, most comprehensive and most efficient insurance cover in the entire world - why would we want to fuck with it? |
|
3rd July 2008, 19:56 | #20 |
|
Just because it is good doesn't mean it can't be improved does it?
so fuck up |
3rd July 2008, 20:00 | #21 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
3rd July 2008, 20:27 | #22 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
3rd July 2008, 20:28 | #23 |
Always itchy
|
Fitz, the very first thing that would happen if you offered different rates to different companies is that companies would try whatever they could to avoid reporting accidents or injuries. Why would they want to cost themselves more money if they can bully a staff member into lying that they cut their hand off over the weekend in the shed working on their boat, instead of at work on some dodgy piece of machinery with no safety guards.
Currently, ACC does not penalise anyone if someone injures themselves. They refer to themselves as a 'zero blame'. What you are suggesting is that ACC spend time to investigate the causeof each claim. This would increase their costs. Why do you want them forced to spend more money? (nb. This doesn't mean a company is not investigated if someone gets fucked up at work - but that's the Department of Labours domain, and that won't be changing either way). ACC already offer a discount on your levies, at 3 levels (iirc, it's about 2%, 4% and 8% but I can't remember exactly), based on a 2 yearly audit under the Workplace Safety Management Program. They have third party auditors come and look at things like what your doing to minimise hazards and control injuries, the training you're providing, and any 'extra' things you might be doing to help your staff out. ACC also put a lot of effort into trying to make sure they never have to help people. They provide training to companies, and things like outlines for them to put Health and Safety programs into place. They've put a lot of effort into 'keeping fit and healthy' initiatives such as ActiveSmart. I don't expect any of their competitors to do any of these things with their shareholders money.
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
3rd July 2008, 21:06 | #24 | |
|
Quote:
ACC's focus is not just profits.... insurance companies are only in it for the money. also, ACC covers everyone, from a baby to a granmother, those with an income and those without.... this can only work if the majority contribute to the same bucket.
__________________
'[]' []-[] [] []\[] []< |
|
3rd July 2008, 21:31 | #25 | ||
|
Quote:
enough. |
||
3rd July 2008, 21:32 | #26 |
|
I know as a geek group we find this mentality hard to follow (myself included of course) but maybe its time to use the "If it aint broke, dont fix it".
I'm quite happy with ACC. I've had to use them in the past and very fast turnrounds and very easy to deal with.. |
4th July 2008, 00:06 | #27 |
|
Im happy with ACC they have helped family members and friends.
Selling it is dumb. Making it private would mean its all about $$$$$. So then they will be some crooks trying to loophole and lawyer their way out. Last edited by Word : 4th July 2008 at 00:08. |
4th July 2008, 01:02 | #28 | |
|
I don't currently have the motivation to engage properly in this debate, but I am curious whether many here have read much of the academic literature surrounding the privatisation of ACC?
Quote:
|
|
4th July 2008, 04:33 | #29 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
Actually, there are more reasons to do this beyond profits. The vast majority of insurance companies (and other companies) have a social conscience. However, too few people here will believe this so I may as well simply observe that seeking profit leads to the behaviours some here attribute to the benevolence of the State. It is also lost on most here that ACC do run themselves as if they were a private insurer; to the maximum extent they can do this. For example, they do charge premiums that aim to make a profit. People who don't have accidents are profitable (obviously). Investing to reduce the number of claims is thus very definitely a good idea. Case in point, the private sector experienced roughly half the claim rate that ACC experienced in the period immediately preceding the year the market was open to competition. This didn't happen by chance. Private insurers introduced modern employer safety programmes (that many here attribute to the State); amongst a great many other things. Why? Because if preventable accidents are avoided then profits are bigger. People who are treated and sent back to work as fast as humanely possible have cheaper claims overall. If surgery is needed a private insurer will make sure this happens fast. This means that it absolutely makes sense to send people to private hospitals, or to do whatever else is needed to make sure that medical treatment is administered very quickly. Paying someone 75% of their salary whilst they languish in misery at home waiting for straightforward surgery simply is not very smart; it takes the likes of a government department to not notice this is dumb. Private insurers also compete on being able to get the premiums right. Many employers thus benefit from lower premiums. Under competition, insurers that don't invest to get this right end up with no customers ,or almost elusively bad customers; both are insolvency scenarios. The benefits are the same (they're legislated), treatment comes faster (speed is somewhat optional and so profit motivation becomes important), and the premiums are lower (for most people). To be clear, this means private is cheaper and better. Of course, I don't have to think too hard to imagine this. Since, this is exactly what happened last time. Some here will counter with "it shouldn't be", or "it won't be". And, if it's that twit on my ignore list there will be 200 pages of "evidence" supporting their position tabled (selected from for 10 million pages of facts showing the reverse). The straightforward fact is that "IT WAS BETTER". The only question is whether private SHOULD be better? Well, it shouldn't be. A State monopoly run as well as a private insurer would be better. Unfortunately, ACC is not allowed to run like this. ACC today is far better than it was in the late 1990s. There's no doubt about that. However, it's still not in the league of private insurers; not because they don't have the best people (there are great people there), this is all down to the reality of government trying to run this type of venture. Politicians tamper with and ruin so many things. ACC is subject to the same inane acts of political interference as everything else. Yes a no-blame 24/7 compulsory and comprehensive accident insurance scheme is a good idea. However, nothing is changing in this space, so we may as well ignore this aspect. Well, that my opinion anyway. |
|
4th July 2008, 04:41 | #30 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
This way, normal scientific method can be used to test the hypothesis being put forward. And, in this case, the work could then be relabeled and attributed to the fiction section of the library. |
|
4th July 2008, 04:45 | #31 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
4th July 2008, 06:42 | #32 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
4th July 2008, 09:27 | #33 |
|
Good argument GT. But you didn't really overcome any of the evidence and arguments supplied to the contrary. Still good to hear a decent argument from the other side of things.
Still. Doesn't really convince that this would be a good change. |
4th July 2008, 11:10 | #34 |
|
Ok this ones a question. If it does open up to private insurers. Will this lead to the 'best' insurance candidates being cherry picked by the insurance companies. Leaving ACC with mostly high risk people? Basically crippling it, and making it a burden on the tax payer?
|
4th July 2008, 14:08 | #35 | |
|
Quote:
the number of accidents is not as important to them as the number of claims. ...take car accidents as an example: many minor accidents never get reported because the Excess in the insurance policy always favours the insurance company...as does the no claim bonus etc...there are disincentives to making a claim. how often do you see insurance companies advertise that you shouldnt drink and drive, or smoke etc??? do you think they really care? lol they only care in terms of making more dollars. period.... and they are not going to spend as much as ACC on preventative education programmes. of course we all know GT has a vested interest after all, he works in insurance... and it is the people who stand to gain from privatising ACC that will be pushing that bandwagon.
__________________
'[]' []-[] [] []\[] []< |
|
4th July 2008, 14:29 | #36 |
|
The more I think about this, the more it seems that really the only people with something significant to gain are insurance companies.
I mean who cares if ACC makes a profit? We own it. All we'd be doing is giving some of that profit to aussie owned companies to take the money off shore. I think this will hurt National. And good. Not that I don't think they've got it in the bag. But you never know, more and more of this shit is going to come out. Though to be honest, I don't know if I can take another 3 years of retarded whining. Better to take the pain now and have labour back in next term and have people fuck up for a few years before they start whining again. |
4th July 2008, 14:51 | #37 |
|
Yeah, if anything was privatised, it would nice if they said only companies that have at least 50% NZ owned can apply. Of course that would narrow it down to ...... ACC
|
4th July 2008, 16:59 | #38 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
4th July 2008, 17:05 | #39 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
Really, everyone benefited. And, this improvement has stuck to some extent since ACC does its best these days to run efficently. So, the expectation is that it will be tough to make money this time around. |
|
4th July 2008, 17:11 | #40 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
A private insurer might make $5 profit on an $90 premium whilst still delivering the same benefits to the customer, and taking better care of their staff, and taking better care of the community and doing better by the environement. As a customer, which premium would you like to pay? |
|