Increasing ACC Levies (Again)

Forums › Off topic › Increasing ACC Levies (Again)

jonherries

1396 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#97594 17-Feb-2012 11:46

If ACC was full of inefficient money wasters, private insurers would be happy with the current levies, they could cut the waste an make money.

But apparently they aren't and so the levies need to go up so the private guys can make some money.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6436260/ACC-levy-hike-considered

It worries me when ideology moves so far ahead of common sense.

Thoughts?

wongtop

565 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582740 17-Feb-2012 12:16

Same with the asset sales. No real reason to sell the assets (the figures show that the profits forgone are likely to be greater than the interest saved), except for ideology.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#582745 17-Feb-2012 12:24

jonherries: If ACC was full of inefficient money wasters, private insurers would be happy with the current levies, they could cut the waste an make money.

But apparently they aren't and so the levies need to go up so the private guys can make some money.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6436260/ACC-levy-hike-considered

It worries me when ideology moves so far ahead of common sense.

Thoughts?

Absoluetly Ridiculous

There are private health insurers that compete against non-profit health insurers (eg, southern cross).

So isn't ACC just a non-profit insurance supplier?

The argument has traditionally been that private companies are so much more efficient than public counterparts.

Therefore it goes to say a private ACC supplier can use this added efficiency to drive profits.

If the private guys can't cut the mustard, then, they will not bother. Who cares? The consumer wins at the end of the day. It is not the governments responsibility to ensure private ACC companies make a profit. It's called commerce.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#582756 17-Feb-2012 12:46

surfisup1000:
There are private health insurers that compete against non-profit health insurers (eg, southern cross).

So isn't ACC just a non-profit insurance supplier?

The argument has traditionally been that private companies are so much more efficient than public counterparts.

Therefore it goes to say a private ACC supplier can use this added efficiency to drive profits.

If the private guys can't cut the mustard, then, they will not bother. Who cares? The consumer wins at the end of the day. It is not the governments responsibility to ensure private ACC companies make a profit. It's called commerce.

Southercross does not cover injuries cause by accidents etc..

In other words, if there was no ACC, Southern Cross could not exist as it is. So its hardly competition to ACC.

Southerncross basically offers you extra cover in areas where you are not already covered under the state health system

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#582785 17-Feb-2012 13:40

Cut ACC levies before the election.. post election BAM, put them back up! No surprises there.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#582795 17-Feb-2012 14:04

Ok, I'm not trolling I'm just asking as this has been going around my head for a while as someone close to me deals with ACC.

The idea of ACC is that if you are working and have an accident then it supports you back into work. That's great. But because the injury must result from an accident ACC spends a lot of time and effort trying to prove what happened to you was not an accident and is therefore not covered.

WINZ supports you if you get sick, or whatever else, and can't work and then helps you get back to work. Many people perceive that the support you get from WINZ is not as good as from ACC.

So, why not fold ACC into WINZ rather than duplicating services? There would be different agency to promote safety but the care recovery / function could be dealt with by one agency and no more fights over whether it was an accident or not.

My contention here is that the important fact is that you can't work and need help. Not how you came to be out of work and needing help.

Levies could be folded into normal company tax, it all goes to the same Govt Inc anyway.

The focus could then be on supporting people and getting them back to work; from accidents, sickness or whatever else.

Just wondering.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

jonherries

1396 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#582808 17-Feb-2012 14:16

I like your thinking, we talked about this last week at the RNZCGP conference (google the acronym).

Legislation is one thing, cost of services is the other.

Ever notice that access to ACC for services is heaps better than DHBs, or that you 80% of your weekly wage not the sickness/invalids benefit.

Worth considering why this is the case. Essentially ACC was a trade for your right to sue for recompense suffered at the hands of an accident.

Back to the discussion at the conference. I beleive there is lots of evidence suggesting that ACCs return to work services are extremely good, and save far more than they cost. The question is why WINZ isn't doing the same thing...

Jon

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#582818 17-Feb-2012 14:29

jonherries: Essentially ACC was a trade for your right to sue for recompense suffered at the hands of an accident.

But surely the really important part of that is negligence which should be handled by criminal law, accidents are just that ... accidents.

I think the idea of no-fault accident insurance from a State provider is a great idea. As you say it is about taking care of people and getting them back on their feet.

jonherries: The question is why WINZ isn't doing the same thing...

It really pains me to say this I think the sad answer is bureaucracy. Almost certainly good people forced to do awful thing for what seemed like good reasons a long time ago to someone who never worked on the front line.

Some of the stories I have heard about ACC administration are appalling.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#582851 17-Feb-2012 15:12

I think ACC is an ok system, not perfect, but is ok. We certainly don't want people suing others, as our courts are already full, and that is just work for jam for lawyers. We don't need more lawyers.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#582854 17-Feb-2012 15:17

BraaiGuy:
surfisup1000:
There are private health insurers that compete against non-profit health insurers (eg, southern cross).

So isn't ACC just a non-profit insurance supplier?

The argument has traditionally been that private companies are so much more efficient than public counterparts.

Therefore it goes to say a private ACC supplier can use this added efficiency to drive profits.

If the private guys can't cut the mustard, then, they will not bother. Who cares? The consumer wins at the end of the day. It is not the governments responsibility to ensure private ACC companies make a profit. It's called commerce.

Southercross does not cover injuries cause by accidents etc..

In other words, if there was no ACC, Southern Cross could not exist as it is. So its hardly competition to ACC.

Southerncross basically offers you extra cover in areas where you are not already covered under the state health system

I think you entirely missed my point. Southern cross is a non-profit health insurer competing against profit driven health insurers.

So why can't ACC be a non-profit accident insurer competing against profit driven accident insurers?

deepred

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#583043 18-Feb-2012 01:37

surfisup1000:

I think you entirely missed my point. Southern cross is a non-profit health insurer competing against profit driven health insurers.

So why can't ACC be a non-profit accident insurer competing against profit driven accident insurers?

I'm tempted to suspect that it's being deliberately set up to fail as an excuse to commercialise it, given the insurance industry's political ties. And Mattwnz is right that ACC isn't perfect, but the alternative is ruinous litigation as seen in the states. I hope litigation doesn't have to be brought back into a privatised workplace insurance to remind us of how bad things were in the first place, but some people in high places are too ignorant of the past.

Not too long ago, insurance companies were privately held co-ops, not unlike credit unions. Some industries are better suited to public listings than others, and the FIRE sector isn't one of them - one only has to watch Inside Job to see why.

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover

"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell

gzt

17148 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#583066 18-Feb-2012 08:30

crackrdbycracku: Levies could be folded into normal company tax, it all goes to the same Govt Inc anyway.

Well maybe, but at present there is a different levy for each occupation depending on risk profile and safety record, and of course it is per-employee and also applies to self employed people who may not have a company structure at all.

jonherries

I have dealt with ACC only once (and many years ago) and found them to offer a very professional service. I don't like the idea of integrating that with WINZ at all, my feeling is that it is just a different culture.

From a GP's perspective I can definitely understand why the idea would be attractive. As far as recovery is concerned I have no doubt the work rehabilitation services patients receiving ACC compensation are able to access are far superior and promote recovery far more effectively than those available to your patients receiving WINZ support for similar problems, and there are probably plenty more WINZ patients you wish you could refer to similar services.

It seems the government cannot decide if ACC is making too much money or too little. It is clearly an ideological approach. One of the original attempted justifications was that ACC was too expensive and private insurers could do it cheaper (which would just lead to problems imho). Most likely this latest thing is all just random kite flying and the next step is some relatively small changes to move the system more in the direction they would like it to go.