ACC Cuts

As someone who has lived in both the US and Singapore, I must say the reporters did not do a good job of reporting the true situation in both countries. For basic medical treatment, a Singaporean goes to a polyclinic. There, you can wait for hours to see a doctor who rushes through your case because of the patient backload. In the US, such occurs only for the very poor. If you have medical insurance, the wait in the US is long, but not comparable to the wait in Singapore.

Our hospital wards are divided into different categories, where the poor can stay in a place with 8 beds in a room, all separated by thin screens. When we were warded in an American hospital, we had a private room, even though our income at the time was much less than in Singapore.

There are arcane rules governing how you can use the government sponsored insurance. A relative of mine could claim nothing for a prostate cancer operation because he was discharged from hospital after a short-period of time (two days)- even though the bill ran to tens of thousands of dollars. In the US, our child was fully covered for everything including special immunizations, because the state of Atlanta had a law mandating insurance companies provide comprehensive coverage for children.

Our local insurance is in no way as comprehensive as in the US. Insurers here only cover the “36 major illnesses.” If you have some other illness, it’s not claimable.

The poster who described the different treatment between rich and poor was right. I would invite the reporters to (for example) visit the Kallang Kerbau Hospital (KKH), where the divide is very stark. This GOVERNMENT RUN HOSPITAL has two gynecological waiting areas. One for the poor, which is crowded, and where waiting times are long, and one for the rich which is comfortably decorated, with short queues, and many more nurses.

Singapore only take care of the rich. The compulsory saving mention is this article fail to comment that most singaporean could not afford the medical care in the island and the buzz here among locals is that it is cheaper to died in singapore than to fall sick!

cleaning things up for privatisation...

I am sure there are plenty of areas ACC can be made better but I have no faith that is the intent of our govt

To blame National for wanting to be realistic about what can be afforded when the culture has been one of letting costs run amok in recent years is pretty cunty.

I don't think anyone is blaming national for any budget over runs or ineffiencies in the current scheme - we just don't trust them NOT to privatise ACC

Every single part of our state services could be run better, this will always be the case.

Without access to physio services, we will end up with more people in hospitals with worse injuries or less productivity due to people off work.

are you suggesting we dont have enough lawyers already?

No it would move us even further towards a lack of self responsibility society.

My mum was in Florida recently and a guy where she was staying went for a walk. During this walk he walked into the tow arm of a trailer that was slightly encroaching the foot path. He was demanding a nights free accommodation for the bruise on his shin or he would sue.

meh, open your eyes and harden the fuck up.

Personal injury claims will benefit insurance companies and lawyers and to be honest id prefer the physios were ripping off the system rather than the lawyers. Company tax from insurance companies and income tax from lawyers doesn't make up for the fact it is non productive spending.

wasn't ACC set up so that we didn't end up with the sue sue sue culture...

Sure it has fundamental faults in the lack of responsiblity taken by some etc etc etc... but its considered good for the very reason you're bagging it JH - it doesn't discriminate

As probably the biggest user of ACC here, all I can say is: the system is perfect. I've been to physios many, many times. Sign some forms, get the claim done, used to be part subsidised, now it's fully subsidised. Awesome.

As good as Auckland lab testing USED to be. No delays, no problems.

you're exactly the sort of person I'm talking about!!

why should I have to pay for your treatment?

I also object to the ACC system as a question of principle

for cars, houses and other property, individuals can elect to insure, or take the risk, an din the case of damage to said property, bring a claim in the Disputes Tribunal or civil courts for damages

our courts are not flooded with such claims because people either have insurance, or they can not afford to pay a lawyer, or they do a cost/benefit analysis and decided it's simply not worth it to bring a claim. they simply get on with life.

I see no reason in principle why personal injury should be treated any differently to other forms of damage/loss

why should I have to pay for your treatment?

err because it is very easy to value a car or house (or the damage to one) but a lot less certain on measuring and fixing a human. What cost for emotional harm and how do you independently value it?

Its a concern that you dont see a difference, are you not aware of the retards in the states who abuse the system to get their cash... i mean, day in court?

I was in seattle and san fran recently and it was unbelievable what lengths they go to so prevent culpability (not injury just culpability). Every time we got on and off the bus they warned us to look at the steps, use the handrail and take care as we got on and off... you just know that the one time they dont point out the obvious theyre going to get pinged as someone takes the opportunity for easy street.

You should not be able to profit from an injury except in the most extreme cases.

So in australia we don't have anything like ACC.

I know of a women that slipped at a supermarket and broke their leg and were unable to work. Unable to work for a significant amount of time, and as a result had no income for that period. Months on, she was still in legal proceedings with the supermarket for compensation (the whole time without an income) and this was causing major stress to her and her family. It was disrupting her sons school work etc, and the whole time the government did nothing.

This would never happen in NZ. ACC would have sorted her out straight away.

Justhanging, you're just a fucking blood sucking lawyer that would do anything to introduce more waste into the system so that you as a lawyer and your insurance company buddies can get a drink out of the whole system.

ACC is the most effective, efficient system there is. Fucking with it is driven only by ideology not pragmatism.

Opening it up to competitors is the stupidest idea ever. The only logical result will be less coverage.

She could have had income replacement insurance neil and it prfobably would have rewarded her more handsomely than ACC and for longer

PLUS

the insurance company could have gone after the supermarket if there was an issue of its negligence saving her a bundle in legal fees

I've read plenty of reports about the limitations of ACC and its tactics to avoid paying out

tweaking the system to make it more efficient as to outcomes is not fucking with it

Fucking with it is driven only by ideology not pragmatism.

...lawyer that would do anything to introduce more waste into the system so that you as a lawyer and your insurance company buddies can get a drink out of the whole system.

ACC is the most effective, efficient system there is.

I agree. While there is wastes in the system now it is a pretty brilliant one conceptually. They've just gotta tinker with details. The cost could only go ever go up if it were made into one where lawyers/court were involved.

Wow, that's pretty mean spirited!

If i have to pay for ACC the next time i strain a muscle in the gym, i'd like to see sedentary people who eat takeaways and sit around on couches have to pay an additional tax for the strain they put on the health system!

what a load of crap

you obviously haven't dealt with the misery of the ACC system, with all of its failings and inadequacies

ever read the books of ACC appeal decisions? guess what - people have had to pay lawyers to appeal ACC decisions, and to fight ACC to obtain what will only be a pathetic entitlement

so our current system has to involve lawyers anyway, due to the intricacies of the ACC legislation

you guys are living in dreamland and/or speaking from inadequate knowledge

what a load of crap

you obviously haven't dealt with the misery of the ACC system..

ever read the books of ACC appeal decisions?...

so our current system has to involve lawyers anyway, due to the intricacies of the ACC legislation

there sure are a lot of knee-jerk reactions in this thread!

Frankly you always think that when people disagree with you.
.

Defending the legal industry's intentions in this sort of industry as not being predominantly money driven is laughable. It got no more credible than arguing negligence claims lawyers in the states in the 80s were doing it out of compassion for their fellow man. They may have worked and done lots of good - but they did it just because there was money in it.

Situations where lawyers will have opportunities to enter the fray will only end up some finding the sweet spots for making money - which is part of the reason ACC was set up to avoid.
t.

I see ACC as an extension of the public health system - which i support.

JH, please point me to a country where privatised medical insurance plus personal injury lawsuits has led to an effective, efficient accident rehabilitation scheme?

Drop the bankrupt line - it's a complete red herring and Smith should never have raised it. ACC has always been "technically insolvent" because it's a Govt backed entity.


I just want an example of where accident rehabilitation is well served by the right to sue model? So we can look at how it works.
Because the right to sue models I've seen, and the state in NZ prior to ACC, was that the process to achieve compensation is involved, difficult and not particularly fair.

The problems I have with right to sue:
- The administrative costs of the system are much higher. Prior to ACC these were estimated to be 40% of the total system, as opposed to 10-15% now
- It explicitly requires an often long-winded approach to determining legal fault before any compensation is paid/rehabilitation is undertaken
- It distorts access to rehabilitation - the wealthy or savvy are much better placed to undertake legal action than the poor or stupid.
y.

Just to doublepost here - the problem we're facing with ACC is the cost of the provision of the services. ACC is proven to have very very low admin costs.
Opening the work account to privitisation does nothing to fix that - in fact it ADDS cost in terms of the profit ROI that insurers would have to extract.

If we want to limit the costs we have to limit the services or the prices of the services. That's nothing to do with the structure of administation of the scheme itself

- the basic notion of tort law (justice) that the wrongdoer should pay for the consequences of their unlawful actions

JH

I dislike my money being spent on prisons and rehabilitation programmes; I would rather recidivist offenders were shot. This would undoubtedly reduce the corrections budget. Why should MY taxes go to pay for some P-fiend's meals? I'd rather it paid for his bullet.

However, I accept that this is not a commonly held view.

ACC encourages us to be ACTIVE. Money spent rehabilitating my injuries is money spent on outdoor sporting activity, which we almost all agree is a "good thing." Why should you be angry of that when you have no problem with legal aid (which is also paid by my taxes), which goes to people who do "bad things"?

And they do. The government pays the victim through ACC, and the government then fines the wrongdoer.
.

only in the case where a criminal offence (as opposed to a civil wrong) has been committed and the government decides to prosecute

that's only a portion of cases - where a company say has breached a particular statute

err im not so sure about that OSH inspectors can issue instant fines to both employees and employers. I believe there is further scope for prosecutions.

Just to clarify a point - i said that personal injury law promotes *even less* self responsibility.

On a slightly side note, one thing i do like about ACC is that it doesn't set the employer/employee at such odds. An independent investigator will ascertain the level of culpability of each of the parties and rule accordingly. Quite often fining both parties. This wouldnt happen so much in personal injure cases i believe. Any culpability is discounted off each side after legal fees. With ACC there is an incentive for both sides to continue to work together where possible.

I accept there are exceptions.

Also there are a number of cases where damages are awarded though they are fairly paltry usually.

ACC hardly encourages personal responsibility - for example, you could be really careless, and get injured all the time, and keep getting unlimited ACC cover

Many people are motivated to change behavior and adopt rehabilitative and preventive practices, because of the pain of disability and injury, and because of the knowledge provided by physios who treat them through ACC.