VORB IS IN MAINTENANCE MODE You will not be able logon or make posts. We recommend you ride your bike in the meantime. [CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION]
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 11:47am Post subject: Possible Changes To Acc - Politics
Ok I'm going to talk about politics for a second. Sorry about that but i think this is a big deal for mountainbikers.
National plans to introduce privatised workplace insurance rather than just having ACC cover everything.I won't waffle on in too much detail but in Oz where things are partially privatised organisations have to get public liability insurance to cover events and since the collapse of HIH (the huge ozzie inurance company) lots of event organisers are having difficulty getting insurance.
As a group who like to hurt ourselves and like to go to events where we can hurt ourselves privatising ACC is a really bad thing.
Joined: Jan 28, 2003 Posts: 17,513 Location: Planet Claire
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 12:11pm Post subject:
National are planning to screw everybody over, except rich people. I'm in the demographic that would be advantaged by National coming into power, at least in terms of financial standing, - ie white male middle aged decent income- but I am sickened by the policy approach that they seem to be pushing.
Joined: May 20, 2004 Posts: 13,613 Location: looking out at Makara
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 12:56pm Post subject: Re: Possible Changes To Acc - Politics
JK2 wrote:
As a group who like to hurt ourselves and like to go to events where we can hurt ourselves privatising ACC is a really bad thing.
translation: I want the right to partake in a dangerous activity where other people who dont take part pay for my medical care
I agree that privatising ACC would be a very bad thing for NZ, but your MTB example appears selfish and self motivated rather than for the public good. either that or scaremongering
I have private health care because
1) i can afford it (it really isnt much, considering the state of the public health system at the moment)
2) I take part in dangerous activities and dopnt want to rely on tax payers to fix my mistakes.
Joined: Apr 25, 2003 Posts: 3,749 Location: Trying to slim down in NZ!
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 1:41pm Post subject:
Tama wrote:
The cost of workplace insurance in Australia has increased 24% since ACC was privatised.
From family experience, when ACC was privatised (under National) the first time, the insurance bill dropped considerably.
I struggle to see why partial privatisation is bad. It (in theory) should reduce costs as inefficiencies are removed and as long as ACC offers the insurance, at the same rates as currently, it should only go down.
Sure, it may be tough to get insurance for events, which means as competitors we will have to pay more, but we are the ones that are likely to go to hospital, why shouldn't we pay?
You're right it was over simplisitc. I think if we are going to talk about a privatised system and the public good it would be better to talk about the overall health benefits of having an environment where events can be organised and where people can take part in sport with the knowledge that if something goes wrong there'll be healthcare and support.
Joined: May 20, 2004 Posts: 13,613 Location: looking out at Makara
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 2:08pm Post subject:
JK2 wrote:
You're right it was over simplisitc. I think if we are going to talk about a privatised system and the public good it would be better to talk about the overall health benefits of having an environment where events can be organised and where people can take part in sport with the knowledge that if something goes wrong there'll be healthcare and support.
there will always be healthcare and support, what are you on about. The issue is who should pay.
If I knowingly take a risk, I should be responsible for the outcome, not you. With insurance that means if I choose to take part in mountainbiking events, i cover myself through the organisers insurance, which i pay for in my race fees. I should have to pay according to risk.
Thats how acc works now with regards to employers. Those that nake the biggest drain on ACC pay the highest percentage. As it should be.
If you are argueing the 'health benefits of mountain biking outweighing the cost to acc' then it is again, oversimplistic and missing a vital comparison. ie, can the same gains be made to societies health through less risky behaviour/activities. The answer is 'yes'. So again it comes down to who should pay for you choosing to participate in risk behaviour?
Joined: Apr 10, 2002 Posts: 10,326 Location: Talos IV
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 4:03pm Post subject:
ssipface wrote:
National are planning to screw everybody over, except rich people. I'm in the demographic that would be advantaged by National coming into power, at least in terms of financial standing, - ie white male middle aged decent income- but I am sickened by the policy approach that they seem to be pushing.
same. lets get a civil union
wait, I hate Helen too.
do you think Winston Peters and Peter Dunne would be our witnesses?
"there will always be healthcare and support, what are you on about."
that's not the case in the US where the system attempts to sheet home the cost to the indivual. from memory there are about 37 million people who aren't insured and aren't covered by medicare.
As for who bears the costs. I think the argument is about whether the benefits of sheeting home the costs to the indivuals outweighs the costs.
Some people seem to think that having to cover the costs of running lots of insurance companies is somehow going to be lower than the cost of running ACC.
Maybe cyclists should contribute to ACC through a small levy on bikes but then again the cost of administering that and the fact that we would all buy a frame and components rather than a bike etc etc make it pretty hard.
Joined: May 16, 2003 Posts: 8,474 Location: Coasting
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 4:11pm Post subject:
JK2 wrote:
"there will always be healthcare and support, what are you on about."
that's not the case in the US where the system attempts to sheet home the cost to the indivual. from memory there are about 37 million people who aren't insured and aren't covered by medicare.
As for who bears the costs. I think the argument is about whether the benefits of sheeting home the costs to the indivuals outweighs the costs.
Some people seem to think that having to cover the costs of running lots of insurance companies is somehow going to be lower than the cost of running ACC.
Maybe cyclists should contribute to ACC through a small levy on bikes but then again the cost of administering that and the fact that we would all buy a frame and components rather than a bike etc etc make it pretty hard.
Are you talking about ACC or the entire healthcare system?
You seem to be confusing the two a little.
Joined: May 20, 2004 Posts: 13,613 Location: looking out at Makara
Posted: Wed 14/Sep/05 4:21pm Post subject:
Dougal wrote:
JK2 wrote:
"there will always be healthcare and support, what are you on about."
that's not the case in the US where the system attempts to sheet home the cost to the indivual. from memory there are about 37 million people who aren't insured and aren't covered by medicare.
As for who bears the costs. I think the argument is about whether the benefits of sheeting home the costs to the indivuals outweighs the costs.
Some people seem to think that having to cover the costs of running lots of insurance companies is somehow going to be lower than the cost of running ACC.
Maybe cyclists should contribute to ACC through a small levy on bikes but then again the cost of administering that and the fact that we would all buy a frame and components rather than a bike etc etc make it pretty hard.
Are you talking about ACC or the entire healthcare system?
You seem to be confusing the two a little.
i agree with dougal
you appear to confuse the two. America has a health car system of hospitals and doctors, it is there. What you are saying is some people cannot afford to access it (ie pay)
NZ has a health care system (hospitals and doctors etc), we have a no fault public liability system called acc, if acc changes, that does not mean the hospitalsl dissappear into thin air. . . . .
so again, it come down to who pays.
i have not seen anywhere other than scaremongering internet pages where it says any political party is going to sparc ACC in its entirety and go to a compulsory insurance cover arrangement.
And if America doesnt have a health care system, where do sick Americans go for doctors and medicines?
And who pays for our system if not the individuals through taxes?
I think that started getting confused when Thorg started talking about health insurance.
I think when you are talking about individual responsibility for our stupid actions (my last one was a month ago when i broke my wrist and wasn't even going fast, was steep and slippy though) the two are intrinsically releated.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest ℗ 2000-2008 by Tama Easton.
Extra design ℗ by Scotty Lane and Nathan Whitley. Photos and written work on this site are property of their owners, do not use them for commercial purposes.
Developed for Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 and Mozilla Firefox 3.0
