Postby Tama on Fri 19/Dec/08 10:17am

iodi wrote: I am often surprised - and somewhat bemused - by the ferocity with which some people assert one extreme or the other. Yet when presented by evidence that is contrary to their assertions, the response is usually either denial or personal attack. An occasional robust counter-argument would be a better response.

Personally, I just care about what works. Sometimes that is public provision, and sometimes it is private businesses competing.

Ditto

I wouldn't call ACT pre election propaganda evidence of anything , an independent audit from a company such as Price Waterhouse Coopers would be a better place to start: http://www.acc.co.nz/DIS_EXT_CSMP/idcpl ... nterrupt=1

My feeling is that the social returns from our current the ACC scheme in New Zealand are very valuable, especially for people such as ourselves who like to take personal responsibility for our actions with regular risk taking.

That ACC is a "no fault" service we have cunningly avoided the huge litigation industry which exists in other countries. Independent organisations such as OSH/ the Police etc. investigate accidents when it appears that someone else may of been at fault.

So while we whine about OSH the alternative of retarded lawsuits and nervous land owners shutting down access to anything and everything is far worse. I see ACC as part of this important Kiwi cultural phenomena of "shit happens".

It might be possible to separate the too but I start to get nervous when profit and loss is brought into the picture.
Tama
User avatar
"Come on Ruthie let's dance"
Member for: 15 years 10 months

Postby dhroadie on Fri 19/Dec/08 10:54am

+1 Tama.

Joel - of course minimising embarrassment is a factor, as it is with all things. But it's a whole lot easier to beat up a taxpayer-funded organisation than it is to beat up a private company whose main priority is making money for its shareholders. I guess I'm unfortunate in that I work for Dept where the thousands of successes are regarded as business as usual, and every mistake is front-page news.

Iodi and phunk, I deal with the media on a daily basis, so feel reasonably qualified to comment on the public's widely-held view that Govt departments do their best to make everyone's lives as difficult as possible.

Keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel better. Sure there's waste, same as there is everywhere. But the thing to remember is Govt departments are audited for waste more than just about anywhere else, as the public and the media will seize upon any whiff of unnecessary spending faster than you can say CERA.

But hey, what would I know, I'm just a wasteful, paper-pushing, feet-on-desking, ignorant, worthless, bureaucrat*

*copyright J.Key/T. Ryall 2008
dhroadie
User avatar
Member for: 11 years 1 month

Postby iodi on Fri 19/Dec/08 10:55am

Tama wrote:I start to get nervous when profit and loss is brought into the picture.

Your ideological bias is showing there :0

I agree that having a comprehensive, no fault, non-litigious accident compensation scheme is generally a Good Thing. Essentially my main point is that it doesn't necessarily require having a public monopoly.
iodi
User avatar
"I like dolphins"
Member for: 9 years 1 month

Postby Slim on Fri 19/Dec/08 11:07am

Tama wrote: I really wonder where this obsession with:
public institutions = wasteful and inefficient
private institutions = productive and efficient
comes from.



Mostly it comes from experience ;)

We do work for government agencies, it's awesome. They spend $450k on tender documents and feasibility studies to make sure they are getting value for money out of the $200k capital works project. Three companies tendered, all tenders were between $195k and $210k they could have paid us all, had one company do the work and still saved $50k
Slim
Member for: 14 years 2 months

Postby Tama on Fri 19/Dec/08 11:13am

Slim wrote:
Tama wrote: I really wonder where this obsession with:
public institutions = wasteful and inefficient
private institutions = productive and efficient
comes from.



Mostly it comes from experience ;)

We do work for government agencies, it's awesome. They spend $450k on tender documents and feasibility studies to make sure they are getting value for money out of the $200k capital works project. Three companies tendered, all tenders were between $195k and $210k they could have paid us all, had one company do the work and still saved $50k
The terrible irony is I'm sure the 3 tender process has been put in place by the government to make sure they have their arses covered if the public/ opposition/ media decide to take interest.

The last tender process I was involved with ended up with the contract being awarded to the company which flew the middle management to the most conferences/ fancy dinners.
Tama
User avatar
"Come on Ruthie let's dance"
Member for: 15 years 10 months

Postby Tama on Fri 19/Dec/08 11:15am

iodi wrote:
Tama wrote:I start to get nervous when profit and loss is brought into the picture.

Your ideological bias is showing there :0
That I don't believe a focus on profit will always deliver the best outcome for everyone involved in every situation? :eh:

Welcome to 2008 ;)
Tama
User avatar
"Come on Ruthie let's dance"
Member for: 15 years 10 months

Postby iodi on Fri 19/Dec/08 11:18am

Tama wrote:
iodi wrote:
Tama wrote:I start to get nervous when profit and loss is brought into the picture.

Your ideological bias is showing there :0
That I don't believe a focus on profit will always deliver the best outcome for everyone involved in every situation? :eh:

Welcome to 2008 ;)

I don't believe that either.
Meanwhile, I've given up on 2008 - bring on 2009!
iodi
User avatar
"I like dolphins"
Member for: 9 years 1 month

Postby scatter on Fri 19/Dec/08 11:23am

Have a read up about the goings on in Australia regarding jockeys and insurance.

Makes me very very glad that my accident happened in New Zealand under the ACC system :)
scatter
User avatar
"The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook"
Member for: 14 years 9 months

Postby Kazmeistyr on Fri 19/Dec/08 11:31am

Tama wrote:The last tender process I was involved with ended up with the contract being awarded to the company which flew the middle management to the most conferences/ fancy dinners.


That's business. No different to politcal parties "tendering" for your vote with "policies".

I have to do this sort of thing with my clients at times, whereas others are satisfied by supply a good product and basic service. Others are even grossly offended by any attempt to "bribe" with freebies etc. I like these ones!
Kazmeistyr
User avatar
"has the power of Greyskull"
Member for: 14 years 1 month

Postby philstar on Fri 19/Dec/08 11:41am

Slim wrote:
Mostly it comes from experience ;)

We do work for government agencies, it's awesome. They spend $450k on tender documents and feasibility studies to make sure they are getting value for money out of the $200k capital works project. Three companies tendered, all tenders were between $195k and $210k they could have paid us all, had one company do the work and still saved $50k


that is cos the difference between government and private , private just has to financially isolate themselves from the consequences of the tender not being up to standard but the government needs to deal with the consequences of there contractors messing up big time and then going bust. So they have to make sure things are dun right (which can be more expensive than doing them).
philstar
User avatar
"misanthropic"
Member for: 11 years 7 months

Postby j2hyde on Fri 19/Dec/08 1:14pm

iodi wrote:
j2hyde wrote: Private accident insurance for work cover combined with legislative standards does provide strong incentive for employers to increase OSH standards in the workplace. Evidence is unequivocal on this.

Yes, but would the incentives be stronger with a bit of competition?


Yes. That was my point.
j2hyde
User avatar
"I'm not for that. I'm for the ladies."
Member for: 12 years 1 month

Postby j2hyde on Fri 19/Dec/08 1:33pm

dhroadie wrote: +1 Tama.

In defence of bureaucrats etc...

*copyright J.Key/T. Ryall 2008


Govt departments do not contribute to GDP growth.

Sure you need essential services, planning etc to facilitate growth but this should be limited to services that provide a demonstrable economic benefit - which can be benchmarked and independantly audited. Too much bureaucracy is just rebadged welfare.

Can anyone provide an example of a country that benifits from having large govt bureaucracies that operate non essential services without competition?
j2hyde
User avatar
"I'm not for that. I'm for the ladies."
Member for: 12 years 1 month

Postby dhroadie on Fri 19/Dec/08 1:51pm

Does health provide a "demonstrable economic benefit"?

Worth remembering that the annual operating budget for the Ministry of Health is less than 2% of the money set aside for health in the Budget.
dhroadie
User avatar
Member for: 11 years 1 month

Postby phunk on Fri 19/Dec/08 2:03pm

you missed the non essential part.
phunk
User avatar
Member for: 13 years 7 months

Postby j2hyde on Fri 19/Dec/08 2:08pm

Health does indeed provide demonstrable economic benifits. There is ample justification for both public and private activity in the health sector.

Where to balance that mix will always be debatable. However a monopoly (status quo for some forms of health insurance) will always be suboptimal.
j2hyde
User avatar
"I'm not for that. I'm for the ladies."
Member for: 12 years 1 month

Economy | National Politics | Politics | Sifting - Latest Posts

Who is online

64 Users browsing this website: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], michael, oldandlazy and 58 guests

REMEBER TO CLICK THE LINKS WHEN BUYING FROM VORB SUPPORTERS


  • Vorb Shop
  • Wiggle
  • Chain Reaction Cycles
  • GT Bicycles
  • Merlin Cycles
  • ProBikeKit
  • Torpedo7