The levy increases are outrageous. It’s politicians reaching into the ordinary, hard working taxpayer’s pocket and helping themselves yet again so they can feel important about “doing something”. If ACC is insolvent let it fall over. Next year people can pay $0 in ACC levies and finally get a full appreciation of the value of a dollar.

I don’t think the scheme is being undermined. It is the previous management of the scheme that is being highlighted as lacking.

Liarbore produced exactly the results it wanted. Increase people’s dependency on the State.

Of course they never admit to this and the idiot media never thinks to investigate this as a way to explain this and other activities which all shared the same objective.

ACC achieved this very successfully and would have continued along that path had Liarbore remained.

The management of the scheme was therefore perfectly aligned with what their govt masters were directing them to do. It wasn’t the management, it was the governance direction set by Liarbore, the idiot media’s failure to alert the public and the profound ignorance of the reef-fish who blithely swam by, unaware of the wolf in their midst who was devouring their resources, bit by bit by bit all the while pretending it was only doing this cause it weallly weally cared about people.

If the 1974 Act principles were enforced there would be no fiscal blowout and governments would be forced to face up to the realities.

Thats the problem with the bad governance we are lumbered with in NZ. Pollies civil servants and vested interest groups all working (conspiring ?) to rort the tax payer at every turn.

[DPF: It is being saved. Unless you think the average household can afford to pay $47 a week more in levies]

According to the rate (7.42%), it is around twice as dangerous as logging (3.94%). professional sports players are employees, and their employers pays a very large whack.

Given the small population, I imagine that after a few years of injuries it would be fairly easy for ACC to work out the right levy so the income mets expenditure.

ACC needs sorting. A few basics….

1. No treatment is free. An 80% treatment subsidy could apply, with an upper limit of around $200? This nails many of those who use ACC just because it is free.

2. Narrow the definition of an ‘accidect’. Asbestos exposure is not an accident.

3. Lower the weekly wage payment, from 80% to 70% of income.

4. mental illness of any kind is not an accident.

5. Foreigners / tourists are not covered by ACC. Only those with kiwi residence are covered.

6. Sports injuries are not covered. You wanna break your leg playing soccer/rugby/etc, then you get private insurance. This could be built into club fees.

7. ‘High’ risk claimants will pay more ACC. eg, if you have more than 5 claims in a year, you must pay double. Or something like that.

8. Do not dabble in shares. Stick ACC cash in the bank.

9. Introduce competition – maybe, if the previous points do not work.

Surely they should carry their own accident insurance.

It is high time ACC was shaken up. I know a guy who is approaching retirement and does not have a physical job, but is an administrator. He is obese, and while just walking along, hurt his knee. Claimed a work accident on ACC.

There was NO accident – his obesity caused the problem.

Yet his doctor arranged a small op. on ACC, and he was advised that any recurring condition was ACC claimable.

To me, this is rorting the system.

OTU JK BE

That’s gd’s old NZ honour. Soon he’ll be able to upgrade to Grand Pasha gd.

I remember reading somewhere that when private competition was allowed in the forest industry, costs of ACC-type cover plummeted and safety shot up, because the private companies just refused cover to employers with bad records, putting them out of business.

Brian Fallow likes the welfare state, as he has written in defence of setting aside state money for future super (he must be in his 50s) as well as for state control of ACC.

The idea of surrendering right to sue in return for an ACC-type coverage makes a lot of sense, provided the Human Rights COmmission doesn’t try to allow people to sue as well as have ACC cover. But it makes even more sense when there is private participation in coverage.

OTU JK BE

On the upside, John Key boils eggs?

Alas it has been high jacked by politicans civil servants and the so called ‘healthcare industry”

All self interested and none interested in the basic tenents that formed its creation

Thats why the only solution is to go back to the 1974 Principles on which the scheme was founded and thru a transition period return to the original goals of the scheme.

this doesnt mean that innocent folks are caste off at vall. what is requires is a common sense( wouldnt that be a novel idea) approach to the reformation process.

Aint rocket science can be done is there is a will a capacity and a capability to do so.

OTU JK BE