So Dr Nick Smith, if I should have a similar injury in the future (neck/spine) am I covered or will ACC say it is degeneration?
If I am not covered why am I still paying premiums as a 20 year old just because I am over 50?
Each of you (Nick Smith, Paula Bennett, Pansy Wong, John Key) have had emails which you either passed on or ducked for cover. “You now have a claim for “Treatment Injury” so it would be inapropiate to comment” You never made a comment worth more than a tin of shit anyway! This has cost me thousands of dollars not to mention the stress on my family.

Thomas the Unbeliever, I would like to talk with you. I will email DPF and see if we can get email going.
That’s if it is ok with you of course.

Steve

The best thing to do with those who are unemployed and don’t want to work (about 0.5% of the working age population) is to let them not work and give the jobs that come up to those that are unemployed and do want to work…

This is not going to change until we change; monetary policy, welfare policy or government spending policy…

See: Introduction to ACC

ACC was actually founded on Bismark’s social policy principles circa 1900. The Woodhouse review was a significant departure from the original principles and interestingly the German model is still used as a benchmark that other countries model from.

We (NZ) are alone in our implementation, possibly alone because it is mental to socialise a no fault system and possibly alone because it is a great idea to socialise a no fault system when you can ignore what it costs. We can’t ignore what it costs so we must just be mental to continue with our own unique twist on a well thought out and well used concept.

But my bet is that it won’t, and that Thomas the Unbeliever above is pretty much spot on.

One needs to be a clean work and accident funder and rehabilitator, and the other should deal with the much more murky business of social welfare. A “clean” ACC could then be a useful model for dealing with some aspects of social welfare in the business of rehabilitation.

One of the problem areas for both organisations is the way they treat formerly productive people who have succumbed to easily recognised lifetime diseases like stroke, MS etc. These people have purchased homes and are /were bringing up families when disease struck, yet they are tipped automatically into the hands of the much less well paying MSD.

Maybe we need a third way of looking at recompense and rehab, ie, scrap both organisations, cut the tax from both and develop a well run and monitored compulsory insurance scheme that treats everyone on their merits.. now thats radical!

JC

ACC clients are not beneficiaries – they are clients. Whilst ACC is not an insurance company (yet), its obligations to its clients are more comparable such a business than they are to MSD. The principal comparison between MSD and ACC is that both are controlled by government and statute.

ACC clients are forced by statute to forgo their right to sue and to pay their premiums to ACC (either directly via levies or indirectly). In return, they have recourse to the limited assistance of ACC, offered only on ACC’s terms and policies.

For those clients with easily defined and short term injuries as a result of trauma, ACC is often a great service. It sits behind the scenes as a funder of treatment – largely invisible. However, for those with long term or complex injuries ACC can be an entirely different beast.

Many clients find their struggle to rehabilitate/recover becomes secondary to their struggle with ACC to be treated with respect and fairness. I have a number of client’s who, after many years struggle, believe the greatest injury they have suffered is dealing with ACC – not their original trauma.

You need to look no further than the Giltrap decision to see the sort of injustice that can occur under ACC. Their decision to limit the assistance they offer is generally at the expense of the clients who have the greatest need – victims of complex or serious trauma.

It is interesting to see that in the recent decision in Vandy (which appears to overturn part of the Giltrap decision), ACC’s policy of doing what is best for ACC, rather than doing what is best for the client, has been challenged. It is hoped that the courts can continue to force some balance back into how ACC is administered.