ACC is now welfare

September 18th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Marty Sharpe at Stuff reports:

The number of families of suicide victims granted support from has declined since changes to legislation in 2010.

A woman whose daughter took her own life after suffering an abusive relationship said the changes meant surviving family were not considered victims.

The woman said her 21-year-old daughter took her life in Christchurch in November 2010. She left behind a young son.

The woman, now a sickness beneficiary and living in Wellington, had been struggling to pay the $7000 for her daughter’s funeral.

She sought help from ACC but was told the corporation no longer provided cover for families of suicide victims, unless the suicide was due to a mental injury caused by physical injury, sexual abuse or a work-related mental injury.

“I’ve got it [the funeral bill] down to about $4500 . . . It’s just been devastating. It really has. I don’t think people know what it’s like. Anyone in that situation needs all the help they can get,” the woman said.

Losing a loved one to suicide must be one of the most devastating things that can happen.

However it is not the role of ACC to fund funeral costs for those who kill themselves. The original intent of ACC is that if people get injured in an accident, they kept receiving their work income, and had medical costs covered.

If low income families are unable to pay for the funeral costs of a family member who has died, then the appropriate support should be via WINZ – and as I understand it there are such grants.

But we must change ACC from being a universal funder of everything bad that happens to someone, to what it was set up for.

 

Tags:

22 Responses to “ACC is now welfare”

  1. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Humans are given free will by God. It is not one’s place to take one’s own life – the Bible is clearly against this and considers it a sin. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for someone’s own bad decisions? If the mother is to do something meaningful, then she had better pray for her daughter’s forgiveness and salvation, but it is likely too late given that her daughter will be in hell for not receiving Christ as her Lord and Saviour, instead choosing to murder what God had given her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Good – it shouldn’t be funding things like that. It should fund work accidents and things that prevent people from earning. Not historical sexual abuse, suicides, and so forth.

    @Jimmysmiths – fuck off back to the Westboro church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tom hunter (4,898 comments) says:

    Jimmysmiths – fuck off back to the Westboro church.

    Ummm….. Brian? This guy is an atheist fanatic who’s trolling any thread for a bite from Christians. He got twenty demerits the other day but it looks to be a fetish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Jimmy is more a Landover man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Tookinator (221 comments) says:

    There are grants for funeral costs. I just got extensive data on these grants from ACC and WINZ under the OIA act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    ACC contributes to funeral costs when the death is from a workplace accident, and fair enough. But to expect funeral costs from a suicide is a heck of a leap into welfare.
    BTW, the state still funds what used to known as a ‘Pauper’s Funeral’ (probably some PC title now!) for people who die with no known familial ties and no assets, but this comes from WINZ, not ACC…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. JeffW (327 comments) says:

    “But we must change ACC from being a universal funder of everything bad that happens to someone, to what it was set up for”.

    Disagree – we should this branch of IRD down. I should be allowed to make my own decisions about insurance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    Just another extension of the whole touchy feely we can fix all your problems with taxpayer money theme.Rape psychological stress covered.Human rights ,equality blah blah……..
    Trickle becomes a flood and then we drown in debt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. andretti (130 comments) says:

    Before my fathers recent death he insisted on cremation and a home funeral,the total cost $2100,and IMO it was a very nice way to sent someone off.Why the hell should these people have a expensive funeral and then expect someone else to pay,its bloody outrageous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,839 comments) says:

    Entitlement runs amok among the populace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    Jimmy – give it up. You’re a devious bore.

    ACC = welfare. Yep, and we’re paying through the nose for it.

    Just had to pay for the registration on our car. $43.50 for licence fee, $198.46 for ACC.

    Absolute bollocks.

    How about a “no claims bonus”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Logic alert!

    Humans are given free will by God. It is not one’s place to take one’s own life –

    That free will can be a real bitch sometimes….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. BeaB (2,125 comments) says:

    And why do these families spend so much on a funeral if they can’t afford it? It has become almost as silly as expensive weddings. A simple family gathering with simple refreshments is all that is necessary. Get family and friends to chip in and help.

    Funeral directors know just how to maximise their profits by offering all sorts of extras.

    But I guess if you think the taxpayer will always foot your bills for you there is no incentive to economise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Manolo – the condition is called Entitleitis. It reached epidemic proportions in New Zealand between 1999 and 2008, and probably now has such a foothold that it will be impossible to completely eradicate. Other medical textboos call it Creeping Socialism Syndrome or Cullen’s Legacy Disease :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    jeff – hell yeah. Dime has no time for ACC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    I heard that some Samoan funerals run $100K. How is that possible?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Manolo (13,839 comments) says:

    Where are Labour lite plans to privatise ACC? What is the government doing about, other than increasing levies and fees all the time?

    We can blame the socialists until the end of time, but this weak government is not performing any different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Dave Stringer (188 comments) says:

    ACC should indeed stick to it’s name and be the ACCIDENT compensation corporation. It is good that we dont have thousands of lawyers living off suits for accidents, and us paying for them through insurance fees that would be much higher than ACC’s fees. It is not good that the concept of ACC has been dragged down to a level where injuries due to criminal acts may, in some cases, by compensated for by ACC and in others not.

    I don’t see a criminal act, be it a brutal beating of a 90 year old on the street or the rape of a 15 year old by a family member as accidents. Neither is something I could ever approve of, but the consequences should fall directly on the perpetrator and their family, not we the people (tax & levy payers).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. MT_Tinman (3,205 comments) says:

    How is sexual abuse an accident?

    Boycott the bastards until they get back to core business!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MT_Tinman (3,205 comments) says:

    Manolo (7,461) Says:
    September 18th, 2012 at 11:10 am

    We can blame the socialists until the end of time

    and I will.

    I also won’t forget that National, traditionally, are socialist inclined.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Reid (16,514 comments) says:

    But we must change ACC from being a universal funder of everything bad that happens to someone, to what it was set up for.

    In that case perhaps we need to bring tortious liability back, allowing people such as this parent to sue the person who committed the abuse. ACC imposed a blanket ban on torts through the Personal Injury By Accident (PIBA) concept, which was good and right. Who wants an environment like the US where tort suits are prevalent. No-one wants that, but if there are coverage gaps, as there appear to be, then surely restoring torts in those gaps, is sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Dave Stringer (188 comments) says:

    Another example of people who thing ACC is more than an accident covering mechanism.
    From today’s STUFF

    “Austin Manning was born with an injury that caused small areas of his brain to die. He is dependent on his wheelchair and a disability van to get around, and needs to be strapped into special chairs to sit up.

    His family have fought for four years to have his condition recognised by ACC, arguing that inadequate treatment in Tauranga Hospital immediately after his birth created his condition.

    But ACC says it was an inherited result of mum Helen Manning’s poor diabetes control during pregnancy, and so is outside the scope of its coverage.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote