Friday, October 23, 2009

Nothing to report

From Stuff:

The Government's clear intention to open ACC to private competition has driven a wedge between trade unions and the business sector.


Well, duh - that's what National does. Driving a wedge between trade unions and employers is one of their main reasons for existence. In this particular case, it's simply a welcome side-effect of their ideological war against ACC. But in terms of news, it's like reporting Jim Anderton wants to ban another drug - tell us something we don't know.

The real news in it is that Labour is vowing a "tooth and nail" fight over ACC. Really? They're going to move beyond desultory expressions of mild disapproval? Now that we didn't know.

18 comments:

dad4justice said...

Will the lovely new ACC offices that Liarbour built be drop in centres for useless union officals? I mean to say most workers are on $12/hr. The public is already a loser in my books, thanks to union parasites.
Talk about looking after your mates Mr Gaff. How much money do you get?

Anonymous said...

Competition...Choice...Freedom...Responsibility. All words guaranteed to strike fear and loathing into every loyal leftard's heart.

Mrs Danvers

Paracelsus said...

All the smoke and thunder about ACC ignores the underlying problem that the concept of comensation for "accidental" injury has created two widely separated tiers of heath and disability provision. Into which of the tiers an individual goes depends on often very arbitrary decisions by ACC officials.
Better to go for across the board health insurance.

Anonymous said...

Better to go for across the board health insurance

No you commie - better go for fully private insurance.

Zero compulsory payroll and ACC taxes.

Zero funding for public (aka Labour Party) hospitals.

People must be able to choose to buy their insurance. Or not. It's up to them. Problem solved.

Blair said...

"...ideological war against ACC"?!! You don't get more ideological than ACC! No other nation is stupid enough to have this sort of scheme, because it doesn't work. Perpetrators of accidents aren't held responsible for their actions, victims aren't given what they deserve, and innocent third parties are footed with the bill. If that's not insanity based on ideology I don't know what is.

Psycho Milt said...

...it doesn't work.

Yeah, I guess the decades of it working fine and PWC assessing it favourably compared to other countries don't weigh much against your personal dislike of it.

National's attempts to undermine ACC are based on them sharing your ideological objection to ACC as a concept, not on any objective problem with it. If they were simply talking about rolling back some of Labour's more unsustainable experimentation with it, I'd have no objection - but they're not, they're turning out propaganda with the deliberate aim of manufacturing a crisis. Fuck 'em.

Paracelsus said...

No, Anon 11:21, I too would prefer a totally private option, but realistically it won't happen. The best that can be hoped for is something on the German or Dutch model, with compulsory health insurance, with regulated private carriers, and subsidies for the very poor.
A reality that needs to be recognised is that no healthcare funding mechanism cna meet all the demands made of it - and this is where Obama will fail - there has to be rationing, but better the maybe hard-hearted but at least honest rationing in an insurance system than the disonest rationing that we see in New Zealand where denial of service is pretended to be on clinical grounds.
While on the subject the whole laboratory testing drama can be traced back to one crazy leftist idea - that medical laboratory tests should be "free". Free, of course, means overused and abused, a blank cheque against the funder, who therefore has to resort to bulk funding, leads to necessity for monopolies, to necessity for tenders, etc.
Better by far to have an open market, fee for service, user pays.

Sus said...

"Perpetrators of accidents aren't held responsible for their actions, victims aren't given what they deserve, and innocent third parties are footed with the bill. If that's not insanity based on ideology I don't know what is."

Silly boy, Blair. Don't you know that central planners always know best?

Shut up and pay for it!

Psycho Milt said...

Sus: the line

Perpetrators of accidents aren't held responsible for their actions, victims aren't given what they deserve, and innocent third parties are footed with the bill.

is just a noble-sounding spin put on

It keeps lawyers from making a killing exploiting other people's misery.

You believe on ideological grounds that it's important the lawyers should be left to cash in. The people who implemented ACC took a more sensible and pragmatic view (not that a view has to be particularly sensible and pragmatic to appear so relative to libertarian ideology).

Sus said...

"You believe on ideological grounds that it's important the lawyers should be left to cash in."

Interesting the way you see things, PM. I don't see it like that at all.

Rather, I know what's best for me (as opposed to an unaccountable central planner -- or yourself, for that matter) and I'd prefer to make my own decisions with my own money, thanks. I believe in voluntary arrangements. Guess I just have more faith in people than you do.

"Shut up and pay!" Such a polite sentiment, eh. Even a socialist can't spin that ...

Psycho Milt said...

I don't see it like that at all.

That you believe the noble-sounding spin is known to me.

"Shut up and pay!" Such a polite sentiment, eh. Even a socialist can't spin that ...

Nor the libertarian, who would make the person unwilling to provide for police, justice or defence forces "shut up and pay." Living in a society has its drawbacks.

Sus said...

Wow. So you don't deny that you think that you know better as to others' preferences. Both patronising & condescending to the extreme, that.


'Nor the libertarian, who would make the person unwilling to provide for police, justice or defence forces "shut up and pay."'

Not true. Voluntary means voluntary. Most people understand the common sense of reciprocity.


"Living in a society has its drawbacks."

How pessimistic! Surely you could only hold that viewpoint if you believe that you've been blessed with amazing powers of genius and know better than others as to what's best for them. It always comes back to that, eh.

Psycho Milt said...

So you don't deny that you think that you know better as to others' preferences.

Of course I don't know better than others what their preferences are. Only libertarians delude themselves that this is what the majority of people (ie, not just me but everyone not fantasising about the libertopia, commotopia or anarchotopia) believe.

Not true. Voluntary means voluntary.

In the libertopia, police and defence will be funded through donations, perhaps? No doubt the state will just "wither away" - you guys do remind me of commos sometimes.

Anonymous said...


Nor the libertarian, who would make the person unwilling to provide for police, justice or defence forces "shut up and pay."


Only in the NZ Libz policies. In a real libertarian state, yes, they would be funded by donations - or rather, paid for by those who wanted to pay for it.

In fact, even in NZ today, this already happens to a greater or lesser extent. People hire private police forces (OK security guards) who can carry and use firearms. Many many Kiwi companies reply on private mediation or arbitration services of one kind or another, rather than the state courts. This is what happens today. If the state (=Labour Party) police and state (= Labour Party) courts were abolished, these other mechanisms would flourish.

The point is: there's no reason for my taxes to pay for police chasing your burglars, or for courts dealing with your lawsuits.

Psycho Milt said...

Go and find an uninhabited island to live on - you're freeloading off our ancestors' labour, you bludger.

Blair said...

"Perpetrators of accidents aren't held responsible for their actions, victims aren't given what they deserve, and innocent third parties are footed with the bill.

is just a noble-sounding spin put on

It keeps lawyers from making a killing exploiting other people's misery."

No, it's what's really happening. What part of that do you deny? And how can you claim ACC "works" if these three factors are true?

Nor am I sure why you mention lawyers. Why would lawyers be involved? When cars are injured, it is rare to have lawyers involved - the problem is sorted out insurance company to insurance company. Why would it be different for people?

Psycho Milt said...

What part of that do you deny?

Deny? Not really - the first two probably do happen more than they would under a private insurance system, and the third is a natural feature of ACC.

And how can you claim ACC "works" if these three factors are true?

An argument characteristic of libertarians - "I've pointed out some imperfections of the current system, therefore the current system should be destroyed." It's not a good argument.

What you're saying is that ACC doesn't work because it fails to meet abstract, ideologically-defined moral criteria. However, on this issue, as on most others, there are contradictory moral abstracts. ACC's no-fault approach offends the libertarian's moral abstractions; however, a private insurance system would offend the socialists' moral abstractions, such as: it would be wrong to put accident compensation in the hands of people with a financial incentive to minimise or avoid paying compensation; it would be wrong to limit compensation only to those who could afford the insurance; and so on.

Private insurance systems' failure to meet the socialists' moral criteria doesn't mean private insurance is broken - no more does ACC's failure to meet your moral requirements mean it's broken. The arguments really should be made in pragmatic terms or not bothered with.

Nor am I sure why you mention lawyers. Why would lawyers be involved?

When large sums of money are at stake over a question of who's at fault, why would lawyers be involved? You know, I'm picking that it's not really as difficult to understand as you're making out.

Sus said...

And yet in spite of all your spin, PM, you cannot deny that a state monopoly demands -- such a sweet word -- that people 'shut up and pay'.

JC, on another thread, was spot on with his comment that ..

"The assumption that only the State can get it right is too ludicrous for serious discussion."