General Debate 15 March 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment65

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (65)

Login to comment or vote

mickysavage

Good article in the SST this morning about ACC.

Some of his points:

1. The fund managers were performing extremely well. They made a profit this year! How good can you get.
2. Smith keeps using the scary 2014 figures even though it is almost inevitable that the year to achieve full funding will be pushed out to 2019. I do note however that David Parker’s attempt to introduce a bill to achieve this was vetoed by the Government.
3. The “blowout in liabilities” involves predictions about what will happen over many years in the future. It is always a movable feast. They do not need to be immediately funded and no doubt the predictions will change.
4. Our levies are bargains by international comparisons.
5. In terms of rehabilitation ACC’s performance is still better than Australia’s and is among the best in the world.

This is a PR campaign to discredit ACC and the previous government and intended to undermine something that is working perfectly well. Why is it that the nats have to destroy every single collective entity no matter how well it is working?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 8:24am
expat

The SST – the font of all truth (if you’re an idiot).

LOL!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 8:34am
getstaffed

Things that are “working perfectly well” tend not to demand more resource for poorer results.

Unless the definition of “working perfectly well” is really emptying the pockets of those who earned the money and placing it in the government greedy hands, whereupon it can be wasted on various socialist programmes.

We’ve been there. The people voted. And we’re now trying to undo the damage.

mickey, cuba is ready for you. off you go.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 8:47am
gazzmaniac

Why should somebody have to deal with the government when they get injured? I would much rather deal with a lawyer who would deal with an insurance company – and as the private sector can usually move a lot faster than the government you will get your (much larger) payout quicker.
Plus I like the idea that you could sue a doctor who stuffs up – it puts them in the same boat as most other tradespeople.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 8:54am
peterwn

SST – Interesting that for the last several weeks SST has been giving copies away free at the Sunday am fruit and veg market in Wakefield St, Wellington. Presumably SST claims readership on account of this giveaway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:03am
AG

Expat,

“The SST – the font of all truth (if you’re an idiot).”

I don’t think it is very nice to call DPF an idiot when he is allowing you to comment on his blog. Have some manners, expat. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/02/sst_also_calls_for_matthews_to_go.html

gazzmaniac’

“Why should somebody have to deal with the government when they get injured? I would much rather deal with a lawyer who would deal with an insurance company – and as the private sector can usually move a lot faster than the government you will get your (much larger) payout quicker.”

Assuming (1) the person who has injured you has insurance; (2) the cause of your injury is clear (i.e. liability is not disputed); (3) the insurance company isn’t represented by a law firm that plays hardball in the hope you’ll agree to settle for less in a quicker time.

“Plus I like the idea that you could sue a doctor who stuffs up – it puts them in the same boat as most other tradespeople.”

And pushes up their malpractice insurance premiums, thereby adding to the overall costs of healthcare.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:05am
expat

AG – You’re a knob. Now run along and buy your copy of the SST, it is after all your source of domain knowledge.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:15am
Ruth

I hope you folks bought US bank stock like I suggested here a week or 2 ago – I’m up 65% on one of them already!

Told you they are not going to be nationalised – they are still way cheap too.

Enough of the doomsaying, I say 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:18am
bobux

More evidence that the SST is modelling itself after the more cringe-inducing British tabloids is found on the front page

He’s a failed politician and a convicted liar – and now Jeffrey Archer is making the absurd claim that Kiwi icon Sir Edmund Hillary wasn’t the first man to conquer Mt Everest

Are we just a little over-sensitive or what? Hard though it may be for the SST to realise, but it entirely possible to write ‘what if?’ stories about Mallory without it being a calculated insult to the national pride of Godzone. Instead of fitting this non-event into a couple of paras on page 37, we are treated to the a full-on attack on the vile slanderer who dared write a work of fiction (clearly described as such) about Mallory. And some insightful analysis of the Britich national character by noted psychologist Graeme Dingle

He said Archer’s interest in portraying Mallory as the first to the summit was motivated by wounded English pride at having being beaten by a colonial. Err, right. He told you that, did he? If not, you’re speculating about a man you’ve never met. And wasn’t Hillary part of ‘British Expedition’, and widely admired in the UK?

How did New Zealand develop the hyper-sensitivity to criticism and capacity to sulk that is normally confined to teenage girls? And will we ever grow out of it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:24am
expat

Theres an analogy here somewhere – ACC, criticism, outcry by commie idiots…

Ruth, Short UBS and Credit Suisse.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:34am
AG

expat,

“AG – You’re a knob. Now run along and buy your copy of the SST, it is after all your source of domain knowledge.”

Merely pointing out your apparent hypocrisy in saying the SST is rubbish when it prints something you don’t like, but remaining silent (or even praising it) when it prints something you do like. Sorry if this is so upsetting that you need to resort to personal abuse (which usually indicates an acceptance the argument has been lost).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:48am
dad4justice

“you need to resort to personal abuse”

AG; I wonder if the new PM will call kiwi’s “feral inbreds”? I hope the entire Labour Party falls in an old mine shaft this week . A good Coaster NEVER forgets!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:50am
expat

AG,

I do not accept anything you have proposed above.

I did not agree then disagree with the SST.

I hope this helps you understand the context of my comments and that this clears up your apparent inability to understand why I described you as being a knob.

I do withdraw that description without reservation.

kisses and cuddles.
me
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:56am
Komata

gazzmaniac

As one who had to administer the old Worker’s Compensation Act, (which ACA/ACC replaced), on behalf of an insurance company, may I respond to your comments?

‘A lawyer who would deal with an insurance company’

In theory this was a good idea – except that inevitably the lawyers profitted ahead of the injured-worker client.

Under the WCA, the procedure was as follows: The injured worker-client would employ a lawyer (specialising in WCA cases, of course) who would lodge a case for ‘lump sum settlement’ for injury against the employer.

The court case would take a very long time to be heard and processed (in some cases years) and in the interval the injured worker got nothing – he had no income and couldn’t return to work until the case was setled. (The lawyer, of course, was charging by the hour!)

If in the end the client-worker had his case refused, he lost both the case and his income, and then had to pay the lawyer (who, as noted, was still charging by the hour).

And ihe case was lost, then there was always the option of an appeal, and lawyers were never slow in suggesting that that option be followed. . .

If the worker won his case, and because the lawyer was charging by the hour, then he could loose up to 3/4 of his settlement in to his lawyer in respect of fees.

In addition, if the worker won his case, he did not actually get his settlement ‘cash in hand’.

Experience had shown that if this happened, the worker ‘blew the lot’ in short order and was back in a state of poverty very quickly.

The solution was to pay the settlement money to an insurance company and compel the worker to come in once a week to pick-up his entitlement, with the enttitlement being based on the amount of the settlement monies remaining after the lawyer had taken their cut, divided by the length of time (the years) the worker would still have had as a productive worker if they had not been injured.

This was very humilating for the worker and very difficult for the insurance company employees, and it was noticable that many of the injured claimants became very belligerant when they came in to pick up their ‘allowance’.

Those who profitted from all this were the lawyers, who could charge like wounded bulls, and the insurance companies which would take their ‘administrative fees’ for ‘services rendered’.

The ones who lost were inevitably the injured and, collaterally, the insurance co. staff who had to put up with the emotional stress of dealing with the claimants on ‘collection’ day.

The WCA did not of course cover any other injuries outside the workplace and as a result, the ‘general public’ missed out – sports-persons especially were unable to be compensated if they were injured while playing, so they too were ‘out of pocket’, to say nothing about the loss of productivity in respect of man-hours.

The Accident Compensation Act, which replaced the Workers Compensation Act, was intended to remedy this by taking a ‘no blame’ approach and so remove the need for lawyers and the consequent gouging of the injured claimants in respect of fees ‘for services rendered’

It was also intended to make financial compensation for injury as universal as possible so that anyone who had sustained an injury as a result of an accident could be adequately compensated and not be economically disadvantaged.

At the time it was introduced, the ACA was, I understand, a world leader, but with time, and various governmetns, (to say nothing of basic human greed on the part of some clients who found they could ‘work the system’ to their financial advantage), things have inevitably changed and beauracry and political agenda’s have conspired to stultify what was potentially an extremely good idea.

‘The private sector can usually move a lot faster than the government’

Personal expereince indicates that this is not in fact the case, and that insurance companies are extremely reluctant to part with any money they have and would really prefer not to if at all possible. They will quite happily TAKE your money, but to give it back makes a Limpet seem positively generous!

Insurance companies are, after all, there to make money and to give it back goes completely against tthe grain, so therefore, if they can avoid, evaid, obscure or delay they will – and do, with the industry noto being ‘We will pay, but only if we’re forced to’. Small print on insurance policies can contain a lot of ‘avoidance’ clauses!

‘You will get your (much larger) payout quicker’

Sadly, you will only get as much as you are entitled to (frequently a lot less) and then as just noted, very reluctantly. The small print on any insurance policy is more important than the large and its amazing what can be ‘found’ (conveniently) to avoid a payout – there is ALWAYS an ‘out’ clause buried somewhere. And then of course there are various ‘costs’ which can appear at all stages for all sorts of reasons. A bigger payout? Sadly, I don’t think so – it just doesn’t seem to work that way. Profit is all, and a payout means just that little bit less for the shareholders, so. . .

A nice idea, but sadly, not a reality.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:09am
Inventory2

mickysavage said “Good article in the SST this morning about ACC.”

Of course micky – you just fail to mention that it is penned by one of the most biased “journalists” in the land!

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/03/oram-on-acc.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:11am
reid

Heard a guy who owns a California investment company on RadioLive’s excellent Sunday Business (12:00-1:00) last week, say there are many banks in the US not affected by the toxic debt issue because they prudently stayed completely out of that market. Together those banks have several trillion in deposits. The banks that were affected are the big ones. The reason the market’s tanking is that the market knows the TARP funds are not going to address the issue and this is clearly self-evident – there has been no improvement. What Obama needs to do, he says (and what Obama shows no sign of doing), is to nationalise the larger banks, fire all the senior management who got them into this in the first place, and direct those banks to start lending again.

Meanwhile, the Fed still refuses to reveal who got the TARP funds. As some of us know, the Fed is NOT a publicly owned arm of the US govt, it’s a private for-profit corporation. While the Fed refuses to reveal its ownership structure, it’s almost certain that the larger banks are some of its major shareholders. Read this article here as to what this means: foolish big banks absorb the wiser, smaller ones, using taxpayer money.

Meanwhile Bernanke, instead of saying something rational, argues that one way to help these large banks is to change the accounting rules so they avoid booking the losses.

The problem with the banks isn’t all the crappy securities and loans they’re loaded up with.

It’s not that they took on too much excessive risk, lending against assets whose value is plunging.

It’s not that they funded asinine private equity deals, stupid commercial construction deals, and dumb home purchases.

It’s that they have to mark their book of securities made up of these bundled loans to market. And they argue that the prices they could get for those securities in the markets are “artificially” low — or in some cases, that there is NO market for them.

If only they could avoid marking those assets to market, or use their super- duper net present value and cash flow MODELS — which, surprise, surprise, say the “real” value of those securities is higher — then the banking system would be fine. We could all go back to the wonderful world of yesteryear.

There’s just one problem …

Pretending Something’s Worth More Than It Is Doesn’t Change Reality!

Meanwhile tent cities for middle-class homeless people are springing up all over America.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:11am
AG

expat,

On a lovely, sunny Sunday morning, who could get mad with you?

K&C back,
AG
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:12am
AG

Komata,

Nice to have some institutional memory on this issue. Your recollections reflect why the Woodhouse Report thought ACC such a good idea. I don’t think that fundamentally has changed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:16am
wikiriwhis business

“Enough of the doomsaying, I say”

Ruth,

Exactly right

America needs all the investment it can get.

If international investors thought like you enmasse, the downturn would be over next week.

Strangely, no one seems to be biting…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:19am
wikiriwhis business

“Meanwhile tent cities for middle-class homeless people are springing up all over America.”

Thanks for that post Reid.

Made me completely understand the issue.

Right wing backed elitism bought down the US and the Bush administration allowed it to happen by not regulating those upper echelon institutions.

The neo cons definitely helped inflame the situation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:25am
expat

No one is disputing that the ACC concept is not a good idea.

The woodhouse report was also based in figures that showed ACC as being sovent did it not?

Almost everyone is saying that the status quo ACC is a pile of dog sick
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:34am
reid

Right wing backed elitism bought down the US and the Bush administration allowed it to happen by not regulating those upper echelon institutions. The neo cons definitely helped inflame the situation.

Well corporate elites also give lots to the Democrats wiki. This is one reason why I’ve said for years both sides are wrong. Obama’s team is populated by people who will perpetuate the situation. One thing some don’t yet understand is that wealth is never destroyed in a depression it’s merely transferred.

We’re seeing a situation whereby that transfer is being facilitated by the Federal govt using taxpayer money and the media is not revealing it.

Draw your own conclusions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:47am
reid

On another note, what do people think about the proposition by Dr Vaknin that Obama is a pathological narcissist?

Hope he’s wrong, but imagine if he’s right.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:57am
mickysavage

Komata good comment.

I wonder why anyone would trust the Law Profession to deal with anything promptly and efficiently.

After all they do handle dispute resolution in the US and its health related costs are twice ours.

And the local civil courts are so good at finalising matters quickly and efficiently arn’t they. Who wants to wait for a couple of years while a decision concerning coverage is litigated?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:57am
Brian Smaller

mickysewage – for the amount I pay in direct ACC levies and via car rego I could have a gold plated insurance scheme. ACC has done nothign for me and will be a drain on my wallet for years to come. Probably wont affect you because you stick your cloth cap on and bicycle down t’mill right comrade?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:07am
expat

No one wants to wait a couple of years to have a health insurance claim litigated.

The problem seems to be that ACC alongside universal superannuation is a social utopia that the demography of NZ cannot support.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:08am
Redbaiter

“Right wing backed elitism bought down the US and the Bush administration allowed it to happen by not regulating those upper echelon institutions.”

I dunno if you’re merely being facetious in an attempt to make a joke of Reid’s obsessive, left wing propaganda driven hatred of George Bush, or if you’re deadly serious.

If the latter I suggest you watch this video, and then tell me if you still agree that it was mainly down to the Bush administration, or that they are as Reid claims “both wrong”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

For those without the ability to watch videos, its a short clip on the Bush administration’s attempts to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac because they saw the impending danger of massive financial melt down, and how they were prevented from doing so by the Democrats.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:19am
expat

Cigar boy Clinton setup freddie and fannie.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:24am
grumpyoldhori

Expat , you mentioned office workers, you mean like the idiotic types that we in S&R had to go and get because the idiots could not read a map and injured themselves in going off the track.
Before you state office workers cost ACC sod all, check what they do on the weekends, a lot a involved in sports that cause a lot of injury.

So you believe the Australian workers comp to be cheaper for employers ?
Since they use insurance companies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:25am
reid

For those without the ability to watch videos, its a short clip on the Bush administration’s attempts to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac because they saw the impending danger of massive financial melt down, and how they were prevented from doing so by the Democrats.

So RB how do you explain Spitzer’s allegations that the Bush Administration tried to shut down all those State Attorneys General’s investigations into “predatory lending practices.” You recall of course the controversy over Bush’s attempted firings of those said Attorneys-General. Was that all just a coincidence?

?????????

BTW, now that Bush’s execrable term has ended, I’m content to let the history decide if he was indeed the worst President in history. Obsessive left-wing-driven propaganda is not what I’ve based my conclusion upon, rather, it’s just pure, plain, simple logic and facts…..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:30am
expat

Like rugby players and netball players and trampers?

Yeah there is that cost as well, good point.

I personally believe the ACC concept is good however the current setup is broken and some fixes are needed.

‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ is as much of a crock as the party war cry that trying to improve ACC is akin to BBQing babies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:33am
reid

P.S. for those who don’t want to read the article, here’s the relevant extract:

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York’s, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
ad_icon

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:36am
expat

and George didn’t stop the spruikers fleecing the hicks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:40am
Redbaiter

“Was that all just a coincidence?”

Its all just left wing produced bullshit. Worthless.

Fucking Washington Post???

Fucking Eliot Spitzer????

For chrissakes what the fuck is wrong with your head? I wouldn’t waste my time reading, least of all refuting such a poisonous discredited source.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/005697.html

Do you live in a fucken bubble somewhere??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:44am
reid

So no answer apart from “it’s not true because it doesn’t fit into my ideology” then RB?

That’s what The Greens do.

P.S. I can’t be arsed debating ideology RB, my posts stand on what they say. Either debate facts or STFU.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:49am
Redbaiter

You asked me “to explain allegations made by Eliot Spitzer”.

I’ve got far better things to do on Sunday than deal with such worthless shit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:52am
reid

You said Bush tried to regulate to prevent the GFC, I gave a relevant counter-example which shows his intent was quite to the contrary.

What about that is hard to understand?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 11:59am
Redbaiter

You think that is what it shows.

Anyone with a clue would know it as bullshit. Again- Eliot Spitzer and the Washington Post are sources I would never validate with serious criticism.

You need to be far more discriminating in who you quote. If you seriously think information from sources like that is going convince me or any other informed reader, you need your head read.

That you appear to be completely ignorant of widespread disdain for such sources is the real problem. As I have already said, it suggest you live in some kind of bubble.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:08pm
TimG_Oz

This is very funny. Until you realise it’s going out to children.

”The 10 best clips on Middle Eastern TV” – with links to each:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/03/1dial-113-and-t.html

1) Saudi cleric: Mickey Mouse must die!

2) Luckily the Jews took care of him

3) A children’s teddy bear pledges to join the Mujahedeen

4) The tragic martyrdom of the Hamas bunny

5) Tom and Jerry: the international Jewish conspiracy

6) Kill the Danes, says the Hamas bunny

7) Jurassic Park: another international Jewish conspiracy

8 ) Kuwaiti TV: Homosexuals should be tortured in public squares

9) Dial 113 and turn in your brother:

10) Harry Potter and the Ziono-Hollywoodists
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:08pm
Jack5

New topic for a second if I may…

Radio news today has worry warts going on about bullying in schools. They obviously want social workers to monitor it and generally counsel every kid into a coma-like state of subjection to PC authority.

If bullying is really such a problem here are two ways to stop it quickly.

1. Restore corporal punishment in schools. Let teachers give bullies a taste of what hurt feels like.

2. A still better solution. Introduce boxing, judo and physical activity into schools. A small kid who can use his fists for self-defence can quickly line up a bigger bully, and similarly with judo throws. Sorting out the problem for themselves enhances self-confidence, which itself deters bullies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:08pm
TimG_Oz

Jack5 – One problem I see with option 2.

What if they also teach the bullies martial arts? Then it’s the big kids who will do the throwing, and then argue their just doing what they’ve been taught to do!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:15pm
Redbaiter

Agree Jack5.

A major part of the problem is single child offspring, simpering whining insufferable narcissistic little arseholes closeted in cotton wool by obsessive mothers (and fathers) and therefore easy meat for bullies.

Too many of them too, grow up fully fledged socialist morons and or drug addicts and clog up the comments on Kiwiblog with their attention seeking drivel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:17pm
Ryan Sproull

Tim,

I suspect that often the kind of self-discipline and respect found in martial-arts training is just what a bully needs to stop being a bully.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:17pm
reid

You need to be far more discriminating in who you quote. If you seriously think information from sources like that is going convince me or any other informed reader, you need your head read.

RB, I never imagine that anything that doesn’t fit into your pre-determined ideologically-driven world-view is ever going to convince you. Everytime you respond to something like that your standard response is: it’s not true because it comes from lefty media.

That’s totally fallacious and as I said above, it’s exactly what The Greens also do. It’s rather surprising to me that you don’t apply your considerable intelligence more in a scientific dispassionate objective way, for as we all know, that is much more likely to reveal the true facts of any matter. If those facts happen to lead you somewhere that’s surprising, then I always apply Conan-Doyle’s dictum: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

I realise you probably think you already do that but if you do, then why is it that your main line of attack is usually to attack the source rather than the material allegations?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:17pm
Ryan Sproull

If those facts happen to lead you somewhere that’s surprising, then I always apply Conan-Doyle’s dictum: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

That was Sherlock Holmes, you IDIOT.

.

.
.
.
.
.

How awesome would it be if someone said that? That would be awesome.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:19pm
Christopher

That was Sherlock Holmes, you IDIOT.

That’s funny whether or not you were being facetious, but for different reasons 😀
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:20pm
Redbaiter

“Material”.

????

Utter crap. Washington Post and Eliot Spitzer are partisan left wing liars and cannot be trusted one iota. That you apparently don’t know this Reid is remarkable. Stop wasting my time and get up to speed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:21pm
Ryan Sproull

That’s funny whether or not you were being facetious, but for different reasons.

Heh heh, yeah, you’re either laughing at me or near me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 12:26pm
jcuknz

>>expat (2147) Vote: 1 0 Says:

March 15th, 2009 at 11:08 am
No one wants to wait a couple of years to have a health insurance claim litigated.

The problem seems to be that ACC alongside universal superannuation is a social utopia that the demography of NZ cannot support.<<<

The basic problem is not that New Zealand cannot afford it but rather the whinging selfish right wingers don’t want to pay their share of it and so push the silly idea that NZ cannot afford it. Of course we can afford it if we want it and it is largely money going around in circles as opposed to something actually being paid for. I have managed to avoid lawyers for most of my life, even my brother-in-law, and sincerely hope that this continues, they are a scourge on decent society.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 2:31pm
Rex Widerstrom

Brian Smaller says:

mickysewage – for the amount I pay in direct ACC levies and via car rego I could have a gold plated insurance scheme.

One would think that. But while not defending ACC’s obvious inefficiencies – it’s huge bureaucracy being the most obvious – living in a state where we pay private premiums we get exactly the kind of mess Komata describes above.

Each year I pay around $400 to the government insurance commissars to cover me in case I drive my car into a crash barrier, lamp post, power transformer or some other inanimate third party owned object. Not another person’s car, mind, just an object. Then I have the choice of paying for third party or comprehensive insurance. My old banger costs me another $400, but if I had something newer it could easily be twice that.

If someone without third party hits and injures me, my insurance company will chase them for the cost of repairs or writing off my car. But I have to hire a lawyer to sue them for the costs of my treatment (starting with $400 for an ambulance ride to the hospital) and rehablitation. Bad luck if they’re on the dole with no assets.

Then as a business person I have to pay around $3000 a year in public liability insurance. That’s for a small film & TV operation… but you never know when someone is going to trip over one leg of your tripod I guess. Then there’s Workers’ Compensation Insurance, to cover the occasional contractors we use – in case one of them slips over while working for us and sues… that’s another $1000 since we’re not in a high risk occupation and don’t employ people full time (which, if we did, would attract payroll tax – a huge disincentive to employ anyone, especially in a downturn – but that’s another story).

If we were a manufacturing concern, say, or a shopping centre, both those insurances would be astronomical and keep getting more… astronomicaller… every time there was a claim. “Falling over a slight unevenness in th floor tiles in a shopping centre” is becoming the new boom occupation.

In order to get anything paid, people have to sue one another which is an unpleasant process (except for the lawyers, of course). For instance a young couple left their then 6 year old daughter with friends to babysit. The girl freely admits that she was playing with matches with the other children, set herself on fire, and received terrible burns to her legs.

Three years later she’s still undergoing treatment, so her parents have no option but to sue their (former) friends for the ongoing costs, thus adding trauma upon trauma for both parties.

Gold plated? If you’re talking about the lawyers’ BMWs, you’re right. Otherwise it’s an expensive, litigious and unfair mess.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 3:11pm
reid

The basic problem is not that New Zealand cannot afford it but rather the whinging selfish right wingers don’t want to pay their share of it and so push the silly idea that NZ cannot afford it.

Really? See, I’ve noticed personally that most of the debate here over the last week or so has centred round the wise use of the resources rather than the refusal to allocate them in the first place.

See it appears to be a fact, unmistakable, blatant and self-evident, that the lefties fucked it up, big time. Apparently, the lefty idiots either knowingly or mistakenly allowed ACC to become untenable.

That’s not surprising to me, since I have seen it all before. Lefties appear to imagine that money grows on trees and no amount of reality-checking can make them think otherwise. I know it’s really utterly fucked-in-the-head, but there we are. Why anyone with a brain larger than a peanut supports them, I don’t know.

Opinion is divided on whether lefties do this because they’re evil social-engineering bastards who want people to become dependent upon the govt, or whether they do this because they’re just plain fucking stupid idiots who live on planet moron. However, no-one can deny that they do in fact do this. All the time, so they’re either evil or they’re idiots, there is no third alternative.

That’s the basic problem, jcuknz, and I’m not surprised you don’t see it yourself, given the fact that you appear unable even to select a decent pseudonym, unless of course you’re Polish.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 3:36pm
AG

Rex,

“But while not defending ACC’s obvious inefficiencies – it’s huge bureaucracy being the most obvious …”

Yes, ACC is large. Yes, it is made up of “bureaucrats” (i.e. public servants). But is there any evidence that it performs more inefficiently than a similar sized organisation in the private sector? After all, the 2008 Pricewaterhouse Coopers report into ACC’s costs and benefits didn’t say so.

“See it appears to be a fact, unmistakable, blatant and self-evident, that the lefties fucked it up, big time. Apparently, the lefty idiots either knowingly or mistakenly allowed ACC to become untenable.”

Or, alternatively, the world financial markets may have tanked, thereby throwing everyone’s financial predictions/planning out the window. Unless the “lefties” also were responsible for the problems of AIG et al?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 4:00pm
wikiriwhis business

“and then tell me if you still agree that it was mainly down to the Bush administration, or that they are as Reid claims “both wrong”.

I will watch that vid when I can Red

I am curious as to why US political analysts across the board don’t publicise this info, instead just labelling Bush as the worst ever US president.

Are only the leftist commentators asked for their opinion?

But what can you tell me is even one point where Bush improves the US economy?

it seems there is not one place where America benefitted from his administration
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 4:13pm
reid

“everyone’s financial predictions/planning”

Leaving aside the fact I was telling my family and colleagues about the looming GFC 4 years ago, it was evident what was happening to most people with access to data 18 months ago. In January last year the US economy started showing the media started talking about the first visible signs of stress and that was foreshadowed six months beforehand by the data.

The fact business and media people here didn’t pick it up then says more about their leeming-like behaviour than anything else. If the politicans and the Treasury didn’t then they don’t know their jobs. If the politicians didn’t talk about it during the election cycle, that doesn’t mean they didn’t know.

And the fact is, Liarbore committed significant spending programs during the time they should have known.

Face it, they’re either liars or they’re incompetent. Take your pick.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 4:13pm
Nomestradamus

Reid:

Leaving aside the fact I was telling my family and colleagues about the looming GFC 4 years ago…

You should get a room with Philu and share your predictions (sorry, couldn’t resist) 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 4:22pm
philu

and the ones that really both suck and blow..

are our local business ‘experts’/commentators…

http://whoar.co.nz/2009/howwhy-the-financial-media-thereand-here-both-sucks-and-blows/

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 4:31pm
dad4justice

Oh look, phool has linked his insane blog again!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 5:06pm
philu

how was your friend in the sky this morning..?..d4j..?

(speaking of ‘insane’..)

..still believe in the tooth fairy..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 6:06pm
dad4justice

At least my God is not a bong.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 6:26pm
Adolf Fiinkensein

I can’t resist wondering whether phil pheels phoolphilled by all this idle chatter?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 7:37pm
Atheist1

your God’s not doing much for your situation though is he Dad? You’ll have to pray harder. He’s not listening mwah mwah mwah
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 7:56pm
Ryan Sproull

your God’s not doing much for your situation though is he Dad? You’ll have to pray harder. He’s not listening mwah mwah mwah

Dude, did you just kiss D4J three times?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 8:23pm
dad4justice

Ryan, don’t make me make you cry again and can I suggest if fugley tried to kiss me three times then I suggest you call an ambulance to assist the demented lickspittle. Toss the Holy grenade.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 8:28pm
wikiriwhis business

Here’s two key paragraphs to Reids link from Elliott Spitzer who was mayrtered for this truth

“What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye. “
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 9:20pm
getstaffed

There was a comment or two on OOS on another thread today. My comment below is probably more appropriate here on the general thread.

I noticed a comment about using wrist supports to help prevent the onset of OOS. I speak with some conviction of this… as I am right handed but must now use the mouse in my left hand as a result of early-stage OOS. Bloody painful it was too.

Back to those wrist supports – DON’T USE THEM !!.

Learn to use the mouse by moving your whole arm from the shoulder and elbow. This takes some practice but it can be done.. and it’s saved my other hand. ‘Resting’ your wrist forces you to tighten and use the small muscles in your hand in lots of small movements.. and that’s a recipe for OOS-style disaster as a result of trapped toxins building up in your lower arm muscles. Other tips include take rests (obviously), and keep well hydrated with water (not coffee!)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 15, 2009 10:16pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Public Polls February 2009

Ralston on National »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Justin Grimmer, Andrew B. Hall & Andy Myers: Election Day And The Day After
Breaking Views
Are we the baddies?
Hompaddock
Open mike 03/11/2024
The Standard
Mr Bach in Cathedra
No Minister
11.30am Live from Pennsylvania – Waatea Sunday Morning Political Podcast US Election Special
The Daily Blog
Battle of Beersheba – Canadian Frustration – Balfour Declaration I THE G…
Utopia
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d