I hadn’t realised it was that bad! Count me in for any campaign/initiatives you think would help to change this! (I had the experience of being the sole financial and practical support for my two children from the time they were five and one, though my elderly parents helped somewhat. In my case I would have been entitled to a Benefit if injured, but as you will realise, I do understand the situation!)

eredwen

There is an increasing expectation of Govt/LocalBody etc functions emulating the “(deserving) Haves” at one end of the scale, going hand in hand with accepting lesser standards for the “(undeserving) Have Nots” at the other end.

We had a bizzare case of this at the local City Council Community Board level where some of the already very inadequate funding for the planned upgrade of a long neglected seriously-in-need, narrow, hillside street was channeled into such things as glossy, full colour, brochures and a lavish “celebratory barbeque” for the residents of 60 households … without the residents being consulted. (We just wanted every penny to be spent on a functional and safe road!)

I think that part of the problem is the growth in the employment of “PR” (Public Relations) personell who are being given a different agenda and a free hand at aping the Ccorporates (who are already expert at spending a slice of “everyone else’s money”… WOW I’m sounding like big bruv!)

Women without jobs, at home with small children, get no support from ACC if they are injured, to replace their duties in the home, or to cover household expenses - the use of a woman’s labour in the household budgeting does not equal the use of her labour for an employer’sprofit.
Even if that woman labours tirelessly, cooking from scratch and sewing clothes, cleaning and caring, her labour is invisible in public accounts until she is paid outside the home. Thus in permanent disability cases, she is not compensated for loss of earnings, nor is the household compensated financially in order to replace her labour.

But don’t take my word for it!
Marilyn Waring and Prue Hyman have both written and lectured about this, on Waikato and Victoria University campuses respectively.

kahikatea says: I don’t think it is irrelevant, because a lot of bureaucracy goes into separating people whose cases are covered by ACC from those who are not.

Back in 1988 the Law Commission, chaired by Sir Owen Woodhouse who had earlier chaired the Royal Commission that instigated ACC, recommended that sickness should be brought under the ambit of ACC. The Labour Party, in Government at the time, welcomed the recommendation. However, the National Government that was elected in 1990 did not support the recommendation. Labour subsequently also lost enthusiasm.

The Green Party’s ACC policy continues to promote a move in that direction, supporting the principle of equitable rehabilitation for all people suffering impairment, regardless of whether that impairment has been caused by injury, illness or other disability, and moving towards a greater emphasis on social justice and equitable compensation for all people suffering impairment, regardless of whether that impairment has been caused by injury, illness or other disability.

That would eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy that is currently involved in determining whether a condition is covered or not. The emphasis should beon the effect of the injury on the perso’s life - not the cause of the injury or the type of injury it is.

Just like WINZ, ACC consistently fails to advise claimants about their full and true entitlements. The majority of claimants lack the knowledge and education to seek out and read the IPRC Act and its regulations. ACC relies on this broad public ignorance and saves itself millions in the process.

I have first hand experience of how ACC works; the mentality and processes behind the scheme and the people who operate it. The focus is NOT on rehabilitating claimants to the maximum possible extent - as the IPRC Act requires - but on ‘exiting’ claimants as quickly as possible.

ACC is advertising because of its poor image. If you watch the advertisement you’ll see that its purpose is not education. So what benefit does the viewing public derive from ACC misleading the public with blatant lies?

If ACC was such a wonderful organisation with thousands of happy present and past claimants, why didn’t they use any of these people in their advertisement? Why use and coach actors?

“… a lot of bureaucracy goes into separating people whose cases are covered by ACC from those who are not. I find it bizarre that the government paid the whole cost (through ACC) of a physiotherapist treating me for an injury from a not-particularly-serious car crash, but will not pay any of the cost of the same physiotherapist treating we for problems stemming from a condition I was born with.”

Yes it does seem bizarre!
However, if we look at the history of ACC, and why it was needed, and thus how it was established, the solution seems obvious.

Let’s not diminish ACC (which was highly regarded internationally, as a “model system”, when it was set up). Rather, let’s have the courage and commitment to bring our entire Health System up to that original high standard, so that the two can intermesh “seamlessly”. This way any anomalies in treatment between accident-caused and non-accident-caused conditions will disappear.

This would mean political courage and commitment, (and would be heavily opposed by those who see opportunities to make MONEY from the further erosion of our Public Health System into a two tier (or worse!) system, one for the “haves” and another for the varying degrees of “have nots”.

For ideas, we should look further than the countries that conveniently have English as their first (or only) language. At a guess I’d say Scandinavia, Germany and a few others in the EU … Canada was good when I lived there … and some new ideas are emerging in South America.

Health gets more and more expensive as new ideas, techniques and alternatives are developed. Decisions do have to be made, but they should NOT be made on the size of a citizen’s bank balance

Here? One SET of rules. Complicated as they may be but at least only one.

BJ

I don’t think it is irrelevant, because a lot of bureaucracy goes into separating people whose cases are covered by ACC from those who are not. I find it bizarre that the government paid the whole cost (through ACC) of a physiotherapist treating me for an injury from a not-particularly-serious car crash, but will not pay any of the cost of the same physiotherapist treating we for problems stemming from a condition I was born with.

There is one case idn which I have been treated better because of not being eligible for ACC. When I was referred to the chronic pain management service at Wellington Hospital, they told be that I would have to wait 3 weeks from my initial consultation before they could start treatment, because of ACC paperwork. Then when I told them I wasn’t eligible for ACC, they realised they didn’t need that paperwork and could sntart immediately. How absurd is that!

> In my experience ACC does work to rehabilitate accident victims. I have read about and listened to Australian and American folk talk about their systems. Private or semi-private. Poor and low income workers cannot afford private insurance. The elderly, such as I am, cannot afford private insurance.

Indeed, I’m not suggesting that we should go back to suing or private workplace insurance. The ACC system was arn improvement over the right to sue, because it reduced the number of people missing out. But merging the ACC system with the health and welfare systems would further reduce the number of people missing out. And it would save some money on administration, which could be spent on more care for people. Or the money could be spent on administration elsewhere in the health system, to prevent absurd situations like the one when an appointment I had to see a doctor was delayed 2 hours because the delivery of my medical notes to the relevant department was not high enough on the to-do list of the people who were supposed to be delivering them.

Yes, the variable employer contribution to ACC is the one part of the scheme that I think does have some merit. You could abolish the rest of the scheme, but keep the employer contributions. Abolishing the ACC bureaucracy would mean you wouldn’t have such precise statistics to base these charges on. But I think you could still do it - they would be based on OSH statistics, they would go into the consolidated fund, and they would reflect actual costs less precisely, but still closely enough to provide the right economic incentives.