Headgear? Bit like telling earthquake victims to buy thick socks – lets not dally with half measures here – they have a dreadfull way of falling short

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The idea that ACC levies should cover the cost (collective insurance) – in each “user” area seems fair. But then there will be some areas excluded by reason of society choice (a wish to encourage sport and recreation and not exclude the poor from these activities because of mitigating social and health benefits).

Here maybe those in each user group could be consulted about how covered their group will be, or whether they individually could even adopt a lower cover for a lower levy within their user group.

Then there is the non specific user general costs to be covered (and here the debate is about what and who should be covered, and to what extent).

Finally, in what ratio should ACC participate with government in funding campaigns such as road safety?

PS Sometimes regulation is both misguided and counter-productive, headgear as in American Football encourages more direct confrontation – anyhow the major injuries in rugby are not to the head but the back, shoulder, knee, ankle, broken arms and legs.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

the structure is based on unsound obsolete health practices – my naturopath (not covered – your money – mine) wept.
The current ACC setup perpetuates waste, travels, at its own specific fiscal gravity – is a Tap on Public Funds, no more or less.
My Professor threw his Mont Blanc against the wall…
“Where do these people get off thinking that you bend an injured joint back and forth til it Heals!!!???”
Keep you injured and on their books ad infinitum – one has to get away from the Funded to find any real answers…

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Lol, three thumbs down for my assertion that people manage risk and two for the comment that people are giving my posts thumbs down.

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

Who knows why some people vote the way they do. I’ve given you a +1 on your above comment just for the fun of it.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Like or Dislike: 4  0 (+4)

Yes, i would much rather keep ACC as it is now than have it gone or weakened. Im abit split as to partial opening to competition though, there are some areas where it could be beneficial but the costs would probally outweigh the benefits on the whole

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

I agree with that notion Toad… I only suggest that we have to manage both sides of the issue SOMEHOW. I don’t really have a dog in this fight though I like the way ACC is working in general.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

bjchip, the risk doesn’t have to be mitigated by the fear of economic loss.

We can still have a no-fault ACC system and mitigate the risk by regulation – eg, by requiring rugby players to wear head protection.

But then we get accused of nanny-statism, I suppose.

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

There are two threads of thought here. They actually oppose each other and that usually indicates that some compromise is appropriate.

Wat and Sapient, and now I too, have noticed that the presence of ACC with no apparent deductibles or cost incurred for risk taking behaviours, encourages those behaviours. It does. People who think it doesn’t have been playing Rugby without a helmet for far too…. Oh yeah, it IS played without a helmet… that explains a lot.

On the other side, fully privatized risk and the lawsuits that go with it, gut the soul of the country that applies that standard and excessively penalizes the poorest folks who haven’t any way to afford any insurance. Much as Rimu points out.

I agree with both sides because both are true.

They clearly require some balance be taken. I don’t know how that balancing act needs to be done, but it isn’t something that can be solved by taking on just ONE of the two arguments without the other.

I suggest we consider how to achieve the balance rather than which side to choose.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 5  2 (+3)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

Hmm, someones been ‘thumbs down’ing my posts. I wonder why. Hmm…..

Like or Dislike: 3  5 (-2)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

“Insurance acts to decrease the perceived potential costs and as such tends to encourage more risky behaviour.”

That certainly happens with insurance of property. But I find it hard to imagine that someone would be undeterred by the threat of possible physical injury but deterred by the cost of paying for medical treatment for that injury.

the certain cost of compulsory insurance for that risk, on the other hand…

Like or Dislike: 4  2 (+2)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

Rimu,
Yes, people manage risk. But that management involves balancing the perceived potential benefits against the perceived potential costs. Insurance acts to decrease the perceived potential costs and as such tends to encourage more risky behaviour. It is a well documented psychological and economic phenomenon, though at present I cannot remember its name.
Consider; someone on a bike will be more likely to observe the environment around them closely than someone in an SUV simply because they are more likely to come off worse in an encounter. Ideally, the rates that an individual pays should depend on their driving, perhaps as indicated by history, and on the type of vehicle. The rates should be detirmined by the potential damage to others so as to avoid externalisation of costs. This would result in the SUV driver being more careful simply because they are on the line more, though risk would still be encouraged due to the presence of insurance.

Like or Dislike: 3  5 (-2)

Don’t people choose to manage risk already? I don’t need a financial incentive to drive carefully or to not play daft sports like boxing…

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Yeah Rimu, because people cannot choose to manage risk, and thus minimise the chance of an accident, in most cases…

Jesus the Christ.

Like or Dislike: 3  2 (+1)

The Standard puts the boot in http://www.thestandard.org.nz/its-called-politics-colin/

Like or Dislike: 1  2 (-1)