ACC - Another reason to hate Nick Smith's politics

The NZ Herald reports:

"he poured cold water on speculation that workplace accident insurance might be opened up to full competition from private insurers after an ACC "stocktake" completed in June by a group led by former Labour Party Finance Minister David Caygill. Its report has not been made public.

Dr Smith said opening the business to competition would be "a very major decision and, consistent with the John Key pragmatism and cautiousness, we are not in any hurry".

Could you be more of a spineless hypocrite if you tried?

You VOTED FOR opening the workplace accident insurance market up to competition when National was last in government.  You VOTED AGAINST returning it to a statutory monopoly, and now you are in charge of it you have the testicular fortitude of a mouse.

What has changed Nick? The rest of the developed world has open markets for accident insurance, for both workplace and motor vehicles.  New Zealand once led the world in reform, deregulation and opening state monopolies up to competition.   

You've shown you're little better than the Jim Andertons, Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Winston Peters, scared that without nanny state running everything, people will make the wrong decisions.

Just join Labour and be done with it, you'd be happier there.

Pathetic reparations? Blame ACC

According to the NZ Herald, four cyclists were badly injured, one critically, because Jennifer Lea Speakman didn’t look as she pulled out onto the road with her car.

She has lost her driving licence for six months and has been ordered to pay a paltry NZ$1000 reparations to each of the victims.

A friend of the victims calls the reparations “pathetic”. So they are, but then so they should be if one accepts the so-called “social contract” of ACC.

Speakman’s car insurance is paying out the property damage costs in replacing the bikes, which of course is fine. However, ACC creates a completely new dimension. This is one that many New Zealanders, exposed to TV legal dramas from overseas, are probably not fully aware of.

The right to sue for damages as a result of the negligence of another is gone, except in the context of exemplary damages.

In theory, as Speakman paid ACC levies both associated with her motor vehicle licence and in fuel tax, she has paid into socialised insurance scheme, much loved by the left, designed to provide compensation to the victims.

Its fundamental basis is no fault based compensation. ACC is meant to cover the needs of the victims. She should basically have walked away with simply losing her driving licence and paying court costs, if you really believe ACC is fair and reasonable. The advantages of ACC are clear, in that it offers compensation fairly quickly and without the hassle of court, but the disadvantages are also clear. It offers no deterrent to bad behaviour, no incentives to good behaviour, and the compensation is never particularly great.

If you don’t think ACC is fair and reasonable (and let’s be honest here, no other country has ACC), then you’d return the right to sue. That would mean Speakman would face significant claims for loss of income, emotional trauma, pain and suffering because of her negligence. A fair deterrent to making a foolish mistake. More likely, Speakman would have insurance to cover such an eventuality and the victims themselves would be paid out by the insurance firm – which would fight on Speakman’s behalf to not pay out, but ultimately would be likely to pay substantially more than a measly NZ$1000 per victim, on top of what ACC coughs up.

The difference is the delay.

An alternative would be for ACC to be subject to competition and for motor vehicle ACC to be a matter of personal accounts. The insurers of the victims would pay out, and Speakman would see a significant rise in her levies to reflect the risk she poses.

However, with ACC she will pay the same as any driver who has had no accidents at all. So why is any reasonable debate about this system treated as blasphemy? Isn’t it time that this nearly 40 year old experiment was subject to a fundamental review?

Roger Douglas damns Nats on ACC

ACC is a pyramid scheme. Who says? Sir Roger Douglas

He says of the government's ACC bill:

Nothing in this Bill deals with the fact that, from its inception, ACC was a flawed pyramid scheme. In the beginning, it operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. That meant that for many years, it seemed cheap, as the full cost was not apparent – all of those with long term injuries were not yet making claims. Unfortunately, those years of low cost also saw the entitlements expand – so that by the time the system had absorbed all those with long term injuries, and covered the expanded entitlements, it suddenly seemed to cost an awful lot.

These problems are set to get worse. We have an aging society. An aging society implies not only more payouts, but also a lower proportion of people paying levies to cover the Non-Work Account. Because it is a Ponzi scheme, it will require ever-expanding numbers of people working to pay the levies.

So you can see how it has gone wrong, as it progresses, more and more claim it, stay on it for extended periods, making it progressively more expensive. Concepts completely alien to the economically illiterate left.

He says Labour knew this, and sought ACC to become fully funded by 2014, but it also expanded "entitlements" effectively setting it up for bankruptcy. The nonsense spread by the left that ACC is in fine shape because it receives more than it pays out, ignores the unfunded liabilities it has:

If any private insurance company had the books that ACC has, they would be declared bankrupt. The only reason that ACC is still solvent is that it has the capacity to increase levies. In essence, it is solvent because it can force people to cover its costs.

In other words, it is solvent because it has a state monopoly - it is solvent because you are forced to pay for it.

He suggests competition "The only viable way to ensure that ACC delivers results for reasonable prices is if it is open to competition. If people can get cheaper rates elsewhere, they should be allowed to leave. If that means risky workplaces start paying higher premiums, so be it – it will encourage them to improve workplace safety"

He makes the same classic arguments about competition, including one I have repeated:

"Currently, ACC sets a flat rate levy based on the risk in an industry. Those employers which have safe environments subsidise those who have unsafe environments. There is little commercial incentive to create safer workplaces.

By keeping ACC as a monopoly, and not properly allowing risk pricing to emerge, we are in fact increasing the number of workplace accidents. In the private market we have insurance excesses, we have no claims bonuses, we have risk-based premiums. The private market is all about mitigating risk. ACC, on the other hand, is about forcing the good employers to subsidise the bad ones."

The ACC monopoly is classic socialism - all employers pay for the collective risk, the good employers subsidise the bad ones, but who cares, it's all warm fuzzy shared and we all feel good about it, don't we?

After all you hear the left saying privately provided accident insurance will include a profit component, increasing costs, which of course implies that profit should be eliminated, and everything provided by the state, because profit increases costs. Classic Marxism.

All the lies of the left about "privatisation" completely ignore the real debate - why the state monopolises a compulsory accident insurance scheme that means the careful and prudent subsidise the reckless and imprudent? So now, of course, National cuts back ACC coverage to try to fit the budget - meaning all complain about the monopoly delivering less than what people want.

The advocates of state monopoly don't have very good arguments against competition, except use of a Labour commissioned PWC report that had terms of reference to effectively justify the status quo (a classic case of commissioning a study to tell you what you want to hear).

No other country runs this sort of pyramid monopoly scheme for accident cover, it is time to dismantle it and move on. Opening the whole damned lot up to competition is the FIRST step.

Then it's time to look at the next Ponzi scheme - National Superannuation.

Manipulation of language

This post is NOT about the merits of deregulating and privatising ACC - you can take it for granted, I'd fully support full competition for all ACC coverage and privatising ACC itself. It is a debate about language used in politics, to manipulate public opinion. It is not a manipulation confined to those I am accusing in this post either.

In the debate about ACC, those on the left consistently refer to the policy of opening ACC up to competition as "privatisation".

Yet these are two very different things. A government owned entity can remain state owned and face private sector competition without it being privatised.

How? Let's take some of the major deregulations in recent years.

- Until 1982, trucks were banned from hauling freight further than 150km (with some exceptions), with rail having a monopoly. Was opening up long haul freight to competition the privatisation of New Zealand Railways?

- Until 1983, Air New Zealand had a statutory monopoly on domestic airline routes, in that competitors were only allowed by and large if Air New Zealand granted permission. Was the removal of this monopoly the privatisation of Air New Zealand?

- Until 1989, TVNZ had a monopoly on television broadcasting, and in 1991 the television market was fully opened to anyone who wished to purchase frequencies, satellite capacity or lay cable. Was this the privatisation of TVNZ?

- Until 1998, it was illegal for anyone other than NZ Post to deliver mail for less than 80c. Was opening up the postal market the privatisation of New Zealand Post?

So why talk about opening up the ACC market to competition as privatisation?

It's simple - it is the manipulation of language for political effect.

You see most people would not disagree with allowing competition. Prohibiting competition seems to be a bad thing, as it means a monopoly can take advantage of you, can underperform, and you have no choice. It doesn't even have to expect the threat of potential competition.

The left cannot attack ACC reform based on the word "competition", because most people will go "So what? I like competition, I don't like monopolies."

Privatisation is a bogey word. It brings up images of an "asset" being sold for less than it "might be worth", of control transferring to those horned devils called "foreigners" (spit) and it not "being our's anymore", even though people complained about it when it was.

So that is why they lie, explicitly, about the proposal. To have people think it is about selling ACC - which, sadly, would not happen in this term of the government, rather than opening it up to competition, which might.

So it should be challenged, repeatedly. NZ Post has NOT been privatised, neither has TVNZ, just because both are fully exposed to competition. Why should ACC be described as privatised if it is also subject to competition?

UPDATE: Both Frog Blog and the Standard repeat the lie, blatantly.

UPDATE 2: The Standard doesn't like being challenged. Take this nasty little remark about "learning my lesson".

ACC deficit shows monopoly failings

ACC has a statutory monopoly. Labour claimed this is the most "efficient" way of insuring personal injury by accident, yet it has proven incapable of managing its own finances in a way that doesn't mean taxpayers and levy payers have to bail it out.

No other country has the socialist style no-fault statutory monopoly state insurance scheme New Zealand has. The claims by its advocates that it is "lauded" the world over seem very empty when no others follow, and this sort of news comes to light.

I've written before on how to change this, individualise the whole system so everyone buys ACC cover for non-work accidents, open it up to competition, so the risk is spread among multiple insurers (coverage for past accidents would either remain with a legacy ACC or tendered among competitors), and then return the right to sue between insurers and let people choose not to be insured. Care would need to be taken to ensure tort law was based on objectively reasonable criteria, but if it came about after a culture of personal insurance, the risks of aggressive tort claims could be minimised. Besides, if you insure yourself against what others do to you, then you have little to complain about.

Of course at the same time, road owners could demand drivers be insured before using their roads, as could others when you use their property, but overall the risk would be spread and shared. Those who undertake risky behaviour would pay, those who don't, wouldn't.

The monopoly has failed, miserably, once again. The measures National are announcing are trying to patch up a system that is breaking. It's time to move fast to open the employment and motor vehicle accounts to competition as a first stage, then individualise the whole system. Then those paying to cover the liabilities of past poor decisions end up being those the system carries the most risk for.

ACC - monopoly without accountability?

What happens if you get poor service from ACC? Well if you are a claimant you can appeal to District Court, but if you pay levies, you have no recourse. In reality, you wont go to Court if you feel treated shoddily, or that your compensation is inadequate. Yes you can sue for exemplary damages, but that's rare.

That is the funny world of the state monopoly accident insurance system. You, as a private citizen, have no responsibility to insure yourself for hurting yourself or others. The state does it for you, after thieving your money. Employers pay through their own levies, which is a tax on your income. It reflects risks in different industries. However, for non-work injuries it is socialism in action - the levies reflect average risk.

I've blogged before about the deception of ACC, whether ACC affects the care taken by others to avoid injury or causing injury, and the benefits of opening it up to competition.

The left bases its support for ACC on a mix of ideology and a debatable report undertaken by accountancy firm PWC commissioned by ACC itself which said why ACC should remain a monopoly. I'll let you judge whether a consultant asked by a client with a vested interest in a particular outcome would dare challenge that or just present the case for that outcome.

I simply say that having a government statutory monopoly providing an insurance service cannot ensure equitable treatment of all those paying or claiming. Without competition, those paying cannot choose to pay for the best service and the most appropriate levels of insurance (and added value services), nor can there can be efficiencies in managing customers or much accountability for delivering the services customers want.

ACC is a pay as you go system, which is an unaffordable absurdity. It needs to face the pressures of competition, in the employer accounts as already reported, but also motor vehicle accounts and for coverage of non-employment based accidents.

The government should commission a serious review of the entire ACC system with a view as to how to restructure it to allow competition for ALL ACC accounts, which means maintaining the compulsory nature of personal accident insurance.

You see, unless the right to sue is returned, personal accident insurance has to remain compulsory, otherwise you can be injured by the negligence of another and have no recourse (or your insurer has no recourse). I believe there is a case to consider whether to permit the right to sue to return, but for now competition in ACC would go a long way towards holding that sector accountable - because for now you get a state owned monopoly, with a board appointed by a politician.

After all, who in their right mind would believe unionist Ross Wilson could run an orgy in a brothel, let alone the national injury insurance monopoly?

The ACC hole?

So an apparent NZ$297 million deficit in the ACC non-earners account for this year has appeared since the election according to the NZ Herald. What is that about then?

Well let's remember what ACC is - a state monopoly on basic accident insurance that replaced the right to sue for personal injury by accident. Employment based accident insurance is covered by levies on employers, motor vehicle based insurance is covered by a levy included in the motor vehicle registration and licensing fee (and part of fuel tax), but non-employment based accidents are funded by taxes.

Virtually none of this actually reflects risk as conventional privately provided insurance does. You see the ACC principle is no fault - it by and large doesn't matter whether or not you actually were negligent or not in injuring yourself, or whether someone else did it, you all pay the same and get the same type of payments. It is egalitarian through and through, so it is unsurprising that the Kirk Labour government implemented it.

However that does pose some problems. You see, employers are readily levied, although the monopoly means levies are set at types of employment not individual employers. Risky employers don't pay more, neither do good ones pay less. Motor vehicle accident cover being part of your annual licensing fee isn't entirely unreasonable, but again the safest drivers who drive the least pay not much less (if you take fuel tax into account) than the most reckless ones. Socialism at work - everyone pays the same.

It gets worse with all other accidents. You see nobody pays any levies for that, except you do through tax. So the wealthy book reader pays far more than the poor rugby player, although the relative risks are obvious. In New Zealand you don't worry about accident insurance because your employer does it, you do it through your car and it comes out of taxes - so what do you get? A monopoly that delivers monopoly service and can't manage its own finances.

The solution is simple, get rid of the monopoly and give you back your taxes. Whoa that means you have to buy accident insurance. Yes, like everywhere else in the world.

Now it is ACT policy that all of ACC be opened to competition, that doesn't mean doing away with the compulsory aspect (if that didn't exist then the right to sue would have to be reinstated, and sadly the appetite for investigating that is very low). I think it would be a relatively simple process to change this:
1. Eliminate taxpayer funding of ACC and require everyone to pay an ACC levy for themselves and their children annually, reducing taxes by the appropriate proportion. That levy would provide the cover ACC can afford with such a levy, you could of course purchase additional cover from whoever you want. This at least exposes people to realising that this cover isn't "free" or "hidden", the real cost of accident insurance is apparent. However, it doesn't reflect risk so...
2. Open up provision of this cover to any company willing to offer it. It would remain compulsory initially, and at this point based on your risk to yourself - not others. So what happens if you don't buy it? Well you don't have any cover and you can't sue. So at least you'd have some choice and choice of service quality, but insurance companies bearing the cost of people who suffer accidents that aren't their fault will want to pass that on to those whose fault it is. After all, why should you pay a higher premium because you suffered an accident that wasn't your fault? So...
3. Insurance companies set premiums based on total risk, the risk you pose to others as well as yourself. However, in order to recover from those with inadequate cover or none, the right to sue is reimposed. What about those it isn't worth suing? Well your own insurance will cover that risk, because it is a reality of life - such people pay next to no tax now so are effectively out of the system anyway. What about those without insurance? Well they have no cover, and face being sued. Those with insurance let the insurance company cover their own injuries and injuries they cause others.

However don't expect any of this to be even raised by the current government. At the most it will challenge the ACC employer account monopoly (which National scrapped last time). So we continue with the most socialist accident insurance system in the world - a system which pay quickly, but pays poorly. You don't want to have an accident in New Zealand without additional accident insurance.

Public health care + ACC = no accountability

This appalling set of cases reported in the NZ Herald are not the sort of thing Michael Moore describes when he waxes lyrically about how socialised health care is so wonderful. Take this:

"Patient 1 - Aug 2006: A suspected retinal detachment in Whangarei is referred to specialists at Auckland DHB.

Ten days later: No word from Auckland; patient asks Whangarei doctor to follow up. Auckland confirm they have the referral.

Feb 2007: Still no action from Auckland. Patient again asks doctor what is happening. By then the condition has worsened too much for the treatment.

Nov 2007: Patient's left eye is removed."

It can be explained, at one level, by the following.

- Capture by providers, who get funded according to what bureaucracies recommend, and certainly not based on what consumers want;
- ACC protecting providers from being sued.

ACC, you see, is an absolute travesty. It provides a one-size fits all socialised insurance scheme, where you get what the scheme dictates - because you couldn't have chosen another provider. The insurer doesn't claim it from the incompetent or the incompetent's insurer (which is ACC too), doesn't hike up the premiums from the incompetent. The incompetent says sorry, and the victim loses an eye.

Yes, fantastic system, so low cost - except for the victim of medical malpractice.

Yes, in the USA it would take months for a lawsuit to proceed, maybe years with appeals. However, the incompetent ones would seek to settle, to avoid those costs, and the mere fact of having to face up to these costs directly changes behaviour.

ACC is the socialist way of spreading the cost of accidents among everyone, including those who don't cause them, don't have them, and the costs for victims are flattened, ironed out, so you don't get more than "your share".

It needs to be opened up to competition, at all levels, so that people can choose the cover they want, so insurers can charge premiums according to risk, so that the incompetent face their costs, and others do not.

In the meantime, it will be simply another "oh we're very sorry" to those who lose an eye, have cancer spread potentially fatally, and have another stroke.

At this election, ACC has barely a mention. National will consider re-opening the employers' account to competition, which wont touch this. ACT would open all of ACC up to competition, which would make a difference. Libertarianz would open all of ACC up to competition, privatise it and restore the right to sue.

So what do you think? Would competition in ACC be enough, or should health professionals face being sued for their incompetence? I don't mean the crazy subjectivist US tort cases where people sue for their OWN incompetence, but clearly establishing on the balance of probabilities that the other party has been unreasonably negligent.

Pay for your mistakes?

While I bemoan those who give or take credit without being able to bear the risk either way, Crusader Rabbit has an interesting post on those who bemoan the "costs" of alcohol or drug use imposed upon the public health system.

Send them the bill. In other words, if the hospital determines that you are to blame for your accident - you pay.

That's inherently appealing - responsibility for the harm you impose on yourself or others. However ACC gets in the way - at the moment we all pay ACC for the costs of all those who have accidents causing personal injury. The better first step is to individualise ACC, and allow people to choose who to get accident insurance from - meaning premiums will vary. If you don't pay for accident insurance then you pay the bill. Of course such insurance would have to be compulsory unless the right to sue is returned - a big additional step.

So if you are turning up at A&E regularly drunk, then funnily enough your premiums go up. If you don't, your premiums go down. Then the only costs left that remain a concern are those who don't get insured - in which case you might ask, why drink alcohol heavily instead of buying accident insurance? That becomes another issue - but why should the costs of recidivist foolishness be socialised? Why should the state owned monopoly ACC be retained?

Don't go too fast John

Now I know that libertarians get a little flack for being hard on John Key, but tell me this. When he reneges on past National Party policy that was implemented when it was in government - and completely repealed by Labour, is it any wonder? I'd like, at least, for National to hold similar policy positions today that it held in 1999, because after all, what has changed to cause National to want to shift its policy closer to Labour? More importantly, has Labour moved towards National's policies? Hardly.

So when the NZ Herald reports that John Key says National will "investigate" opening the ACC Work Account to competition, you have to wonder why it is so insecure about a policy that it implemented, whilst a minority government, in 1999. A policy Labour gleefully repealed, with legislations overriding commercially negotiated contracts and effectively banning the private sector from providing ACC services that it had offered. Why isn't it even mentioning the ACC Motor Vehicle Account, which at the time was in the "investigate opening to competition mode"? I mean seriously, why is providing competition to a government monopoly something that so frightens John Key?

Come on John - announce competition for the Work Account, investigate competition for the Motor Vehicle Account AND the account for all other compensation. It's the least you can do!

Oh and petrol tax and motor vehicle registration fees as well

Yes tis the season for higher charges for motorists.

*

Gonzo Freakpower Brains Trust (Will de Cleene) has pointed out this report from the NZ Herald:

*

ACC, the compulsory statutory monopoly for road use personal accident insurance is increasing levies to you all - and being a monopoly, it wont differentiate on the basis of risk, or past performance, so the dangerous driving accident prone lunatic will pay the same as the safe suburban driver with a clean record. What does it all mean?

*

The ACC levy on petrol goes up 2.01c/litre (and the 12.5% GST on top of that). The argument being those drive more are more exposed to risk.

*

The ACC levy component for petrol car motor vehicle registration and licensing goes up from $183.22 to $211.48 (GST inclusive). ACC is already most of the cost of registration and licensing.

*

For non-petrol driven vehicles the ACC levy component of motor vehicle registration and licensing goes up from $281.46 to $336.69 (GST inclusive). You see as there is no diesel tax and no ACC RUC charge, the cost is higher.

*

Of course you could ask this. What would happen if there were other companies you could pay your motor vehicle ACC levy to, ones that charged based on your generalised risk, such as age, driving record and location? You would be more incentivised to drive more safely, and wouldn't be cross subsidising the reckless. Labour opposes this. National had talked about it before it lost the 1999 election.

*

So when you pay a higher registration/licensing fee next time, fill up the tank and see it has gone up over 2c/l more, ask yourself "did I have an accident or two last year and so i should pay this additional risk" or "did I have a clean driving record so I'm paying for someone else's mistakes"?

*

Labour says we all have to pay for the recklessness, negligence and mistakes of a few - that's why you're paying more.

The ACC deception

So Labour says National will privatise ACC - oh I wish.

ACC Minister Maryan Street made this absurd statement:

"Putting the world-respected ACC scheme up for sale will rob all New Zealanders of the security they have enjoyed in the event of accidents, wherever and however they occur, for several decades"

*

Hold on a minute.. "world respected"? Where in the world has the government abolished the right to sue for personal injury by accident and replaced it with a state owned insurance monopoly which pays everyone the same for any accident regardless of fault? Exactly. It was investigated and abandoned in Australia and the UK.

*

"the security" she talks about is illusory. ACC is fine if you are at the top of your career and an accident robs you of the ability to undertake that work. You'll get paid off as long as is necessary. However if you were, for example, a medical student and an accident destroys your ability to be a surgeon then tough - you don't get compensated for lost future earnings, but for lost current earnings. If you are a child and get crippled by a car accident, it's the same. So much for security, and never forget that the ACC state monopoly gives you no choice - you have to pay whether or not it is adequate for your needs.

*

Now yes ACC advocates will say you don't need a lawyer, it's fast and the risk of losing a case isn't there. However, hold on I'm not saying people shouldn't take out accident insurance. They certainly ought to choose that, and then pay according to what the insurer sees is the exposure. For example, a young person who has little driving experience and plays contact sports will pay a high premium, but a middle aged person with no claims and a clean driving record will probably be rewarded. ACC does none of this. ACC does not penalise the accident prone or reward the cautious - it charges all the same, except for employers by category. However "good" employers pay the same as "bad" employers.

Street goes on "Once National has traded away the protection the current state monopoly offers, accident compensation will become a lottery" Well hold on, how is it a lottery to pay premiums to the company of your choosing according to your own risk? Isn't it a lottery as to whether ACC is adequate for your needs or not? Why should ACC pay the criminal teenager who cripples himself in a burglary the same as the teenager who is biking safely hit by a reckless driver?

She quotes a Merrill Lynch report saying it is more expensive in other countries than NZ, yet the truth behind those figures is hard to extract. For example, what does a person get for being blinded or made quadraplegic in Australia compared to NZ? In other words, is the reason ACC is cheaper on first look because it IS the el cheapo option in terms of paying out?

It is interesting to take this point "the report found that without ACC - and under a scenario similar to that in Canada, the US and Australia – roughly 70 per cent of current ACC clients would only receive benefits through social security and the public health system, a significant erosion of the support they now get. ... individuals would be forced to take out private insurance in the event they fall off a ladder or injure themselves in a rugby game - and be left without accident compensation if they don’t.

Amazing, so the rest of us wouldn't be forced to insure ourselves against a rugby injury if we don't play the game? That's what the rest of the world offers - insurance based on your own risk. ACC socialises all risk and payments - so we all pay the same and receive in kind!

In addition:

- In other countries compensation is a single lump sum or series of lump sums, in NZ payments can continue for years and years while people are considered "unable to work". Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidate Michael Appleby has often said he is on ACC, it seemed to be the case election after election.

- In other countries not everyone who has an accident gets compensation. If you accident saw off your finger in other countries, unless you are insured for that, you wont get anything. In New Zealand you get paid. In other words, in New Zealand ACC pays you for being stupid or negligent, the rest of the world doesn't unless you pay to be insured on that basis.

It would be interesting to analyse further. Street just assumes.

She quotes a PWC report that says ACC is "best practice". Funny how nobody else adopts that. I have accident insurance now in the UK, if I was in NZ again I wouldn't rely on ACC for my own accident insurance - because I'd want a lot more than what it offers. However, Street may answer this?

Why shouldn't those who pay ACC pay less for no claims and more for risky behaviour?

Why shouldn't those who pay ACC pay more for higher levels of cover if they wish?

Meanwhile, I'm going to read this PWC report and examine what it is about - it deserves closer scrutiny to find out what questions were asked and which ones were not asked.

UPDATE: According to Stuff John Key confirms National will open up the ACC employer accounts to competition, WHICH the PWC report mentioned above says could, if properly regulated, result in improved outcomes and efficiencies. So let's be clear, Labour will oppose it, but its own report says there may be advantages in doing what National is proposing. However National wont privatise ACC, but the left somehow thinks opening the government sector up to competition is privatisation - maybe it fears no one will want to do business with the public sector if given the choice?