http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5084278/ACC-to-face-private-competition
Wasn't this tried 15 years ago, and found to be worse than what we have now?
Wasn't this tried 15 years ago, and found to be worse than what we have now?
Permalink
Permalink
worse for who?
E's Flat Ah's Flat Too
Permalink
Permalink
Good for businesses. Rubbish for the individual.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
Economics 101: (Yes, I'm bored)
-> Government run companies are useless compared to Private ones. Why? There is no incentive to change, become more efficient, improvise etc etc. This is why Communism can never bring about what Capitalism can in the way of technology. (example, the production line was only created to make things more efficient, hence now we can all afford cars. If a government owned the company, there is no incentive to do this so they don't. Even if the government tried to encourage innovation it wouldn't happen unless their were rewards for those involved, which under a proper communist regime for example, their wouldn't be)
-> The free market doesn't work with Monopolies. This is because people have no choice but to accept that company, so they have no need to push prices down.
-> Opening up a sector to competition means that, should a company become too expensive / not good enough - you move. This again encourages businesses to change and innovate. Which in turn should see a price drop.
For example, if you owned a cellphone the could magically change networks depending on what prepaid card you felt like buying that day, you'd buy the cheapest. The price would drop. As business competes with each other, they'll be forced to use resources better and more efficiently and thus the price should drop even more.
---------------------------------------------------
If done correctly, it will allow companies in New Zealand to have cheaper health insurance and still have the same quality of health care. It is likely they'll be under fairly strict regulations in that the health insurance must be of equal cover as it would've been for ACC.
If this is the case, its good for everyone. Less $$$ to ACC, and possible better quality of cover as health insurance companies strive to compete with each other.
Don't just look at privatisation and frown. It must be looked at on a case by case basis.
Privatising power companies is good example. If you only have three producers in the country and make it very difficult for everyone to switch then yes, its probably a bad thing.
But if you allow a larger range of companies to operate, you ensure that changing companies is easy and free, its a very good thing.
Sorry I fear I over complicated the thread :L
Source: Economics Scholarship last year
20 legend2011-06-01 19:46:32
-> Government run companies are useless compared to Private ones. Why? There is no incentive to change, become more efficient, improvise etc etc. This is why Communism can never bring about what Capitalism can in the way of technology. (example, the production line was only created to make things more efficient, hence now we can all afford cars. If a government owned the company, there is no incentive to do this so they don't. Even if the government tried to encourage innovation it wouldn't happen unless their were rewards for those involved, which under a proper communist regime for example, their wouldn't be)
-> The free market doesn't work with Monopolies. This is because people have no choice but to accept that company, so they have no need to push prices down.
-> Opening up a sector to competition means that, should a company become too expensive / not good enough - you move. This again encourages businesses to change and innovate. Which in turn should see a price drop.
For example, if you owned a cellphone the could magically change networks depending on what prepaid card you felt like buying that day, you'd buy the cheapest. The price would drop. As business competes with each other, they'll be forced to use resources better and more efficiently and thus the price should drop even more.
---------------------------------------------------
If done correctly, it will allow companies in New Zealand to have cheaper health insurance and still have the same quality of health care. It is likely they'll be under fairly strict regulations in that the health insurance must be of equal cover as it would've been for ACC.
If this is the case, its good for everyone. Less $$$ to ACC, and possible better quality of cover as health insurance companies strive to compete with each other.
Don't just look at privatisation and frown. It must be looked at on a case by case basis.
Privatising power companies is good example. If you only have three producers in the country and make it very difficult for everyone to switch then yes, its probably a bad thing.
But if you allow a larger range of companies to operate, you ensure that changing companies is easy and free, its a very good thing.
Sorry I fear I over complicated the thread :L
Source: Economics Scholarship last year
20 legend2011-06-01 19:46:32
Permalink
Permalink
Of course competition is a good thing in the market for insurance. I can see why some would criticise it (i.e. those with vested interests in maintaining the current monopoly) but insurance is not an industry where there is any economic reason for the maintenance of a monopoly (unlike electricity transmission, for example, where it is extremely costly to replicate the asset base).
And even if the situation 15 years ago was 'worse' than what we have now (which I think is extremely subjective), that's not an argument against opening the market up to competition per se.
And even if the situation 15 years ago was 'worse' than what we have now (which I think is extremely subjective), that's not an argument against opening the market up to competition per se.
Permalink
Permalink
In theory that is true, and that's definitely the Econ 101 answer. In practice though it is not always the case.
For example, according to a PWC study in 2008, work account claims management and administration costs were 19.7% of services against the Australian average of 25.2%. In other words, ACC pays out 80.3c of every dollar on compensation and services whereas the Australians pay out only 74.8c. - the theoretically inefficient Govt monopoly is more efficient than the competitive marketplace in Australia.
Also, the same study found that the average levy here on businesses was $0.94 for every $100 of payroll, while it was $1.73 in Aus.
For example, according to a PWC study in 2008, work account claims management and administration costs were 19.7% of services against the Australian average of 25.2%. In other words, ACC pays out 80.3c of every dollar on compensation and services whereas the Australians pay out only 74.8c. - the theoretically inefficient Govt monopoly is more efficient than the competitive marketplace in Australia.
Also, the same study found that the average levy here on businesses was $0.94 for every $100 of payroll, while it was $1.73 in Aus.
Permalink
Permalink
Of course competition is a good thing in the market for insurance. I can see why some would criticise it (i.e. those with vested interests in maintaining the current monopoly) but insurance is not an industry where there is any economic reason for the maintenance of a monopoly (unlike electricity transmission, for example, where it is extremely costly to replicate the asset base).
And even if the situation 15 years ago was 'worse' than what we have now (which I think is extremely subjective), that's not an argument against opening the market up to competition per se.
And even if the situation 15 years ago was 'worse' than what we have now (which I think is extremely subjective), that's not an argument against opening the market up to competition per se.
Was expecting a response from you since I made this thread. You were disappointingly mild and sensible
.
Permalink
Permalink
Of course competition is a good thing in the market for insurance. I can see why some would criticise it (i.e. those with vested interests in maintaining the current monopoly) but insurance is not an industry where there is any economic reason for the maintenance of a monopoly (unlike electricity transmission, for example, where it is extremely costly to replicate the asset base).
And even if the situation 15 years ago was 'worse' than what we have now (which I think is extremely subjective), that's not an argument against opening the market up to competition per se.
And even if the situation 15 years ago was 'worse' than what we have now (which I think is extremely subjective), that's not an argument against opening the market up to competition per se.
Was expecting a response from you since I made this thread. You were disappointingly mild and sensible
.
I only troll football related threads.
Permalink
Permalink
Also, the same study found that the average levy here on businesses was $0.94 for every $100 of payroll, while it was $1.73 in Aus.
Notwithstanding the fact that comparing insurance regimes across countries with different characteristics is problematic, that study wouldn't happen to be taken over a period where the previous New Zealand administration concealed a massive funding hole in ACC, as it was politically unpalatable to increase ACC fees leading into an election they were likely to lose, would it?
Permalink
Permalink
Also, the same study found that the average levy here on businesses was $0.94 for every $100 of payroll, while it was $1.73 in Aus.
Notwithstanding the fact that comparing insurance regimes across countries with different characteristics is problematic, that study wouldn't happen to be taken over a period where the previous New Zealand administration concealed a massive funding hole in ACC, as it was politically unpalatable to increase ACC fees leading into an election they were likely to lose, would it?
The funding hole that has suddenly disappeared now that the GFC is ending (as predicted by many - it was a funding hole of convenience, but that is another issue.) I agree in principal with you on the difficulties of cross border comparison though.
Permalink
Permalink
What is your logic that thet ACC funding gap is a) caused by the GFC and b) No longer exists and c) No longer exists because of the GFC is "over"?
Permalink
Permalink
Economics 101: (Yes, I'm bored)
-> Government run companies are useless compared to Private ones. Why? There is no incentive to change, become more efficient, improvise etc etc. This is why Communism can never bring about what Capitalism can in the way of technology. (example, the production line was only created to make things more efficient, hence now we can all afford cars. If a government owned the company, there is no incentive to do this so they don't. Even if the government tried to encourage innovation it wouldn't happen unless their were rewards for those involved, which under a proper communist regime for example, their wouldn't be)
Source: Economics Scholarship last year
-> Government run companies are useless compared to Private ones. Why? There is no incentive to change, become more efficient, improvise etc etc. This is why Communism can never bring about what Capitalism can in the way of technology. (example, the production line was only created to make things more efficient, hence now we can all afford cars. If a government owned the company, there is no incentive to do this so they don't. Even if the government tried to encourage innovation it wouldn't happen unless their were rewards for those involved, which under a proper communist regime for example, their wouldn't be)
Source: Economics Scholarship last year
There most certainly is an incentive if you have a Minister of SOE who demands a dividend.
Hopefully you'll work out that theory doesn't always equal reality.
Take Air NZ for example. Went under when privately owned, but is now one of the next performing airlines in the world with the govt as a majority shareholder.
Permalink
Permalink
Economics 101: (Yes, I'm bored)
-> Government run companies are useless compared to Private ones. Why? There is no incentive to change, become more efficient, improvise etc etc. This is why Communism can never bring about what Capitalism can in the way of technology. (example, the production line was only created to make things more efficient, hence now we can all afford cars. If a government owned the company, there is no incentive to do this so they don't. Even if the government tried to encourage innovation it wouldn't happen unless their were rewards for those involved, which under a proper communist regime for example, their wouldn't be)
Source: Economics Scholarship last year
-> Government run companies are useless compared to Private ones. Why? There is no incentive to change, become more efficient, improvise etc etc. This is why Communism can never bring about what Capitalism can in the way of technology. (example, the production line was only created to make things more efficient, hence now we can all afford cars. If a government owned the company, there is no incentive to do this so they don't. Even if the government tried to encourage innovation it wouldn't happen unless their were rewards for those involved, which under a proper communist regime for example, their wouldn't be)
Source: Economics Scholarship last year
There most� certainly is an incentive if you have a Minister of SOE who demands a dividend.Hopefully you'll work out that theory doesn't always equal reality.Take Air NZ for example.� Went under when privately owned, but is now one of the next performing airlines in the world with the govt as a majority shareholder.
In fact, the case of airlines actually supports opening up markets to competition. We are seeing fantastically low prices from here to Auckland, Australia etc because the sector is open to competition. The same would happen for health insurance.
...so it goes back to the whole each case should be looked at on its own thing.
The other thing with Air NZ is that they did demand a dividends so they effectively just invested YOUR money into a private company. The right-wing way of looking at this is, hey Mr Government, I don't want you investing MY money. I want to invest it myself. On top of this, there are/were Government SOEs that don't work. Which supports the argument that the government shouldn't be investing our money and that you should be investing your own money because well, its yours and you know how best to spend it.
Basically investing in companies to create revenue isn't and shouldn't be the role of Government.
Permalink
Permalink
There most� certainly is an incentive if you have a Minister of SOE who demands a dividend.[/QUOTE]
Incentives still aren't as strong as they are in the private sector. Difficult to argue against that I would have thought. Especially given the very example of Air NZ that you use below. A company owned by a govt. can't really 'go under', which naturally weakens the incentives on it, relatively speaking.
[QUOTE=2ndBest]
Take Air NZ for example.� Went under when privately owned, but is now one of the next performing airlines in the world with the govt as a majority shareholder.
Permalink
Permalink
Yet with those 'weaker' incentives Air New Zealand has turned around. Haven't you defeated your own point there?
Permalink
Permalink
Yet with those 'weaker' incentives Air New Zealand has turned around.� Haven't you defeated your own point there?
No.
Permalink
Permalink
Air NZ always comes up when you start talking about privatisation. Selling Air NZ is a completely different kettle of fish (<lol?)
In fact, the case of airlines actually supports opening up markets to competition. We are seeing fantastically low prices from here to Auckland, Australia etc because the sector is open to competition. The same would happen for health insurance.
...so it goes back to the whole each case should be looked at on its own thing.
The other thing with Air NZ is that they did demand a dividends so they effectively just invested YOUR money into a private company. The right-wing way of looking at this is, hey Mr Government, I don't want you investing MY money. I want to invest it myself. On top of this, there are/were Government SOEs that don't work. Which supports the argument that the government shouldn't be investing our money and that you should be investing your own money because well, its yours and you know how best to spend it.
Basically investing in companies to create revenue isn't and shouldn't be the role of Government.
In fact, the case of airlines actually supports opening up markets to competition. We are seeing fantastically low prices from here to Auckland, Australia etc because the sector is open to competition. The same would happen for health insurance.
...so it goes back to the whole each case should be looked at on its own thing.
The other thing with Air NZ is that they did demand a dividends so they effectively just invested YOUR money into a private company. The right-wing way of looking at this is, hey Mr Government, I don't want you investing MY money. I want to invest it myself. On top of this, there are/were Government SOEs that don't work. Which supports the argument that the government shouldn't be investing our money and that you should be investing your own money because well, its yours and you know how best to spend it.
Basically investing in companies to create revenue isn't and shouldn't be the role of Government.
I'm sorry, but there is a tonne of nonsensical rubbish in this. No of which should win you a scholarship.
Firstly, noone in their right mind would say that air travel is cheap here. Why? Well there are few suppliers and therefore a lack of competition. This is primarily to do with our population base. Essentially there isn't enough demand to attract another airline. There can be seen in a number of other industries (media, communication, rail etc).
Rail in particular, you can make a strong argument for govt intervention, as it is a monopoly, so any inflated profits can be kept in NZ, instead of heading offshore. There is also a strong argument that a govt has a greater incentive to invest in infrastructure so it heaps additional benefit that a private owner wouldn't (pollution, Climate change, spending on roads etc)
Secondly, health insurance and the airline industry are completely different. Airlines are there to make a profit. However ACC is not. It isn't a SOE. Sure it makes a profit from investments, but it is has no requirement to make a profit. It is there to cover medical costs. so if it was opened up to the private sector, companies would just pick whatever accounts were likely to yield the highest profit (likely to be white collar accounts). This would leave ACC to keep expensive accounts such as mining, construction etc), with a much higher average cost.
Permalink
Permalink
companies would just pick whatever accounts were likely to yield the highest profit (likely to be white collar accounts).� This would leave ACC to keep expensive accounts such as mining, construction etc), with a much higher average cost.
Why should those working in relatively low-risk industries be subsidising high-risk industries in the first instance?
Permalink
Permalink
Air NZ always comes up when you start talking about privatisation. Selling Air NZ is a completely different kettle of fish (<lol?)
In fact, the case of airlines actually supports opening up markets to competition. We are seeing fantastically low prices from here to Auckland, Australia etc because the sector is open to competition. The same would happen for health insurance.
...so it goes back to the whole each case should be looked at on its own thing.
The other thing with Air NZ is that they did demand a dividends so they effectively just invested YOUR money into a private company. The right-wing way of looking at this is, hey Mr Government, I don't want you investing MY money. I want to invest it myself. On top of this, there are/were Government SOEs that don't work. Which supports the argument that the government shouldn't be investing our money and that you should be investing your own money because well, its yours and you know how best to spend it.
Basically investing in companies to create revenue isn't and shouldn't be the role of Government.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, but there is a tonne of nonsensical rubbish in this.� No of which should win you a scholarship.Firstly, noone in their right mind would say that air travel is cheap here.� Why?� Well there are few suppliers and therefore a lack of competition.� This is primarily to do with our population base.� Essentially there isn't enough demand to attract another airline.� There can be seen in a number of other industries (media, communication, rail etc).� Rail in particular, you can make a strong argument for govt intervention, as it is a monopoly, so any inflated profits can be kept in NZ, instead of heading offshore.� There is also a strong argument that a govt has a greater incentive to invest in infrastructure so it heaps additional benefit that a private owner wouldn't (pollution, Climate change, spending on roads etc)Secondly, health insurance and the airline industry are completely different.� Airlines are there to make a profit.� However ACC is not.� It isn't a SOE.� Sure it makes a profit from investments, but it is has no requirement to make a profit. It is there to cover medical costs.� so if it was opened up to the private sector, companies would just pick whatever accounts were likely to yield the highest profit (likely to be white collar accounts).� This would leave ACC to keep expensive accounts such as mining, construction etc), with a much higher average cost.
Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps, you're wrong BEFORE telling me I write nonsensical rubbish??
In fact, the case of airlines actually supports opening up markets to competition. We are seeing fantastically low prices from here to Auckland, Australia etc because the sector is open to competition. The same would happen for health insurance.
...so it goes back to the whole each case should be looked at on its own thing.
The other thing with Air NZ is that they did demand a dividends so they effectively just invested YOUR money into a private company. The right-wing way of looking at this is, hey Mr Government, I don't want you investing MY money. I want to invest it myself. On top of this, there are/were Government SOEs that don't work. Which supports the argument that the government shouldn't be investing our money and that you should be investing your own money because well, its yours and you know how best to spend it.
Basically investing in companies to create revenue isn't and shouldn't be the role of Government.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, but there is a tonne of nonsensical rubbish in this.� No of which should win you a scholarship.Firstly, noone in their right mind would say that air travel is cheap here.� Why?� Well there are few suppliers and therefore a lack of competition.� This is primarily to do with our population base.� Essentially there isn't enough demand to attract another airline.� There can be seen in a number of other industries (media, communication, rail etc).� Rail in particular, you can make a strong argument for govt intervention, as it is a monopoly, so any inflated profits can be kept in NZ, instead of heading offshore.� There is also a strong argument that a govt has a greater incentive to invest in infrastructure so it heaps additional benefit that a private owner wouldn't (pollution, Climate change, spending on roads etc)Secondly, health insurance and the airline industry are completely different.� Airlines are there to make a profit.� However ACC is not.� It isn't a SOE.� Sure it makes a profit from investments, but it is has no requirement to make a profit. It is there to cover medical costs.� so if it was opened up to the private sector, companies would just pick whatever accounts were likely to yield the highest profit (likely to be white collar accounts).� This would leave ACC to keep expensive accounts such as mining, construction etc), with a much higher average cost.
The fact is over history fully Private Companies give you innovation and efficiency. Other than Military, I bet you can't even think of something the government has "invented"
But any whom, domestically their isn't enough demand. That's why I put "To Auckland, Australia, etc" These tickets are very cheap, that's why you can find such cheap tickets on Grab A Seat. That's why it costs $180 to Fly Air NZ Auckland -> Hamilton and only Air NZ Auckland -> Wellington $209.
Interestingly, if firms that couldn't get cheaper insurance than with ACC because they were too dangerous or what not, it would actually provide them with an incentive to create a safer work environment.
What gets nonsensical is you bringing roads and climate change into the equation which is not what we're talking about.
[QUOTE=Michael]...so it goes back to the whole each case should be looked at on its own thing.
Finally, you say ACC isn't there to make a profit? Well looooooooong story short its a waste of money that by private firms making a profit, shows it doesn't need to be wasted.
20 legend2011-06-02 07:47:17
Permalink
Permalink
Not all private firms make a profit. Quite few go bust.
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Permalink
Permalink
Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps, you're wrong BEFORE telling me I write nonsensical rubbish?? [/QUOTE]
The fact is over history fully Private Companies give you innovation and efficiency. Other than Military, I bet you can't even think of something the government has "invented".[/QUOTE]
You haven't provided any arguement or evidence to support what you have said. You have a start point and a thoeritical end point. But nothing in the middle. You're basing it entirely on econonmic theory. The only bit of evidence in this thread is the bit a few post again that show what has happened in the past.
The fact is over history fully Private Companies give you innovation and efficiency. Other than Military, I bet you can't even think of something the government has "invented".[/QUOTE]
http://www.frst.govt.nz/ notice the govt in the name. It's because firm don't do it themselves
[QUOTE=20 legend] What gets nonsensical is you bringing roads and climate change into the equation which is not what we're talking about.
But any whom, domestically their isn't enough demand. That's why I put "To Auckland, Australia, etc" These tickets are very cheap, that's why you can find such cheap tickets on Grab A Seat. That's why it costs $180 to Fly Air NZ Auckland -> Hamilton and only Air NZ Auckland -> Wellington $209. [/QUOTE]
You honestly think those are cheap flights?
[QUOTE=20 legend] Interestingly, if firms that couldn't get cheaper insurance than with ACC because they were too dangerous or what not, it would actually provide them with an incentive to create a safer work environment.
They already get discounts/incentives.
[QUOTE=20 legend] What gets nonsensical is you bringing roads and climate change into the equation which is not what we're talking about.
Used as an example to show how weak your economic thoeries are.
[QUOTE=20 legend] Finally, you say ACC isn't there to make a profit? Well looooooooong story short its a waste of money that by private firms making a profit, shows it doesn't need to be wasted.
This makes no sense.[QUOTE=20 legend] Finally, you say ACC isn't there to make a profit? Well looooooooong story short its a waste of money that by private firms making a profit, shows it doesn't need to be wasted.
Permalink
Permalink
companies would just pick whatever accounts were likely to yield the highest profit (likely to be white collar accounts). This would leave ACC to keep expensive accounts such as mining, construction etc), with a much higher average cost.
Why should those working in relatively low-risk industries be subsidising high-risk industries in the first instance?
They don't.
Permalink
Permalink
Just contradicted yourself there 2B.
- Or at least negated your earlier statement that suggested there was cross subsidisation in ACC.
Not getting involved in this one. (just did)
- Or at least negated your earlier statement that suggested there was cross subsidisation in ACC.
Not getting involved in this one. (just did)
I know, I know, its serious!
Permalink
Permalink
a) Thats not true, I'm just trying not to delve too deep and actually stay on topic, which is opening up health insurance to competition (And there is plenty of evidence to show industries with proper competition work). And I have shown you economic theory. This "theory" has plenty of evidence available to you if you just use the Google button and perhaps more importantly, I don't really want to go into too much depth with anyone who thinks the Government can run a profit driven business better than the private sector because I can see its a lost cause so there's no real point. 
b) Government R&D was created by governments that couldn't bare giving companies tax breaks. And again, the foundation creates much wasted effort / money because what gets R&Ded is different to what the market actually wants. And again, its not the government's job to spend our money. The only R&D a government should carry out is health and Defense.
c) No they are not cheap flights and yes I could have gone to GrabASeat and found the latest $10 bargain - but the intended effort was to show how a route without competition costs $180, and a route with competition flying a much greater distance is effectively a lot cheaper. Perhaps not the best piece of evidence but its what was brought up.
d) You've chosen to ignore everything else I've said when quoting me their.
e) This is a really silly one-eyed response that means nothing.
f) It does make sense. If a private firm can take $100 revenue and provide insurance of equal quality and still make a profit then it proves that a public company taking a revenue of $100 and still needing a top up from the government is a massive waste of money.20 legend2011-06-02 21:16:33
b) Government R&D was created by governments that couldn't bare giving companies tax breaks. And again, the foundation creates much wasted effort / money because what gets R&Ded is different to what the market actually wants. And again, its not the government's job to spend our money. The only R&D a government should carry out is health and Defense.
c) No they are not cheap flights and yes I could have gone to GrabASeat and found the latest $10 bargain - but the intended effort was to show how a route without competition costs $180, and a route with competition flying a much greater distance is effectively a lot cheaper. Perhaps not the best piece of evidence but its what was brought up.
d) You've chosen to ignore everything else I've said when quoting me their.
e) This is a really silly one-eyed response that means nothing.
f) It does make sense. If a private firm can take $100 revenue and provide insurance of equal quality and still make a profit then it proves that a public company taking a revenue of $100 and still needing a top up from the government is a massive waste of money.20 legend2011-06-02 21:16:33
Permalink
Permalink
The other thing with Air NZ is that they did demand a dividends so they effectively just invested YOUR money into a private company. The right-wing way of looking at this is, hey Mr Government, I don't want you investing MY money. I want to invest it myself. On top of this, there are/were Government SOEs that don't work. Which supports the argument that the government shouldn't be investing our money and that you should be investing your own money because well, its yours and you know how best to spend it.
Basically investing in companies to create revenue isn't and shouldn't be the role of Government.
i'd spend it all on frozen liquid assests (yeah that's sounds econmicy). delicious but not wise!
Permalink
Permalink
a) Thats not true, I'm just trying not to delve too deep and actually stay on topic, which is opening up health insurance to competition (And there is plenty of evidence to show industries with proper competition work). And I have shown you economic theory. This "theory" has plenty of evidence available to you if you just use the Google button and perhaps more importantly, I don't really want to go into too much depth with anyone who thinks the Government can run a profit driven business better than the private sector because I can see its a lost cause so there's no real point.
You sure have the theory down. Theory doesn't always work in practice. As for the last line - explain Air NZ?aitkenmike2011-06-02 22:01:21
Permalink
Permalink
The fact is over history fully Private Companies give you innovation and
efficiency. Other than Military, I bet you can't even think of
something the government has "invented"
The military makes all the best stuff though. What kind of private companies innovated better than the military (argh its late, sentence structure and grammar evading me).
The military makes all the best stuff though. What kind of private companies innovated better than the military (argh its late, sentence structure and grammar evading me).
Permalink
Permalink
a) Thats not true, I'm just trying not to delve too deep and actually stay on topic, which is opening up health insurance to competition (And there is plenty of evidence to show industries with proper competition work). And I have shown you economic theory. This "theory" has plenty of evidence available to you if you just use the Google button and perhaps more importantly, I don't really want to go into too much depth with anyone who thinks the Government can run a profit driven business better than the private sector because I can see its a lost cause so there's no real point. [/QUOTE]
How about you be a good student and source your evidence. I would have thought providing evidence would be considered staying on topic. I don't think I said that the govt can run a profit driven business better than the private sector. I said in some cases it can be desirable for the govt to be a shareholder. BTW govts don't run SOEs. They are shareholders and put in place a board. The board and elected CEO run the business. And once again, ACC is not there to make a profit.
b) Government R&D was created by governments that couldn't bare giving companies tax breaks. And again, the foundation creates much wasted effort / money because what gets R&Ded is different to what the market actually wants. And again, its not the government's job to spend our money. The only R&D a government should carry out is health and Defense. [/QUOTE]
Ummm govts provide R&D tax credits already. http://www.ird.govt.nz/rd-tax-credit/ Try again. Surely tax credits isn't the responsibility of govt and that the free market will determine the optimal level of research/investment. Or do you only apply right wing economics when it suits.
[QUOTE=20 legend]e) This is a really silly one-eyed response that means nothing.
Truth hurts.
[QUOTE=20 legend]f) It does make sense. If a private firm can take $100 revenue and provide insurance of equal quality and still make a profit then it proves that a public company taking a revenue of $100 and still needing a top up from the government is a massive waste of money.
Not everything has to be about making a profit. Surely the thing here is that people get the health care they need at least cost.How about you be a good student and source your evidence. I would have thought providing evidence would be considered staying on topic. I don't think I said that the govt can run a profit driven business better than the private sector. I said in some cases it can be desirable for the govt to be a shareholder. BTW govts don't run SOEs. They are shareholders and put in place a board. The board and elected CEO run the business. And once again, ACC is not there to make a profit.
b) Government R&D was created by governments that couldn't bare giving companies tax breaks. And again, the foundation creates much wasted effort / money because what gets R&Ded is different to what the market actually wants. And again, its not the government's job to spend our money. The only R&D a government should carry out is health and Defense. [/QUOTE]
Ummm govts provide R&D tax credits already. http://www.ird.govt.nz/rd-tax-credit/ Try again. Surely tax credits isn't the responsibility of govt and that the free market will determine the optimal level of research/investment. Or do you only apply right wing economics when it suits.
c) No they are not cheap flights and yes I could have gone to GrabASeat and found the latest $10 bargain - but the intended effort was to show how a route without competition costs $180, and a route with competition flying a much greater distance is effectively a lot cheaper. Perhaps not the best piece of evidence but its what was brought up.
[/QUOTE]
Competition doesn't not always equate to lower prices. Natural monopolies for example.
[QUOTE=20 legend]d) You've chosen to ignore everything else I've said when quoting me their.
There, not their. Explain to me why an incentive doesn't count when it is from a crown entity, as opposed to a private company?[QUOTE=20 legend]d) You've chosen to ignore everything else I've said when quoting me their.
[QUOTE=20 legend]e) This is a really silly one-eyed response that means nothing.
[QUOTE=20 legend]f) It does make sense. If a private firm can take $100 revenue and provide insurance of equal quality and still make a profit then it proves that a public company taking a revenue of $100 and still needing a top up from the government is a massive waste of money.
2ndBest2011-06-02 22:09:48
Permalink
Permalink
The fact is over history fully Private Companies give you innovation and
efficiency. Other than Military, I bet you can't even think of
something the government has "invented"The military makes all the best stuff though. What kind of private companies innovated better than the military (argh its late, sentence structure and grammar evading me).
And nowadays the "best" military stuff is made by private firms competing for tenders.
efficiency. Other than Military, I bet you can't even think of
something the government has "invented"The military makes all the best stuff though. What kind of private companies innovated better than the military (argh its late, sentence structure and grammar evading me).
Don't worry AM, 2B, I'll reply too you tomorrow.
20 legend2011-06-02 22:18:18
Permalink
Permalink
No rush. i won't be back until tuesday.
Permalink
Permalink
No rush.� i won't be back until tuesday.
Hopefully you can open your mind a little.
Permalink
Permalink
I think you've been reading too many ACT party manifestos.
Permalink
Permalink
]Hopefully you can open your mind a little.
As he's on the piss with the lefty cadre (and a a fascist or two) I don't like your chances.
Permalink
Permalink
I think you've been reading too many ACT party manifestos.
2B, his argument is so powerful that its not necessary to source it.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
guess they hand out scholarships willy nilly these days.
Permalink
Permalink
Vero's executive general manager of new ventures Nigel Edmiston said his company ... had done some planning on entering the workplace insurance market but that the Government's proposal "wasn't particularly attractive"...
Edmiston said that private insurers would not be able to compete with ACC's pricing and would prefer it was excised completely from the market.
"[ACC] have a huge market share, they have all the infrastructure and systems, they've got no set up costs, they don't pay tax and they don't pay dividends and they don't need capital."
Edmiston said that private insurers would not be able to compete with ACC's pricing and would prefer it was excised completely from the market.
"[ACC] have a huge market share, they have all the infrastructure and systems, they've got no set up costs, they don't pay tax and they don't pay dividends and they don't need capital."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5088874/ACC-strategy-pleases-no-one
Permalink
Permalink
I think you've been reading too many ACT party manifestos.�
2B, his argument is so powerful that its not necessary to source it.
Ease up. Life is so clear cut when you are young.
(Or a rabid lefty, or a gibbering libertarian)
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Permalink
Permalink
Still waiting for a reply. Must be an epic one if it is taking him 4 days.
Permalink
Permalink