Competition in ACC

According to this independent report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers  isn't that fairly much everyone in NZ?

and the ones who will benefit from competition according to the same report are the Australian insurance companies.

Also why is it an assumption that what ACC covers (most commonly injury prevention and rehablitation) is a market? There is also a big gap in the protection market here, generally covered by what we call the police.

ACC benefits us greatly, and it makes our society less mean. Have you seen the bs lawsuits and 'ambulance-chasing' behaviour that goes on elsewhere? It is one of the things we have to be proud of. We are not a hugely litigious society and it is a good thing to keep it that way.

The so-called funding gap was because ACC is now required to fund claims not just for that year as it had previously (which it was covering comfortably) but for the whole lifetime of a claim.

So if I need 40 years of treatment ACC has to have the funds to cover that NOW, which it didn't have to up until 1999.

More semantics to deny that those benefiting from competition are the Aussie insurers.

Ahhh. Sorry guys. Looooooooong off season ahead.

Cbf, not worth it, can't be bothered, you don't actually care what I have to say, can't be bothered, ignoring economics is easy when you're a leftie, can't be bothered, not yet bored enough, wait till this weekend, can't be bothered. All of the above.

But mostly... if you think government funded R&D drives humanity I do not see the point in debating.

Edit # 1,000,000: Spelling fix :L20 legend2011-06-09 20:59:58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Yes I do 2B, and if you have a degree in economics, which I honestly started to think you did, then you know what I am saying.

However, you did not even say the word "social" at all during that entire "debate" (I was waiting for it...) so thats not what I addressed.

What I was addressing, pure and simple, is the benefits of opening up markets to competition. I was originally (as per my first post) steering clear of getting into details with ACC.

So what I'm really saying is that because...

I get worked up when I hear people say things like when it simply isn't true in a lot of cases.

In essence you are arguing that economic theory isn't always right, and I am trying to argue that its not always wrong. And that pure hate of the word "privatisation" is rubbish and immature from our dear labour friends.20 legend2011-06-09 22:33:00

If ACC is run at a zero profit entity, and the PWC report shows that it's cost are low in comparison to overseas situations, how will a private company make a profit?

let's assume that if I waffle generally about market clearing I will win any debate without the need to resort to cost-benefit analysis or acknowledge the cost-benefit analysis that does exist.

I win!

Do you also think that he's a cabbage, because he hates University Challenge?

I don't think anyone is arguing that economic theory is always wrong (like 2B, I also have an economics degree, so would be quite disapointed if that was the case!) but people are arguing that there are cases (as you acknowledged in your first post) where various market distortions cause the usual free market economic assumptions to not hold.

I would argue that all the empirical evidence that I have seen (including the PWC review linked by martinb above) points to ACC being one of these exceptions, both in terms of cost effectivenes, and in time taken to rehabilitate people enough to go back to work. If you have any information specific to accident compensation/injury rehabilitation that points other wise other than just pure neoliberal economic theory I would be happy to hear it.

N.B. It is one of the issues that I have with economics as a field today (and why I looked to other fields for work) is that a lot economics seems to be trying to fit empirical observation into the theories that the economist holds rather than the other way round as in the pure sciences.aitkenmike2011-06-10 12:00:32

I was two marks off.

Physics scholarships are the realms of over studiers.

It will surprise everyone to learn that I don't actually think ACC should be privatised, health is one of the things that should be available in this world and high tax payers shouldn't mind paying for.

As for other things the government owns... a different story 20 legend2011-06-10 16:36:48

Also that we seem to have decided that Keynes was a complete fraud right?

I will go with whatever Stephen Hawking says.

Edit: Actually our very own Paul Callaghan is very much the dog's bollox too.

Junior822011-06-10 19:19:18

A lot of economic frameworks seem to contradict each other. This annoyed me, so I gave it up. It's all theory used to predict things. Surely you must know that by now 20 legend?

Assumptions eh, 2B?

Just winding you up