Rodney Hide talks about ACC with Justin du Fresne on NewstalkZB (starts at 33.33).Rodney makes the point (more than once) that it is the way ACC is funded that lays it open to abuse. "The incentives are all wrong. We have produced a nation of cheats and crooks."
He says change the system. The principles are wrong. Contributions should be made in our name, into a personalised account, then when we claim, we run down our own money. We can only rip ourselves off. That is what should have been done at the outset of ACC.
This prompted a call from someone asking why it is National is such a useless opposition and it is left to the likes of Rodney Hide or Ron Mark to say what the majority of us are thinking.
And no. It wasn't me.
15 comments:
"He says change the system. The principles are wrong".
Lindsay, why not just dump it and open the whole scenario to private enterprise, period?
This remains my problem with Act. Trying to make the state work instead of getting out of the way.
The official ACC policy is to "create a competitive market". That isn't trying to make the state work.
"He says change the system. The principles are wrong. Contributions should be made in our name, into a personalised account,"
Also give me interest on that account, so I can choose which interest provider.
And give me an eftpos card so I can redeem my savings with any physio.
Fuck why not just make me pay for what I use!
Now That would be thinking in principles!
Lawrence oO
This prompted a call from someone asking why it is National is such a useless opposition and it is left to the likes of Rodney Hide or Ron Mark to say what the majority of us are thinking.
The problem is it is NOT what the majority of us are thinking. ACT would be much higher is the polls if it was.
The average voter does not give a tinker's dam about ACC. That is reality I am afraid.
Ruth, What does the average voter "give a tinker's dam" about? (Apart from Tony Veitch.)
What would happen to the money from people who contribute all their lives and don't take any out?
I think what Rodney is getting at here is the much broader idea of personalised accounts covering all social risks. As I understand it, that's always been Roger Douglas's ideal. In which case your contributions would become part of your estate or there could be a draw-down facility with advancing age.
The whole point is getting the incentives right for people to get rewarded for being personally responsible (instead of punished). Imagine if there was the prospect of a return of unspent funds at some point. All contributors would be motivated to make good. Sure, 'accidents' are just that but even many of those are avoidable. The only time I ever spent on ACC (1 week in 1982) could have been avoided if I hadn't been driving carelessly.
But these are the 'big' debates. For the moment ACT's policy is to open up ACC to private insurers. Perhaps there will be greater elaboration later in the campaign.
The official ACC policy is to "create a competitive market". That isn't trying to make the state work.
Rubbish, Lindsay, Rubbish. We already have a nominally competitive market - large employers can opt out of ACC and self insure or make other arrangements.
Competition is not the problem, compulsion is the problem - and the biggest problem is that idea that somebody else is responsible for our problems
As lawrence said: Fuck why not just make me pay for what I use!
Anything else is socialism. What happens when you account runs empty? Oh gee, Ms Nanny State tops you up? Or you run up a state-guaranteed debt?
ACT is just for slighly more efficient socialism.
The whole point is getting the incentives right for people to get rewarded for being personally responsible
Penury is the only incentive.
Sure, 'accidents' are just that but even many of those are avoidable.
Accidents happen. That is the truth of life. ACC - or some private scheme or vouchers - are all about denying that simple fact.
You can choose to insure yourself against accidents. Or you can choose not to.
You can choose to avoid accidents.
Or you can choose not to.
You can choose to work.
Or you can choose not to.
That's freedom and responsibility.
Anything else is socialism - and most certainly perverts the incentives to take responsibility.
Anon, There can be two compulsions.
1/ The state makes me pay for other people's problems or
2/ the state makes me pay for my own problems
I prefer 2.
Or there can be your "freedom and responsibility" which will rely heavily on charity and hasn't been tested anywhere in the modern developed world but should work in theory.
But guess what? It's not going to happen in my lifetime or yours.
So yet again we come back to the choice I made. I opted to push gradualism instead of holding out for a revolution. And with the way NZ is going, just fighting regression is the most important priority right now.
There can be two compulsions.
...
2/ the state makes me pay for my own problems
How about no compulsion whatsoever?
which will rely heavily on charity
Why? I hope not. Charity is just another
distortion in the marketplace.
and hasn't been tested anywhere in the modern developed world
So Hong Kong, arguably Singapore and half of Eastern Europe aren't developed??
But guess what? It's not going to happen in my lifetime or yours.
Actually, and once again, Russia in particular is the example: the bare facts of NZ's failure as a viable economy will ensure that this happens
Do you really think Australia would let us join if it meant sending billions of AUD every year across the Tasman? So if they won't bail us out- who will?
Answer: nobody. And as NZ crashes out of the OECD and out of the "modern developed world" - which is precisely where it is going - we're really not going to have a choice any more.
In fact, of course, we don't already: in spite of absolute NZ record tax taxes, and government as a %age of GDP higher that most of supposedly high-taxing "old europe" - we still can't provide decent healthcare or education, let alone roads, internet, or God forbid trains. If you're a rich country like Germany or England you can afford all these things.
We just don't have the money.
And the sooner we start to realise that, the better.
Anon, You are now going around in circles. There is no compulsion in Singapore??
Or Hong Kong
http://socialsecurity.gov/
policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2006-2007
/asia/hongkong.html
or Estonia (EG)
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/
progdesc/ssptw/2004-2005/europe/
estonia.html
There is compulsion involved in social security everywhere where provision is made through legislation.
Now let's go back to your original comment;
"Competition is not the problem, compulsion is the problem."
"the bare facts of NZ's failure as a viable economy will ensure that this happens"
True enough that NZ is positioning itself to follow Argentina in it's surrender to self-destructive left leaning populism (with so called free-market parties being nothing of the sort). However, note that Argentina could be said to be past the point of not having "a choice any more", and thus demonstrates how hard it is to turn around when you're on the road to serfdom.
Dave Christian
Argentina could be said to be past the point of not having "a choice any more", and thus demonstrates how hard it is to turn around when you're on the road to serfdom.
And NZ is different precisely how?
NZ is on the same path. You seem to suggest that eventually many people will recognise that a change of direction is necessary. They won't. It is easier to change direction earlier (i.e. very soon) rather than later. We are ill-served by politicians who know that a change of direction is wise but would rather prostitute themselves for the power and baubles of office than proselytise for individual liberty and free markets.
Dave
Post a Comment