Why does everybody treat the word "Privatization" as evil?

Aren't politicians the least trusted profession in New Zealand? I see privatization as an equally viable alternative to SOE, our countries facination with them has long confused me.

I think it's easier to hold our government accountable than a corporation.

Thus the appeal of not privatising.

But the great thing about a free market place is that you can choose. Sure keep a public option, but having a viable private one is great too. Their accountabilty can be run by a oversight commmittee. I dislike the idea of politicised assets as well. And if they suck at what they do, well they fail as a corporation.

superarmy wrote:But the great thing about a free market place is that you can choose. Sure keep a public option, but having a viable private one is great too. Their accountabilty can be run by a oversight commmittee. I dislike the idea of politicised assets as well. And if they suck at what they do, well they fail as a corporation.

Anything in mind when making these comments, or privatisation of things in general.

Privatisation is fine, we just live in a country too small for some things to be let out of state hands.

I also regard some infra structure as more suited to a 'not for profit' model.

I live in an extremely small economy where there is no room for two competing entities, a recent example being fuel importation and distribution. A monopoly situation basically left us getting overcharged. Our trust has now stepped in , sells fuel in competition with a private entity and prices have dropped from exorbidant to merely insanely expensive.

Can't vote. Not a yes or no question. Two words...railways, telecommunications.

Waireka wrote:

superarmy wrote:But the great thing about a free market place is that you can choose. Sure keep a public option, but having a viable private one is great too. Their accountabilty can be run by a oversight commmittee. I dislike the idea of politicised assets as well. And if they suck at what they do, well they fail as a corporation.

Anything in mind when making these comments, or privatisation of things in general.

I only enjoy humorous news story when reading the paper so I always love the letters to the editor. Everything on Friday talked about this horrid privatisation of ACC. I assumed it's Labour supporters equivalent of the conservative tea parties in america. But even during the election I couldn't understand why would be opposed to opening up the markets. Let's have a government and private option, let the two compete, consumer always wins.

Wizz wrote:Can't vote. Not a yes or no question. Two words...railways, telecommunications.

Agreed. Poll is too simplistic. Although, I did vote yes just to show which side I lean to.

Also, the politicians are not directly the heads of each state owned company. So it is wrong to assume that the CEO of a SEO is as trustworthy as a politician.


Certain things should be handled by the government, others should be handled privately. Never should everything be handled by one or the other.

superarmy wrote:

Waireka wrote:

superarmy wrote:But the great thing about a free market place is that you can choose. Sure keep a public option, but having a viable private one is great too. Their accountabilty can be run by a oversight commmittee. I dislike the idea of politicised assets as well. And if they suck at what they do, well they fail as a corporation.

Anything in mind when making these comments, or privatisation of things in general.

I only enjoy humorous news story when reading the paper so I always love the letters to the editor. Everything on Friday talked about this horrid privatisation of ACC. I assumed it's Labour supporters equivalent of the conservative tea parties in america. But even during the election I couldn't understand why would be opposed to opening up the markets. Let's have a government and private option, let the two compete, consumer always wins.

Ever heard of Southern Cross healthcare? They're a private health insurance option.

Wizz wrote:Can't vote. Not a yes or no question. Two words...railways, telecommunications.

Telecom was more poor handling of the government. I have nothing against oversight commitee's making sure the monopolies don't occur. I don't know enough about NZ Rail, to make a valid comment I feel.

Though, what I do agree is that IF you've got private health insurance, you should really be only using the private option -- that is, you may opt out of ACC levies and shift them into your private health insurance.

master5o1 wrote:Though, what I do agree is that IF you've got private health insurance, you should really be only using the private option -- that is, you may opt out of ACC levies and shift them into your private health insurance.

This is exactly my point. You should choose rather than having to pay the costs of the government version.

superarmy wrote:

master5o1 wrote:Though, what I do agree is that IF you've got private health insurance, you should really be only using the private option -- that is, you may opt out of ACC levies and shift them into your private health insurance.

This is exactly my point. You should choose rather than having to pay the costs of the government version.

Then there is no need to privatise ACC. Just allow the 'opt-out' of any ACC levies.

master5o1 wrote:

superarmy wrote:

master5o1 wrote:Though, what I do agree is that IF you've got private health insurance, you should really be only using the private option -- that is, you may opt out of ACC levies and shift them into your private health insurance.

This is exactly my point. You should choose rather than having to pay the costs of the government version.

Then there is no need to privatise ACC. Just allow the 'opt-out' of any ACC levies.

I always viewed privatisation as the unbundling of government monopolies. Whether through the sale of the asset, or allowing alternatives.

superarmy wrote:

master5o1 wrote:

superarmy wrote:

master5o1 wrote:Though, what I do agree is that IF you've got private health insurance, you should really be only using the private option -- that is, you may opt out of ACC levies and shift them into your private health insurance.

This is exactly my point. You should choose rather than having to pay the costs of the government version.

Then there is no need to privatise ACC. Just allow the 'opt-out' of any ACC levies.

I always viewed privatisation as the unbundling of government monopolies. Whether through the sale of the asset, or allowing alternatives.

ACC being the company, does not need privatisation.
Health Care being the service, would be privatised by the introduction of an 'opt-out' of the SOE service and 'opt-in' to the private service.

I don't want a private option added in for ACC type insurance.

It's good to know everyone is covered under this banner, if private options were opened up then the rich would probably be better off going private, leaving a gaping hole in the traditional ACC financially.

I think...

Waireka wrote:I don't want a private option added in for ACC type insurance.

It's good to know everyone is covered under this banner, if private options were opened up then the rich would probably be better off going private, leaving a gaping hole in the traditional ACC financially.

I think...

Yeah. The 'opt-out' would create a void as those that don't use it are no longer paying for those that over use it.

master5o1 wrote:

Waireka wrote:I don't want a private option added in for ACC type insurance.

It's good to know everyone is covered under this banner, if private options were opened up then the rich would probably be better off going private, leaving a gaping hole in the traditional ACC financially.

I think...

Yeah. The 'opt-out' would create a void as those that don't use it are no longer paying for those that over use it.

superarmy wrote:

master5o1 wrote:

Waireka wrote:I don't want a private option added in for ACC type insurance.

It's good to know everyone is covered under this banner, if private options were opened up then the rich would probably be better off going private, leaving a gaping hole in the traditional ACC financially.

I think...

Yeah. The 'opt-out' would create a void as those that don't use it are no longer paying for those that over use it.

master5o1 wrote:

Waireka wrote:I don't want a private option added in for ACC type insurance.

It's good to know everyone is covered under this banner, if private options were opened up then the rich would probably be better off going private, leaving a gaping hole in the traditional ACC financially.

I think...

Yeah. The 'opt-out' would create a void as those that don't use it are no longer paying for those that over use it.

Some pay considerably more ACC, but they are also considerably better off, this is like saying people on higher incomes should not pay higher taxes, no?

So who would make up the surplus, or would the users just have to go without?

Waireka wrote:

master5o1 wrote:

Waireka wrote:I don't want a private option added in for ACC type insurance.

It's good to know everyone is covered under this banner, if private options were opened up then the rich would probably be better off going private, leaving a gaping hole in the traditional ACC financially.

I think...

Yeah. The 'opt-out' would create a void as those that don't use it are no longer paying for those that over use it.

Some pay considerably more ACC, but they are also considerably better off, this is like saying people on higher incomes should not pay higher taxes, no?

So who would make up the surplus, or would the users just have to go without?

Basically, it seems that ACC would work best if EVERYONE is in ACC, and not one is in private.

master5o1 wrote:

Waireka wrote:

master5o1 wrote:

Waireka wrote:I don't want a private option added in for ACC type insurance.

It's good to know everyone is covered under this banner, if private options were opened up then the rich would probably be better off going private, leaving a gaping hole in the traditional ACC financially.

I think...

Yeah. The 'opt-out' would create a void as those that don't use it are no longer paying for those that over use it.

Some pay considerably more ACC, but they are also considerably better off, this is like saying people on higher incomes should not pay higher taxes, no?

So who would make up the surplus, or would the users just have to go without?

Basically, it seems that ACC would work best if EVERYONE is in ACC, and not one is in private.

But this is inheritently unfair. Why do people get mandatorily involved in a health care system, regardless of whether or not they want it. Why can't they elect to choose, you know, like a democracy with freedom of expression.

superarmy wrote:

master5o1 wrote:

Waireka wrote:

master5o1 wrote:

Waireka wrote:I don't want a private option added in for ACC type insurance.

It's good to know everyone is covered under this banner, if private options were opened up then the rich would probably be better off going private, leaving a gaping hole in the traditional ACC financially.

I think...

Yeah. The 'opt-out' would create a void as those that don't use it are no longer paying for those that over use it.

Some pay considerably more ACC, but they are also considerably better off, this is like saying people on higher incomes should not pay higher taxes, no?

So who would make up the surplus, or would the users just have to go without?

Basically, it seems that ACC would work best if EVERYONE is in ACC, and not one is in private.

But this is inheritently unfair. Why do people get mandatorily involved in a health care system, regardless of whether or not they want it. Why can't they elect to choose, you know, like a democracy with freedom of expression.

A general fund will always by more beneficial financially, one like ACC where the poor man doesn't so much notice his contributions due to the way they are taken.

Since when is being all for one cause a bad thing?

If we agree we all have the potential to need the health care system at some stage, then we all should contribute to it.

superarmy wrote:

master5o1 wrote:Though, what I do agree is that IF you've got private health insurance, you should really be only using the private option -- that is, you may opt out of ACC levies and shift them into your private health insurance.

This is exactly my point. You should choose rather than having to pay the costs of the government version.

if that's the case (ie you chose one or the other) the private health insurance cover will go up up up in price. your current health plan does not include all the things that ACC does (private healt cover is generally ONLY for things over and above ACC).

so you aren't comparing apples with apples.

Not one person, old enough to remember pre-ACC, would advocate privatisation, or a return to what existed prior to it. Not unless they quite wealthy.

As for the Railways? Well, being employed there, I know a little about this. The various owners asset-striped it over the years to the tune of over $2 Billion. It was originally sold for $343 million. After the Government had just paid over $800 million to partially electrify the Main North Island Line. The last bunch of thieves, Toll, stripped off the trucking part. Popular opinion amongst us was it was all they really wanted in the first place.

Not one of the owners invested anything beyond what let the operation limp along from day-to-day. They all had promised new Locomotives and investment in the track. They lied. By the time the tracks weres bought back for a dollar, there were over 40 speed restrictions due sub-standard track between Westport and Otira alone. This is the line our heaviest trains travel over.

As for other SOE's. Prior to them being sold, with the exception of the Government Printing Office, every one was a profit maker. Including Rail. Telecom was sold for $4.5 Billion. In the years immediately following, it regularly reported an after-tax profit exceeding $1.5 Billion. Who in their right mind sells a Business like that? To overseas owners? None of them bought what were our assets, just because they liked us, or as a favour.