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

Waireka wrote:

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.

This still doesn't deal with the issue of why do I have to have something I don't even want. Why should the government monopolize the entire health care system, giving us no choice to use such a broken system. If ACC was a business, it would have ceased to exist long ago due to its inefficiency and lack of any real direction.


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.

Make ACC all encompassing, allow more viable coverage from multiple competitors. Choice, choice, choice, free market capitalism, let it thrive.

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.

One might say that due to so many of New Zealand major industries being government owned stopped any qualified and wealthy enough to ascend to this position, with government monopolies controlling all these wealthy industries, no New Zealander could really establish enough wealth to be able to run this sort of system.

Who in their right mind sells a Business like that?

Why does the government need assets, why would it even need them? It's the government, government isn't meant to control every aspect of our lives. The government has one purpose, oversee the country and regulate it. No assets are needed for this. All we need are oversight committee's. I guess this is philosophical difference we have reached...

How would applying a kiwisaver model to ACC work?

There is no question everyone needs it. Hence why it is compulsory by the govt. at the moment. Having different options to choose from that compete could work. A company still wants to make a profit, the state's interest isn't in making a profit but just providing a service, providing a cheaper option. In most cases the cheaper option is best.

Meh who cares. I say sting the bastards who cause accidents, are reckless and kill more retarded people.

frup wrote:How would applying a kiwisaver model to ACC work?

There is no question everyone needs it. Hence why it is compulsory by the govt. at the moment. Having different options to choose from that compete could work. A company still wants to make a profit, the state's interest isn't in making a profit but just providing a service, providing a cheaper option. In most cases the cheaper option is best.

Meh who cares. I say sting the bastards who cause accidents, are reckless and kill more retarded people.

All medical insurance (and Income Protection) has an offset element whereby they will offset any ACC entitlements. So, if you opt-out of ACC, your private insurance would have to increase its premiums to take care of the increasing costs.

ACC is also to protect US from being sued by visitors to this country - so, privatisation would need to take care of that as well.

ACC is very much like Southern Cross - if you don't claim much, some fat diabetic bastard will take your premiums, and use them for their own lard-ass ways!

Whilst I am very much a capatilist, I heard something recently that went something like "in a recession, all capitalists want the government to buy back assets".

Oh, and privatization IS an evil word - it is spelt with american spelling, which shits me no-end

frup wrote:How would applying a kiwisaver model to ACC work?

There is no question everyone needs it. Hence why it is compulsory by the govt. at the moment. Having different options to choose from that compete could work. A company still wants to make a profit, the state's interest isn't in making a profit but just providing a service, providing a cheaper option. In most cases the cheaper option is best.

Meh who cares. I say sting the bastards who cause accidents, are reckless and kill more retarded people.

As long as the government isn't making a loss. Breaking even is fine. A profit is fine. There is no harm done in having a profitable government.

Donkeycheese wrote:

frup wrote:How would applying a kiwisaver model to ACC work?

There is no question everyone needs it. Hence why it is compulsory by the govt. at the moment. Having different options to choose from that compete could work. A company still wants to make a profit, the state's interest isn't in making a profit but just providing a service, providing a cheaper option. In most cases the cheaper option is best.

Meh who cares. I say sting the bastards who cause accidents, are reckless and kill more retarded people.

All medical insurance (and Income Protection) has an offset element whereby they will offset any ACC entitlements. So, if you opt-out of ACC, your private insurance would have to increase its premiums to take care of the increasing costs.

ACC is also to protect US from being sued by visitors to this country - so, privatisation would need to take care of that as well.

ACC is very much like Southern Cross - if you don't claim much, some fat diabetic bastard will take your premiums, and use them for their own lard-ass ways!

Whilst I am very much a capatilist, I heard something recently that went something like "in a recession, all capitalists want the government to buy back assets".

Oh, and privatization IS an evil word - it is spelt with american spelling, which shits me no-end

/thread

Privatization on the most part is not a bad thing, as long as it is accompanied by a anti-monopolistic clause. It has been proven time and time again that the private sector in a competitive environment operates far more efficiently than the public sector.

However in saying that I dont have a problem if public sector business operate in an industry as a competitor as long as it is profitable, such as perhaps Kiwibank. ACC as it stands should be opened up to competition.

xiaoge wrote:Privatization on the most part is not a bad thing, as long as it is accompanied by a anti-monopolistic clause. It has been proven time and time again that the private sector in a competitive environment operates far more efficiently than the public sector.

However in saying that I dont have a problem if public sector business operate in an industry as a competitor as long as it is profitable, such as perhaps Kiwibank. ACC as it stands should be opened up to competition.

Really? Like say, the Railways in the United Kingdom. The ownership of the public water supply hived off to the private sector. The Electricity Industry here? The People of Russia are better off that all of their assets were stolen by the oligarchs?

It is a lie that the Private Sector is inherently more efficient in a 'competitive environment' - whatever that is supposed to be. It is a lie trotted out by the uneducated or the self-interested. Lazzaire Faire has never worked. Anywhere. It always results in monopoly capitalism which exploits most of Society. It has been tried. Both here and in the United States. In the era of the Robber Barons. In both Countries it required Government intervention to break up their strangleholds.

No one has addressed this bit of my previous post: As for other SOE's. Prior to them being sold, with the exception of the Government Printing Office, every one was a profit maker.

What is 'inherently wrong' with the People owning their own Infrastructure? And keeping the Profits for the benefit of all?

A few things I will note. You will not see an ill person saying that the Health System should be privatised. You will see the able-bodied relatively well-off saying ACC should be. It seems that none of those who argue the user-pays line ever see themselves as a user. They imagine themselves all as predators, not prey. And have no concept whatsoever of what being a member of a Society means. They prate of Rights. Never of the other side of the coin. Obligations.

Lynz wrote:

xiaoge wrote:Privatization on the most part is not a bad thing, as long as it is accompanied by a anti-monopolistic clause. It has been proven time and time again that the private sector in a competitive environment operates far more efficiently than the public sector.

However in saying that I dont have a problem if public sector business operate in an industry as a competitor as long as it is profitable, such as perhaps Kiwibank. ACC as it stands should be opened up to competition.

Really? Like say, the Railways in the United Kingdom. The ownership of the public water supply hived off to the private sector. The Electricity Industry here? The People of Russia are better off that all of their assets were stolen by the oligarchs?

It is a lie that the Private Sector is inherently more efficient in a 'competitive environment' - whatever that is supposed to be. It is a lie trotted out by the uneducated or the self-interested. Lazzaire Faire has never worked. Anywhere. It always results in monopoly capitalism which exploits most of Society. It has been tried. Both here and in the United States. In the era of the Robber Barons. In both Countries it required Government intervention to break up their strangleholds.

No one has addressed this bit of my previous post: As for other SOE's. Prior to them being sold, with the exception of the Government Printing Office, every one was a profit maker.

What is 'inherently wrong' with the People owning their own Infrastructure? And keeping the Profits for the benefit of all?

A few things I will note. You will not see an ill person saying that the Health System should be privatised. You will see the able-bodied relatively well-off saying ACC should be. It seems that none of those who argue the user-pays line ever see themselves as a user. They imagine themselves all as predators, not prey. And have no concept whatsoever of what being a member of a Society means. They prate of Rights. Never of the other side of the coin. Obligations.

I'm coming from one of those countries who were 'in transition' from the socialist to the capitalist system and the so called privatisation turned out to be outright theft by political sycophants and dodgy characters. That country's economy and the social situation, is still in a deep mess, contrary to the great expectations that the people had about a change to a more liberal, capitalist system.

No political/economical system is ideal. The privatisation of everything and anything can end up with a laissez faire system like the USA, where you are fucked if you don't earn enough money to have health insurance. On the other hand, the Scandinavian countries enjoy the high standard of living because the vital systems are state-owned and heavily subsidised by the taxpayers.

The other problem is that New Zealand is a very tiny market where privatisation more often than not means that we have a duopoly (like Foodstuffs and Porgressive, Telecom and Vodafone) or have to put up with price fixing among petrol and power companies.