We keep being told ACC is the world’s best no-fault accident insurance scheme.
If a scheme which has a $12.8 billion gap between its net assets and claim liabilities is the best, what would the worst be like?
What would happen if we didn’t have ACC?
People who had minor accidents would look after themselves and most of those who needed treatment would get it through the public health system. If they had on-going problems they might end up on a benefit.
What they wouldn’t get, unless they had their own accident insurance, would be earnings related compensation.
How many would try to sue? I don’t know the answer to that. But if you take away accidents in which the victim is at fault because of carelessness or stupidity and others for which no-one else could be blamed I doubt if it would be a very big number.
Tomorrow the government will announce changes to the scheme to address the gap between income and outgoings. It will leave us paying more for less.
If a compulsory accident insurance scheme is so good, why has no-one suggested we have compulsory health insurance too? If the answer to that is that compulsory health insurance wouldn’t be a good idea, we need to look at ACC and ask if we’d be better off without compulsory accident insurance too.
Those who wanted accident and earnings related insurance could pay for their own. The rest would take the risk of having to rely on public health and benefit systems.
And if Macdoctor is right, we’d have fewer accidents because people might start taking a bit more care.
UPDATE: Liberty Scott has a prescription for improvements.