ACC unit targeting high-cost clients

Those requiring long-term ACC support did not choose to be in the situation they are in. These are members of society who were once independent, working in good jobs, raising good families, loving and contributing to life. They are now the innocent survivors of among the most hideous criminal action of our country's most hideous criminals.

They must endure the personal, physical and mental recovery of being in the wrong place and at the wrong time in the path of such criminals as drunken drivers, aggrevated assault, drugged-up home-invaders, rapists, murderers, and sometimes, negligent employees.

The Government ought to be directing their attention to preventing and responding to these criminals and criminal behaviour.

Leave alone the systems already in place and working that enable the care and rehabilitation of "long-term" ACC recipients to reclaim a life worth living, to return to the workforce and the right to return to independence.

Actually the law was changed to stop ACC lump sums being paid out to people injured committing an offence many years ago. The case manager and caregivers that dealt with burtons case made the call to give him a expensive leg when they could have given him a stick. Burton never got a payout as some are suggesting here he got a leg to walk on. I agree that the price was high and he shoulda just got a plastic one but not giving him a false leg at all would have been just as wrong.
Just Alien again trying to tell us how wonderful National is by spinning thier own version of the truth.

So a Air line pilot would have private insurance (not as if they cant afford it) so on top of the ACC 80% they would get another 140% + If the accident was work place and caused by someone else they would face labour laws and be liable for payment, I now a person that had this happen to him and retired at 42 brought a vineyard and 6 weeks ago brought a helicopter for frost protection ( he cant fly it and employs a young women too) There must be something in the single mother raising kids in state housing thing.

I have to agree Phil, National are using ACC as a political platform.. looking to get agreement to privatise some portions of it.

Whether that is right or not.. well who really cares.

What ACC was set up to do was provide comprehensive full no faults coverage and full rehabilitation.

This new National party policy of attaching a price tag or a time limit to such compensation and rehabilitation breaches the level of trust New Zealanders placed in former governments to maintain a scheme that was as it was stated.

Soon they will start working to median time frames for expected recovery and even if you havent... well thats just tough luck.

Everyone is different, everyone heals and recovers at different rates.

I dont use ACC, but having too sounds like a shocking prospect.

And yes, National always move ACC recepients onto long term Winz benefits, then even though they use long term beneficiaries as a reason New Zealanders should hate beneficiaries we forget that politicians like John Key and Nick Smith put them there to begin with.

ACC couldnt fix them, how the hell do you expect Winz too, that has to be the biggest joke ever.

They took them from a minimum of $400.00 a week to a minimum of $230.00 a week, thats going to make them well isnt it, not too mention what they would have done to their dignity.

But then again, no one ever said business ever had to have any sort of morality attached to it.

Key and Smith dont.

National are merely transferring the cost away from ACC to WINZ.

They did this the last time they were in.

Workers who have been injured are entitled to compensation.

The period of compensation is dependent on how long it takes them to recover which itself relies on:

The injury itself, the state of health the person was in before the injury, the level of care provided, the duration waited for treatment and the type of employment that they undertook before the accident.

Workers paid a levy to ACC for compensation. They were promised compensation and rehabilitation in return to forfeit their right to sue.

These long term claimants’ are being cheated, and one would expect this to end up in court at some later stage.

Why are they being cheated?

If an airline pilot or some highly technical person suffered a head injury or stress, and they had to resign though no fault of their own, then getting a lower paid job, if they find one at all means they have not only lost their current income, but future income as well combined with loss of promotion and career advancement, while the person causing the accident gets of scot free.

The government is not keeping to its original agreement and that is "to return an employee to suitable work prior the accident".

Already workers suffering an accident are penalised as they only get 80% of their original income, and cannot sue for the 20% which they have lost.

Claimants on ACC are not getting an “easy ride” as the politicians make you believe. There is a rigorous process of constant review by specialists, case managers, case managers team leaders, Occupational therapists and other specialists ensuring claimants are receiving the necessary entitlement.

What this government is doing is ruthlessly purging people of the system with no support, leaving them to rot.

Those sitting on their couches believing its the right thing, wait it will be you next. No one is immune to having an accident.

I know, Alien, I was just being cynical, with massive payouts contributing to the ACC shortfall.

Ah, Burton legally got his pay out under the previous law which has now been changed by National so that people injured in the act of committing a crime can no longer claim ACC.

Burton springs to mind, as well as some other massive payouts for criminals. Target their lawyers too.