tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post4252019567322606864..comments2023-10-12T00:07:25.722+13:00Comments on roarprawn: DEATH WISHUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post-20673339024990594452009-10-23T21:29:58.596+13:002009-10-23T21:29:58.596+13:00Is this the same whaka that has been dumped behind...Is this the same whaka that has been dumped behind a shed in a Helensville swamp for the past yonks or so ?kehuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post-53196340873682407062009-10-20T15:33:55.020+13:002009-10-20T15:33:55.020+13:00ACC was a form of insurance designed to keep litig...ACC was a form of insurance designed to keep litigious action to a minimum and give universal access to compensation that had not been universally available through the courts previously. My view is that ACC is a bit of a flop, having said that, we are stuck with the system, for now. <br /><br />Taxpayer and other contributions are nothing more or less than insurance premiums. Insurance is a hedge against risk. For insurance to work there has to be an element of risk for the respective parties to wager upon. For example, when you take out life insurance, you are betting you will die before you have paid more in premiums than the expected payout in the event of your death. The insurance company is betting you won’t. If you are of sound mind, you hope the insurance company wins. In the entire approximately 300 year history of the modern concept of insurance, insurance actuaries have, quite reasonably, never wagered upon certain losses. It goes against the fundamental philosophy of the concept. The act of suicide is a certain loss, foreseeable by one party to the exchange and payable to their estate. Regardless of the tragedy and sadness surrounding such events there is no sound reason why taxpayers should pick up the tab. On that basis, BB’s thinking is spot on, as usual.LAMBCUThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17240290996221102046noreply@blogger.com