Private health insurance increasing

[moggy]

Nasty - hope your wound is healing now, Moggy. ?Those pesky little critters are forever getting under our feet.

Did you go to your doctor or to A & E dept. in the hospital for treatment? ?I thought, if you went to A & E, you got free treatment.

I think that if it is a major accident you go to A&E, but in my case, it was only a wound and inch long and only had to have 3 stiches, fortunately, I didn't damage the tendons. I probably could have gone to A&E, but the time and distance taken on top of the cost to the doctors probably wouldn't be worth it. We live rural and it about 30km to the nearest doctor (maybe more) and another 10km on top of that to a hospital, plus the hassle of parking, etc
From what I hear out here, the fire brigade is your first port of call in an emergency, they are all trained in first aid (maybe more, I have heard paramedic standard). We had an attempted suicide down this road (there is nothing down this road, except another house maybees 12km further down) and the fire brigade was first on scene, the ambulance came from chch perhaps an hour later

[Dawn]

Hope your wound is healing well Moggy. Bloody cats!!

But y' gotta love 'em don't y?

[moggy]

yes hand is fine, stitches out the day after tomorrow and looking forward to it, but he is a cute thing, mad as only a kitten can be, but the other cat hates it, she refused to come home for a couple of days, but hunger got the better of her, and last night we forced her to stay in for the night, and gave her loads of hugs and let her sleep on the bed and she is now in a better mood.

At least she has no longer has a problem with the ducks, she was not impressed when we got those either.

[selchie]

Ouch, Moggy! I'm glad your hand is healing up, and that emergency medical care in NZ is so user-friendly. Hopefully I won't complete the triad in cat-related emergencies. My youngest, Isabel, is a "pole dancer", and I have to shuffle to keep from tripping over her.

Duane, I really am in favor of public health care for all. I am also hoping that NZ's is better than I've been warned (by one couple). However (still using the transport analogy), if the bus can't get me near where I'm going in a timely manner, I'd like to have the option of alternate transport. Yes, lower ridership could cause the bus system to falter. But if it's not even serving one's needs, then what's the harm in using a different mode?

I was thinking of this analogy while we were in Montreal last week. We got everywhere by walking, taking the Metro or a bus. I loved it, and appreciated how efficient the service was, and how thorough the coverage was. But is it the best way to go if one is doing a lot of shopping, going beyond the service, or needs to get somewhere even more quickly? That's how I am thinking of the health care issue. I'm considering private health care for major medical needs which might be stalled in the public system.

[MotherBear]

Leak uncovers ad watchdog's verdict on ACC's 'you're covered' TV pledge
5:00AM Tuesday April 10, 2007

A leak from a complainant has revealed that the Accident Compensation Corporation is in trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority.

The authority has upheld a complaint against an ACC advertisement saying "you're covered".

It has not yet revealed its decision on the 45-second television commercial, but executive director Hilary Souter said one of the complainants appeared to have taken a letter about the decision to media.

The ACC advertisement, part of a $2.3 million campaign, told people they were covered if they had an accident.

But Peter White told TV3 he had been refused cover by ACC after a motorcycle accident, and was now on an invalid's benefit.

More here .

[MotherBear]

Illnesses the misleading factor in ACC ad ruling
NZPA | Wednesday, 11 April 2007

ACC's contentious "you're covered" television commercial was ruled misleading because viewers may have thought illnesses as well as accidents were covered by ACC.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) complaints board decision released yesterday confirmed reports yesterday that it found the 45-second television commercial, part of a $2.3 million campaign, to be misleading.

The board made the ruling after a number of complaints about the advertisement, some by people who were battling ACC over their eligibility for compensation.

However, it said the ruling should not be interpreted as supporting any cases in battles over ACC compensation.

It said the advertisement was likely to mislead people to think that all illness was covered by ACC rather than just accidents by saying that it "doesn't matter how you are hurt".

More here .