Funny, for a country that has half the CAT scanners, there's no waiting list to use them. There is one in the US.
Funny, for some truths about medicine, very little is about how it gets paid for, how much it costs, and how many people die.
Less people die in Canada to heart disease than in the US.
People in Canada live longer than in the US.
People in Canada are allowed to purchase any medical care they so wish.
What the fuck do you think you are citing Gather.com as a source? Then here's a liberal rag with actual citation... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 011316.php
Sheesh. Shirly's cousin died. As if that were some sort of evidence.
-Crissa
I don't get liberal gun laws.
Moderator: Moderators
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
It seems to me that Canadian medical practices are private; they are simply paid for by tax dollars and the government sets the rate that services are paid for. Which is why doctors work stupid hours; to do more work and get more money.
Biggest problem is we don't have enough doctors because the medical training system systematically tries to keep their numbers down so they are in demand and can therefore ask for more for their services.
As for Moore, he is right about a lot of things but he definitely manipulates his information to get his point across. This gives his opponents ammunition and taints his efforts.
Biggest problem is we don't have enough doctors because the medical training system systematically tries to keep their numbers down so they are in demand and can therefore ask for more for their services.
As for Moore, he is right about a lot of things but he definitely manipulates his information to get his point across. This gives his opponents ammunition and taints his efforts.
The internet gave a voice to the world thus gave definitive proof that the world is mostly full of idiots.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Yes, but apparently his opponents in this thread have nothing but anecdotes to say against his last movie.
I'm sure if we went to one of his prior ones their ammo would actually come from cited sources... Of course, I don't know of any points that were blatantly false.
Next you'll hear those same voices denouncing Moore going after twelve-year-olds who happen to need federal monies to pay for health care after a severe accident...
I'm sure if we went to one of his prior ones their ammo would actually come from cited sources... Of course, I don't know of any points that were blatantly false.
Next you'll hear those same voices denouncing Moore going after twelve-year-olds who happen to need federal monies to pay for health care after a severe accident...
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Calibron at [unixtime wrote:1194585810[/unixtime]]cthulhu at [unixtime wrote:1194579393[/unixtime]]Calibron at [unixtime wrote:1194567510[/unixtime]]
Systems like this can work in smaller more population dense places like Europe, Australia and Japan.
Australia has population density?
Australia is the poster child for low density everything. Sydney is like the least dense urban area in the world, and our population density is a low low levels.
Did you mean austria? (I'm confused because australia has a public/private hybrid system)
Isn't the majority of Australia inhabited solely by kangaroos, crocs, and the occasional aboriginal tribe? Most of the industrialized society sticks to a handful of the best areas, or am I completely wrong? This could be the case since I did no research and don't know much about Australia in the first place; such as that you've got a hybrid health care system rather than a fully public one, as Neeek implied.
It's hybrid.
You're right that most of the population is concentrated in a 'tiny' strip of land around the coasts, however even once you factor that in the population density is still low. Seriously 'sydeny' is considerably bigger than 'london' and has 1/10th the people.
The situation in actual rural areas is completely fucked up the ass because absolutely no-one wants to go there (practitioner wise). The subsidies available for medical students who agree to practise in remote areas for a few years post graduation are reaching 'you get a fully paid scholarship and a stipend to live on, and we will pay you an absurd amount once you are out there' and they still cannot get people to do it.
I bet Frank would be willing to sell a kidney for those sort of conditions medical school wise, the fact that no-one will do it even amongst 'poor' med students gives you an insight into the distaste with which regional areas are viewed by practioners in the general case.
As for the public private thing.. I don't think john howard is the great satan as implied by phonelobster (though baring rudd doing a latham I will vote labour) and can see significant benifts from having the parallel public and private systems. I personally think that society has to agree on a standard of health care (and in australia for fucks sake that has to including dental care which it bloody well doesn't because people are morons) and then if someone wants to pay more than damn well can.
The reality is most people do anyway. The government only remburses you X dollars of the cost of an appointment to see a GP. some doctors (Read: not many) only charge X dollars, but most, like my GP, charge X+Y so you end up paying Y.
I'm happy to pay Y extra because my gp will phone you up on a public holiday with the results of a blood test and does followup and other excellent service and actually seems to care. I pay slightly more for a dentist for much the same reasons and don't really mind. At uni I used a 'bulk billing' doctor (ie one that charged at the government rate) and the quality of service was less, although entirely acceptable.
I've never had to have surgery, but I do have private health insurance as well.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
First of all, you won’t hear me argue against the SCHIP program. The only complaint I have is with the idea of using a smoking tax to pay for it. In the first place, smokers should be paying for the offset medical costs of smokers not of children. In the second place the purpose of a punitive tax is to discourage people from doing something. A successful punitive tax raises less money than a non successful one. SCHIP should be funded by a tax whose success gives in more money not less.
Personally I would rather look at the problem instead of trying to choose the lesser of the evils of the various other systems that have all been created as a result of the interaction of private and public bureaucracies. The current system is a mess in a number of ways too many to count. Too many people are not covered. Too many people are, in theory, over-covered through multiple systems that in turn plays spin the coke bottle to determine who will pay what and when. Every system has its own bizarre rules and requires time and money in order to keep their bureaucracies happy.
I think we need to divide the problem into separate areas. Emergency services, and by that I mean real emergency services (in some areas the lack of insurance pushes people into the emergency rooms for what are not really emergencies) should be a Federally Funded Public System. If you got a person with a real life threatening serious condition you need to treat that person immediately and not worry about the TOS of his or her insurance policy. If WE the People can’t afford to pay for all the people who are in serious immediate threat then, frankly, I don’t want to be a part of that “we.”
The bulk of medical care is a complex ball of wax. In theory it should be like any other insurance. In practice it is not since in theory you don’t have to buy life insurance, you don’t have to own a car, and home insurance is as bizarre as health in some areas. It certainly needs to be divorced from employment and centered on the people themselves. (Removing overlap for example between working husband and working wife and their children could save both money and heartache.) You should be able to change jobs without fear of having to change doctors. You should be able to go “on the bench” (i.e. be unemployed) for short periods without having to go through the HELL of what is called COBRA.
This is where it gets massively fucking complicated and where I don’t have a real answer. There are two opposing forces. One is the necessity of the masses for any insurance system to work. Some people are healthier than others. Some people who get sick will remain sick for life. You can try to balance the whole thing on the “averages” but in the end the result is the same; healthy people have to pay the costs of sick people. Any system has to be designed to reflect the law of those averages. We can’t have an auto-insurance like system were all the healthy go into their own pool and pay relatively little and all the sick people can’t afford their own coverage.
On the other hand not everyone needs the same exact coverage. The types of coverage you need can change depending on your circumstances in your life. The private sector is the best way to filter out various features and options. Just like not everyone gets the exact same life insurance policy not everyone needs the exact same health insurance policy.
Finally there is a third level of insurance. We have already covered emergency services and hinted at more general insurances. There is of course elective and optimal procedures. Defining the line between these levels is not always easy. Take liposuction. In many cases this is simply a cosmetic procedure. In some cases it may be medically necessary because an overweight condition might be putting someone in high risk for heart attack and since heart attack actually is something that can cause regular insurance problems long term – as well as actual possible “emergency” visits – it is something that might be covered under preemptive health policies. Elective should definitely be in the private sector. If you can’t afford laser hair removal I could not care less.
Thus in the end insurance needs to be multileveled (and each level considered separately) and to some extent a hybrid between public and private. Not completely one thing or another because health is in many ways like Gaul and must be conquered separately.
Personally I would rather look at the problem instead of trying to choose the lesser of the evils of the various other systems that have all been created as a result of the interaction of private and public bureaucracies. The current system is a mess in a number of ways too many to count. Too many people are not covered. Too many people are, in theory, over-covered through multiple systems that in turn plays spin the coke bottle to determine who will pay what and when. Every system has its own bizarre rules and requires time and money in order to keep their bureaucracies happy.
I think we need to divide the problem into separate areas. Emergency services, and by that I mean real emergency services (in some areas the lack of insurance pushes people into the emergency rooms for what are not really emergencies) should be a Federally Funded Public System. If you got a person with a real life threatening serious condition you need to treat that person immediately and not worry about the TOS of his or her insurance policy. If WE the People can’t afford to pay for all the people who are in serious immediate threat then, frankly, I don’t want to be a part of that “we.”
The bulk of medical care is a complex ball of wax. In theory it should be like any other insurance. In practice it is not since in theory you don’t have to buy life insurance, you don’t have to own a car, and home insurance is as bizarre as health in some areas. It certainly needs to be divorced from employment and centered on the people themselves. (Removing overlap for example between working husband and working wife and their children could save both money and heartache.) You should be able to change jobs without fear of having to change doctors. You should be able to go “on the bench” (i.e. be unemployed) for short periods without having to go through the HELL of what is called COBRA.
This is where it gets massively fucking complicated and where I don’t have a real answer. There are two opposing forces. One is the necessity of the masses for any insurance system to work. Some people are healthier than others. Some people who get sick will remain sick for life. You can try to balance the whole thing on the “averages” but in the end the result is the same; healthy people have to pay the costs of sick people. Any system has to be designed to reflect the law of those averages. We can’t have an auto-insurance like system were all the healthy go into their own pool and pay relatively little and all the sick people can’t afford their own coverage.
On the other hand not everyone needs the same exact coverage. The types of coverage you need can change depending on your circumstances in your life. The private sector is the best way to filter out various features and options. Just like not everyone gets the exact same life insurance policy not everyone needs the exact same health insurance policy.
Finally there is a third level of insurance. We have already covered emergency services and hinted at more general insurances. There is of course elective and optimal procedures. Defining the line between these levels is not always easy. Take liposuction. In many cases this is simply a cosmetic procedure. In some cases it may be medically necessary because an overweight condition might be putting someone in high risk for heart attack and since heart attack actually is something that can cause regular insurance problems long term – as well as actual possible “emergency” visits – it is something that might be covered under preemptive health policies. Elective should definitely be in the private sector. If you can’t afford laser hair removal I could not care less.
Thus in the end insurance needs to be multileveled (and each level considered separately) and to some extent a hybrid between public and private. Not completely one thing or another because health is in many ways like Gaul and must be conquered separately.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Yeah, again, falling back on what I feel is intuativvely right, there should be a social safety net that encompasses welfare, health care etc.
One thing I really like that New Zealand has an Australia doesn't is no fault liability. New zealand awards a very lucrative insurance contract(s) for the mandatory third party insurance that you have to get when you register a car to private insurance companies, but in return the insurance companies wear the liability for all sorts of crazy crap.
This is fantastic because it covers situations like this
A) I am drunk. I get into an unregistered car. I run down some pedesterian. I have no money and no insurance.
Because of the no fault liability concept, the insurance company has to pay for the pedestrian's medical costs and they automatically pay without going to court because its enshrined in the concept.
This actually comes into play in all sorts of places which is great - because it clears up the courts (no need to prove that someone is liable), and while it does get priced automatically into the cost of contracts by actuaries, that tiny downside is well worth the awesome bonus of no court times and people getting fair compensation quickly.
One thing I really like that New Zealand has an Australia doesn't is no fault liability. New zealand awards a very lucrative insurance contract(s) for the mandatory third party insurance that you have to get when you register a car to private insurance companies, but in return the insurance companies wear the liability for all sorts of crazy crap.
This is fantastic because it covers situations like this
A) I am drunk. I get into an unregistered car. I run down some pedesterian. I have no money and no insurance.
Because of the no fault liability concept, the insurance company has to pay for the pedestrian's medical costs and they automatically pay without going to court because its enshrined in the concept.
This actually comes into play in all sorts of places which is great - because it clears up the courts (no need to prove that someone is liable), and while it does get priced automatically into the cost of contracts by actuaries, that tiny downside is well worth the awesome bonus of no court times and people getting fair compensation quickly.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
The basic problem with private insurance is that they make more money (their goal) when they refuse to support their clients. That goal is totally at odds with the goal of having more healthy people.
No fault liability is stupid.
It means when you're drunk run over a bicyclist - the bicyclist's insurance pays for it, their rates go up, and they're in the damn hospital because you ran over them. You, on the other hand, paid nothing, have no reason to get insurance, and run the hell off.
It's really, really dumb.
And instead of them paying automatically, they make up all sorts of excuses of why the cyclist was wrong with them, why the pneumonia they got while in the hospital wasn't related to the fact that a car ran over their lungs, and they're still in the damn hospital and fighting in the damn court.
How this's better I'll never understand.
-Crissa
No fault liability is stupid.
It means when you're drunk run over a bicyclist - the bicyclist's insurance pays for it, their rates go up, and they're in the damn hospital because you ran over them. You, on the other hand, paid nothing, have no reason to get insurance, and run the hell off.
It's really, really dumb.
And instead of them paying automatically, they make up all sorts of excuses of why the cyclist was wrong with them, why the pneumonia they got while in the hospital wasn't related to the fact that a car ran over their lungs, and they're still in the damn hospital and fighting in the damn court.
How this's better I'll never understand.
-Crissa
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1194645645[/unixtime]]
It means when you're drunk run over a bicyclist - the bicyclist's insurance pays for it, their rates go up, and they're in the damn hospital because you ran over them. You, on the other hand, paid nothing, have no reason to get insurance, and run the hell off.
Except for mthe fact you get arrested for that shit because it's a crime.
An so you get a criminal record and do jail time.
Thats a problem.
(if you hit and run thats completely unrelated to insurance or not, and no fault libability is even more important in that case)
Also, it's not the bicyclist's insurance that would pay it would be the company that has the government mandated insurance contract for third party insurance.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Mandated means 'required' not 'paid for'. It doesn't mean 'provided,' either.
Also, just because you hit someone with a car doesn't mean you're going to be in jail. In fact, usually the opposite. Unless someone died, little anyone seem to care about traffic incidents.
And if you didn't run, it's not even a crime in most states.
-Crissa
Also, just because you hit someone with a car doesn't mean you're going to be in jail. In fact, usually the opposite. Unless someone died, little anyone seem to care about traffic incidents.
And if you didn't run, it's not even a crime in most states.
-Crissa
-
CalibronXXX
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1194675938[/unixtime]]Mandated means 'required' not 'paid for'.
Also, just because you hit someone with a car doesn't mean you're going to be in jail. In fact, usually the opposite. Unless someone died, little anyone seem to care about traffic incidents.
And if you didn't run, it's not even a crime in most states.
-Crissa
I'm not going to believe that hitting people with your car is legal as long as you don't kill anyone. That's just too asinine for words.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
I believe Crissa means "Let's assume you're not intentionally running someone over".
There's a difference between accidentally hitting someone and going out of your way to do so. Though bringing alcohol into the equation blurs the line, so you should just treat it as though it was intentional.
There's a difference between accidentally hitting someone and going out of your way to do so. Though bringing alcohol into the equation blurs the line, so you should just treat it as though it was intentional.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
-
CalibronXXX
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
regardless of whether or not you wanted to run someone over, you've just committed vehicular battery. If you want to convince anyone that vehicular battery is somehow legal you're going to need some kind of proof.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Calibron at [unixtime wrote:1194683183[/unixtime]]regardless of whether or not you wanted to run someone over, you've just committed vehicular battery. If you want to convince anyone that vehicular battery is somehow legal you're going to need some kind of proof.
Um...no. Intent is a requisite of both civil and criminal battery of any kind. Accidentally running someone over, whether or not they die, is held to a negligence standard, which means if you weren't actually to blame for the for the accident, you aren't liable at all.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Except if you are driving an unregistered vehicle, which you are because you don't have thrid party insurance (in australia or new zealand it is not possible to register a car without such insurance. It is built into the registration fee you pay the government who turn around and hand it to the insurance company. In some states you elect which insurance company gets your dollars and the fee is varied, in some you don;t get too.) so you are infact going to get reemed by the court system, so you will be held as to blame!
Also note that the no fault libability doesn't actually preclude the driver from being sued. It's just that the insurance company automatically pays (due to the no fault liability) but is also entilted to sue you.
So your going to go to jail for driving drunk AND hitting someone AND you will also have to declare yourself bankrupt when the insurance company sues you, and as you have no defense whatso ever as you where driving an unregistered vehicle - you will have to declare yourself bankrupt.
So you just go absolutely fucked.
As for the pnemunoia stuff, again your completely wrong. The hospitals insurance company automatically has to pay for the medical misadventure and then gets to sue the drunk driver or the motor vehilce insurance company.
Again, the poor guy who got run down never has to go to court, ever.
And that is good. I honestly cannot see any weakness in that *at all* if you get to select your provider for the automatic third party insurance. To be honest I think god damn third party property insurance should also be mandatory.
Also note that the no fault libability doesn't actually preclude the driver from being sued. It's just that the insurance company automatically pays (due to the no fault liability) but is also entilted to sue you.
So your going to go to jail for driving drunk AND hitting someone AND you will also have to declare yourself bankrupt when the insurance company sues you, and as you have no defense whatso ever as you where driving an unregistered vehicle - you will have to declare yourself bankrupt.
So you just go absolutely fucked.
As for the pnemunoia stuff, again your completely wrong. The hospitals insurance company automatically has to pay for the medical misadventure and then gets to sue the drunk driver or the motor vehilce insurance company.
Again, the poor guy who got run down never has to go to court, ever.
And that is good. I honestly cannot see any weakness in that *at all* if you get to select your provider for the automatic third party insurance. To be honest I think god damn third party property insurance should also be mandatory.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
You have all this automagically in here that's unrelated to the no-fault component.
Automagically the hospital pays for it. Automagically the government provides for it.
None of that is related to the no-fault component, and none of it applies to the US.
Just because there is no 'fault' does not mean there is no way to weasel out of paying - and that's the point, insurance companies make more money (which is their reason for being) when they don't pay.
I linked to an article earlier... Read it, please.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 012471.php
It hasn't anything to do with no-fault, mind, but it has everything to do with not paying.
-Crissa
Automagically the hospital pays for it. Automagically the government provides for it.
None of that is related to the no-fault component, and none of it applies to the US.
Just because there is no 'fault' does not mean there is no way to weasel out of paying - and that's the point, insurance companies make more money (which is their reason for being) when they don't pay.
I linked to an article earlier... Read it, please.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 012471.php
It hasn't anything to do with no-fault, mind, but it has everything to do with not paying.
-Crissa
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
I did.
I just its totally absurd. The insurance company cannot possibly recind the policies in the examples I am giving., unless they wish to commit business suicide.
Third party insurance: In australia this is awarded by an open tender process conducted by the government as an approved supplier on a state basis. So you get the right to be the monopoly supplier for the entire fucking state (at a fixed pricing schedule for a considerable (5 years I think) period of time.
Such a contract of course allows to make a considerable pile of money. Reinscinding on policy would lose you that pile of money. No business man anywhere is that retarded.
I can only imagine what insanity would cause such behaviour by a car insurance business, being in that would destory your entire business
Second example, medical malpractise insurance. In the case of hopsitals that is typically a hospital policy supported by contributions from indvidiual doctors. Again, you'd have to retract insurance from the entire hospital, which would cause a shitstorm.
What IS related to the no fault component
A) The insurance company in NZ that is awarded the nation wide third party property insurance contract also gets the 'no fault' responsibility to assume the third party liability for accidents caused by acts of god, or unregistered vehicles. That is the no fault liability principal enshinred in NZ law. So the insurance company has to pay for the long term care of the now permentally disabled pedesterian who just got hit by the unregistered driver. In australia they don't for example - no-one does except for the driver of the vehicle who is going to declare himself bankrupt completely fucking the now disabled victim.
B) Guy catches some secondary problem in hospital that causes some long term disability. Again, NZ law calls this a 'medical misadventure' and totally irrespective of what went wrong the insurance company who provides the (mandatory to hold before you can have a hospital) insurance automatically pays the acturial assessed value of that claim - a claim schedule that (I am pretty sure, but not entirely sure) has a legally mandated basis - without any fault being proven.
So thats the wonder of the no fault liability part - a party at no fault (The state mandated provider of third party insurance, and the hospital, and thus their insurance cover respectively) has to pay out to the victim both times to cover long term medical costs of the injury.
However that entity is entirely within its rights to take whoever was responsible to the cleaners unless that party was paying the insurance company to take that risk anyway.
Edit: So to me the clear benift is: The victim of both incidents doesn't have to go through protracted litigation to prove fault.
The amount of litigation also probably decreases because the insurance company who is now in charge of the 'sue people' but is much better equiped to assess if their is any ROI in a lawsuit, and if not, write it down - something that an individual does not really have the capacity to do.
Edit2: I think the basis of confusion here is probably the general nature of insurance policies. Individual insurance contracts are.. less common in australia. It's entirely possible to muddle through life without one if you don't own a house (renting is okay) or a car in australia. You'll be insured against workplace injuries due to mandatory work cover schemes every company has to hold on the behalf of its employees, all the drivers of registered vehicles have to hold government mandated and scheduled insurance policies for third party damage if they hit you, everyone who makes a product has to have product libability insurance, health care is public and will be paid for.
Typical insurance policies I might have as a middle class white australian home and car owner.
Home and contents insurance <-- This is the one most likely to be subject to the reprehensiable behaviour you mention
Third party property insurance, comprehensive car insurance (covers damage to the other guys car if I hit it, and the damage to MY car and myself if I hit something else, damage to other people is paid for by the government)
Private health insurance, which goes above and beyond the public health system.
I am slowly gathering that the situation is.. very different.. int he US.
I just its totally absurd. The insurance company cannot possibly recind the policies in the examples I am giving., unless they wish to commit business suicide.
Third party insurance: In australia this is awarded by an open tender process conducted by the government as an approved supplier on a state basis. So you get the right to be the monopoly supplier for the entire fucking state (at a fixed pricing schedule for a considerable (5 years I think) period of time.
Such a contract of course allows to make a considerable pile of money. Reinscinding on policy would lose you that pile of money. No business man anywhere is that retarded.
I can only imagine what insanity would cause such behaviour by a car insurance business, being in that would destory your entire business
Second example, medical malpractise insurance. In the case of hopsitals that is typically a hospital policy supported by contributions from indvidiual doctors. Again, you'd have to retract insurance from the entire hospital, which would cause a shitstorm.
What IS related to the no fault component
A) The insurance company in NZ that is awarded the nation wide third party property insurance contract also gets the 'no fault' responsibility to assume the third party liability for accidents caused by acts of god, or unregistered vehicles. That is the no fault liability principal enshinred in NZ law. So the insurance company has to pay for the long term care of the now permentally disabled pedesterian who just got hit by the unregistered driver. In australia they don't for example - no-one does except for the driver of the vehicle who is going to declare himself bankrupt completely fucking the now disabled victim.
B) Guy catches some secondary problem in hospital that causes some long term disability. Again, NZ law calls this a 'medical misadventure' and totally irrespective of what went wrong the insurance company who provides the (mandatory to hold before you can have a hospital) insurance automatically pays the acturial assessed value of that claim - a claim schedule that (I am pretty sure, but not entirely sure) has a legally mandated basis - without any fault being proven.
So thats the wonder of the no fault liability part - a party at no fault (The state mandated provider of third party insurance, and the hospital, and thus their insurance cover respectively) has to pay out to the victim both times to cover long term medical costs of the injury.
However that entity is entirely within its rights to take whoever was responsible to the cleaners unless that party was paying the insurance company to take that risk anyway.
Edit: So to me the clear benift is: The victim of both incidents doesn't have to go through protracted litigation to prove fault.
The amount of litigation also probably decreases because the insurance company who is now in charge of the 'sue people' but is much better equiped to assess if their is any ROI in a lawsuit, and if not, write it down - something that an individual does not really have the capacity to do.
Edit2: I think the basis of confusion here is probably the general nature of insurance policies. Individual insurance contracts are.. less common in australia. It's entirely possible to muddle through life without one if you don't own a house (renting is okay) or a car in australia. You'll be insured against workplace injuries due to mandatory work cover schemes every company has to hold on the behalf of its employees, all the drivers of registered vehicles have to hold government mandated and scheduled insurance policies for third party damage if they hit you, everyone who makes a product has to have product libability insurance, health care is public and will be paid for.
Typical insurance policies I might have as a middle class white australian home and car owner.
Home and contents insurance <-- This is the one most likely to be subject to the reprehensiable behaviour you mention
Third party property insurance, comprehensive car insurance (covers damage to the other guys car if I hit it, and the damage to MY car and myself if I hit something else, damage to other people is paid for by the government)
Private health insurance, which goes above and beyond the public health system.
I am slowly gathering that the situation is.. very different.. int he US.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
None of those points have anything to do with no fault!
They all have to do with government mandates and funding.
You mandated the coverage - and then when it lacks, it gets paid by who?
No-fault has nothing to do with any of it. It just means that you can't sue the guy for running over you and making you unable to win the million-dollar race.
You say they can't deny coverage, but none of that has anything to do with the no-fault system. The no-fault system is merely a quick fix to skip the blame and put the onus on the victim to collect.
Nothing is to stop a hospice from saying you caught your pneumonia at the care clinic instead of the hospice or hospital - or at home. Who pays then?
Who pays for the insurance when you cannot?
-Crissa
They all have to do with government mandates and funding.
You mandated the coverage - and then when it lacks, it gets paid by who?
No-fault has nothing to do with any of it. It just means that you can't sue the guy for running over you and making you unable to win the million-dollar race.
You say they can't deny coverage, but none of that has anything to do with the no-fault system. The no-fault system is merely a quick fix to skip the blame and put the onus on the victim to collect.
Nothing is to stop a hospice from saying you caught your pneumonia at the care clinic instead of the hospice or hospital - or at home. Who pays then?
Who pays for the insurance when you cannot?
-Crissa
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
I just its totally absurd. The insurance company cannot possibly recind the policies in the examples I am giving., unless they wish to commit business suicide.
Actually they can and they do. Insurance companies don't pay thins that they are contractually obligated to pay all the time. I've worked in the health care industry. I've seen the finances, it's ugly and shady. It is open policy of insurance companies to simply reject a portion of all claims for no reason.
Sure, if you resubmit it with accompanying documentation and blah blah blah you can in most cases get them to pay up, but a substantial number of people who just got severely injured or sick actually don't have the physical endurance to fight their way through that and just give up. And the number of people who do that saves the Insurance Companies more money than it costs them to juggle the extra red tape of bouncing the claims back a few times.
Insurance Companies are not your friend.
---
Interestingly, the medical system of France has an approval rating of over 90% by both patients and doctors. Why it is not emulated the world over is a complete mystery to everyone.
-Username17
-
technomancer
- Journeyman
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Alot of people seem to have the attitude that if it's french, it's crap, and that could be influencing people to not taking it seriously enough to actually sit down and look at it.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1194740690[/unixtime]]None of those points have anything to do with no fault!
They all have to do with government mandates and funding.
I'm not sure what crack you are smoking here? The government mandates that you have to pay for third party insurance when you register your car.
If you don't have it, you are breaking the law, and driving an unregistered car.
Now if you hit someone in that illegal unregistered car, the insurance company that providers third party insurance state/nation wide is held fucking liable That is the person who pays. And that is the no fault liability part. The insurance company has fuck all to do with it (no fault) and has to pay up.
It might try and wrangle out of the liability, but I can see that lasting all of 4 seconds infront of a magistrate, because they are very clearly liable due to the no fault liability.
Infact, googling reveals no consumer reports or anything of them even trying in NZ. You may be able to contradict me on that.
You mandated the coverage - and then when it lacks, it gets paid by who?
If you cannot afford to register are car, you do not get to own a car, and no-one pays (as you don't have a car, unless you wish to break the law).
In the case of a hospital, you don't get to open your private hospital (and thus nobody pays and instead there isn't a private hospital. Governments naturally pay as they have money)
No-fault has nothing to do with any of it. It just means that you can't sue the guy for running over you and making you unable to win the million-dollar race.
Argh. This is my point. You don't have to sue the guy who just ran over you because the insurance company has a legislated responsibility to pay the fuck up, and again, I can find no evidence of them not doing so.
In australia in that case you as the newly made paraplegic get FUCKED. no-one pays for your ongoing care once the uninsured drunk driver of an unregistered vehicle declares himself bankrupt and goes to jail (if he has no assets).
You say they can't deny coverage, but none of that has anything to do with the no-fault system. The no-fault system is merely a quick fix to skip the blame and put the onus on the victim to collect.
What? The much touted benift in numerous studies is that the victim doesn't really have to do much of anything and the endless tort cases that normally surrond this crap (to prove fault) don't happen.
I'm not sure how you think there is more effort on the part of the victim? He doesn't have to go to court!
Yes, the insurance company unable to deny third party property insurance to an individual is a feature of the car registration scheme not no liability.
Nothing is to stop a hospice from saying you caught your pneumonia at the care clinic instead of the hospice or hospital - or at home. Who pays then?
Who pays for the insurance when you cannot?
-Crissa
Again, in the hospital case, if you are hopsital, diagnoised with pneuma, the medical misadventure requirements (completely different from the US structure) dictates the hospital pays without any proof of fault.
I can only assume your arguments are based on a complete misapprehension of how the common law torts work normally?
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
You know, the government mandates that we pay insurance on a car, too.
That doesn't pay for the insurance, doesn't make the insurance companies pay, and it doesn't make sure that there is even enough coverage for how much damage you do even when it's your fault.
You still haven't explained who pays when a motorist hits a pedestrian, or a pedestrian hits a motorist! (Yes, it is possible to damage a car with it being the pedestrian's fault.)
You say 'The hospital' - but which hospital? Which insurance company?
None of that has anything to do with no-fault, either. I can't believe you'd keep saying all this without explaining anything other than handwaves of 'it's required to have insurance!' They're required to have insurance under a fault system, as well!
-Crissa
That doesn't pay for the insurance, doesn't make the insurance companies pay, and it doesn't make sure that there is even enough coverage for how much damage you do even when it's your fault.
You still haven't explained who pays when a motorist hits a pedestrian, or a pedestrian hits a motorist! (Yes, it is possible to damage a car with it being the pedestrian's fault.)
You say 'The hospital' - but which hospital? Which insurance company?
None of that has anything to do with no-fault, either. I can't believe you'd keep saying all this without explaining anything other than handwaves of 'it's required to have insurance!' They're required to have insurance under a fault system, as well!
-Crissa
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
cthulhu at [unixtime wrote:1194838929[/unixtime]]The government mandates that you have to pay for third party insurance when you register your car.
If you don't have it, you are breaking the law, and driving an unregistered car.
Now if you hit someone in that illegal unregistered car, the insurance company that providers third party insurance state/nation wide is held fucking liable That is the person who pays. And that is the no fault liability part. The insurance company has fuck all to do with it (no fault) and has to pay up.
Who pays for that insurance?
How do we know it's enough?
What stops an insurance company from saying 'you didn't pay up' or 'you violated the contract' and making it come out of this third-party arbitraium insurance instead of their own?
It might try and wrangle out of the liability, but I can see that lasting all of 4 seconds infront of a magistrate, because they are very clearly liable due to the no fault liability.
That doesn't even make sense.
Argh. This is my point. You don't have to sue the guy who just ran over you because the insurance company has a legislated responsibility to pay the fuck up, and again, I can find no evidence of them not doing so.
Which insurance company? Absence of evidence is not evidence.
What? The much touted benift in numerous studies is that the victim doesn't really have to do much of anything and the endless tort cases that normally surrond this crap (to prove fault) don't happen.
What studies in what peer reviewed journal?
Nothing is to stop a hospice from saying you caught your pneumonia at the care clinic instead of the hospice or hospital - or at home. Who pays then?
Again, in the hospital case, if you are hopsital, diagnoised with pneuma, the medical misadventure requirements (completely different from the US structure) dictates the hospital pays without any proof of fault.
You didn't even answer the question!
What tort system is involved here? How do you determine whose insurance pays for it? Why would anyone offer their own insurance to pay for it?
-Crissa
(annotated for the quote-abuse)
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Crissa, I'm pretty sure you are failing to understand how their system works, and are being overly belligerent about it.
From what I gather, there is an insurance company for each state, who is required by law to pay all claims in full and everyone has to buy insurance from, who then may sue at-fault people to recover. This is significantly better than our system, where people not-at-fault only recover if there is someone rich enough to recover from.
From what I gather, there is an insurance company for each state, who is required by law to pay all claims in full and everyone has to buy insurance from, who then may sue at-fault people to recover. This is significantly better than our system, where people not-at-fault only recover if there is someone rich enough to recover from.
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1194850790[/unixtime]]cthulhu at [unixtime wrote:1194838929[/unixtime]]The government mandates that you have to pay for third party insurance when you register your car.
If you don't have it, you are breaking the law, and driving an unregistered car.
Now if you hit someone in that illegal unregistered car, the insurance company that providers third party insurance state/nation wide is held fucking liable That is the person who pays. And that is the no fault liability part. The insurance company has fuck all to do with it (no fault) and has to pay up.
Who pays for that insurance?
How do we know it's enough?
What stops an insurance company from saying 'you didn't pay up' or 'you violated the contract' and making it come out of this third-party arbitraium insurance instead of their own?
A) The guy who registers a car.
B) Because the rate is fixed by the private insurance company enpanelled as the monopoly provider by the government tender process.
C) Fees are collected by public servants and there is both an electronic and paper trail.
D) Due to the 'no fault' concept of the legal system, 'you violated the contract' is not grounds for no payment to be made, the insurance company is at fault no matter what happens.
It might try and wrangle out of the liability, but I can see that lasting all of 4 seconds infront of a magistrate, because they are very clearly liable due to the no fault liability.
That doesn't even make sense.
Due to the no fault liability concept the insurance provider is liable no matter what happens. That is what the legislation says. You cannot 'retract the policy' or whatever, because the insurance company still has to pay, due to the no fault concept.
Argh. This is my point. You don't have to sue the guy who just ran over you because the insurance company has a legislated responsibility to pay the fuck up, and again, I can find no evidence of them not doing so.
Which insurance company? Absence of evidence is not evidence.
The empanelled monopoly provider of third party insurance.
What? The much touted benift in numerous studies is that the victim doesn't really have to do much of anything and the endless tort cases that normally surrond this crap (to prove fault) don't happen.
What studies in what peer reviewed journal?
There is a great british paper on it produced by a commission to look into it - not a peer reviewed journal but I'lld dig it up latter.
In the mean time, here is a good one.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... te]Nothing is to stop a hospice from saying you caught your pneumonia at the care clinic instead of the hospice or hospital - or at home. Who pays then?[/quote]
Again, in the hospital case, if you are hopsital, diagnoised with pneuma, the medical misadventure requirements (completely different from the US structure) dictates the hospital pays without any proof of fault.[/quote]
You didn't even answer the question!
What tort system is involved here? How do you determine whose insurance pays for it? Why would anyone offer their own insurance to pay for it?
-Crissa
(annotated for the quote-abuse) [/quote]
Seeing as this is blowing your brain, in the NZ system it doesn't matter.
There is a single monopoly provider of 'medical misadventure' insurance in NZ, which every practising doctor has to pay into by law.
So it's not actually at all relevant where it happens, because the same company has to pay (it's government owned so it is illegal for that company to intentionally make a profit to boot, and any profit it does make has to be reinvested into the service.)
So.. huzzah.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: I don't get liberal gun laws.
Neeek at [unixtime wrote:1194851022[/unixtime]]Crissa, I'm pretty sure you are failing to understand how their system works, and are being overly belligerent about it.
From what I gather, there is an insurance company for each state, who is required by law to pay all claims in full and everyone has to buy insurance from, who then may sue at-fault people to recover. This is significantly better than our system, where people not-at-fault only recover if there is someone rich enough to recover from.
No. She's right, and they are wrong. Here's a sample from an Australian Car Insurance Outfit:
Just Insurance wrote:Comprehensive Car Insurance
Covers you for damage to your car, as well as damage you may cause to another person's car or property.
Just Car Insurance now offers Ad-JUST Excess for Comprehensive Car Insurance. Click here to learn more about Ad-JUST Excess.
Third Party Property Damage Insurance
Protects you against claims for damage your car causes to another person's car or property.
Third Party Property Damage Insurance plus Fire and Theft
All the benefits of third party property damage insurance, plus fire and theft cover for your car for market value up to $10,000.
Yeah. It's just like the American laws. You are required to have a certain amount of insurance, but there's no guaranty that the amount of insurance will actually cover the amount of damage caused in whatever situation you happen to be in.
And since it's being provided by for-profit companies, I'm sure that they are just as much of a bunch of dicks about actually paying as American insurance companies are.
-Username17