American medical care

[Honest Andy]

So here's a thing. All very well having a legal remedy against someone. He can sue to his heart's content. But the trick ALWAYS is getting paid, i.e. enforcing the remedy. So if the fuckwit who hit him had no insurance and/or no money then likely there would be no recovery.

Anyone who bags ACC gets a hearty fuck you from me because that scenario is EXACTLY what ACC was designed to prevent.

Yep I agree. I use bad words when I pay the levy but I pay it. Sometimes it doesn't seem to be working for some people, but the differences in apparent access and treatments is caused by the cyclic political influences of the day, the basic system is still the best way.
(similar things can be said of Pharmac, I'm continually amazed at their ability to play hardball with those shameless pharmaceutical companies)

[RDJ]

Anyone who bags ACC gets a hearty fuck you from me because that scenario is EXACTLY what ACC was designed to prevent.

Well here is an equally hearty Fuck You right back at ya then. Because in full accordance with the Law of Unintended (but Entirely Predictable) consequences, ACC has all but removed individual and organisational (and local and central Guvvermin Agents') accountability for bad behaviour injuring and killing other people; it has failed to keep pace with the costs of losing your income because of some other fuckwit; it means we hugely subsidise individual irresponsibility especially but not only of sportspeople; it means we pay for horrendously expensive long-term treatment and costs for short-term travellers who are injured in New Zealand; and it's basically the Nanny State writ large if you win the injury lottery (because there's nothing like an available if you lose the illness lottery).

A major part of the problem is that there has been a huge departure from the original intent and implementation of the Woodhouse report, which intended a compensation scheme primarily designed not to allow people who could not pay for justice (and secure financial redress), to be treated unjustly. What we have now, is rather than the injustice taking place on an individual case by case basis due to the legal process (and as you say, an ability or inability to pay lawyers who could win for you...), it is now entrenched and institutionalised for all.

[BMWST?]

I still say those with an "At Fault" history should be paying more not those who decide a less safe mode of transport than others.

that is your right but it is against the principle of the original scheme.Taken to its logical conclusion we would be back to "normal" insurance schemes ie totally user pays.And then you are faced with the scenario above.Soemone hasnt or couldnt get insurance, and their victim cant get recompense.

[pritch]

I still say those with an "At Fault" history should be paying more .

Well you completely miss the point, but that's hardly a surprise. ACC is a no fault scheme. Previously to claim workers compensation you had to more or less be able to prove the employer had been negligent. ACC as it was conceived did away with all that. People get pissed off when, to use a popular cliche, a prisoner who breaks his leg escaping from jail gets ACC. OK, that's what happens with a no fault system, no problem.

Previously if you were bowled off your bike by an idiot driver, you had to take them to court. You had to get the MoT to attend the accident, because they would prosecute and you could use the outcome of that in court. If the Police attended they were likely to not be that interested in prosecuting. If there was no prosecution, you had no evidence, therefore no payout. Sometimes T boned riders didn't feel up to phoning the MoT, and there were no such things as cell phones, again no payout.

Even though it has been severely stuffed about, ACC is better than what we had. And it's much better than the US insurance system which is designed to enrich the insurance companies.

[RDJ]

Even though it has been severely stuffed about, ACC is better than what we had. And it's much better than the US insurance system which is designed to enrich the insurance companies.

Not disagreeing with you pritch, but 'better than what we had' is a low bar. And we're barely clearing it. Just sayin'.

[Ocean1]

Well here is an equally hearty Fuck You right back at ya then. Because in full accordance with the Law of Unintended (but Entirely Predictable) consequences, ACC has all but removed individual and organisational (and local and central Guvvermin Agents') accountability for bad behaviour injuring and killing other people; it has failed to keep pace with the costs of losing your income because of some other fuckwit; it means we hugely subsidise individual irresponsibility especially but not only of sportspeople; it means we pay for horrendously expensive long-term treatment and costs for short-term travellers who are injured in New Zealand; and it's basically the Nanny State writ large if you win the injury lottery (because there's nothing like an available if you lose the illness lottery).

A major part of the problem is that there has been a huge departure from the original intent and implementation of the Woodhouse report, which intended a compensation scheme primarily designed not to allow people who could not pay for justice (and secure financial redress), to be treated unjustly. What we have now, is rather than the injustice taking place on an individual case by case basis due to the legal process (and as you say, an ability or inability to pay lawyers who could win for you...), it is now entrenched and institutionalised for all.

Holding people accountable has some unintended consequences also. It disburses half of the, (occasionally) recovered cost to the legal system to start with. But probably the main problem with pinging the living fuck out of the "at fault" party is that it doesn't actually reduce "at fault" behaviour.

So why not admit that everyone fucks up sometimes, split the bill amongst all of us and pocket the savings in shonky legal costs? I suspect that's the main reason for the difference in health costs, half of the US health bill... isn't.

[RDJ]

Holding people accountable has some unintended consequences also. It disburses half of the, (occasionally) recovered cost to the legal system to start with. But probably the main problem with pinging the living fuck out of the "at fault" party is that it doesn't actually reduce "at fault" behaviour.

So why not admit that everyone fucks up sometimes, split the bill amongst all of us and pocket the savings in shonky legal costs? I suspect that's the main reason for the difference in health costs, half of the US health bill... isn't.

Cap damages & do tort reform and the lawyers' perversion of outcomes would be seriously constrained.

[Honest Andy]

Cap damages & do tort reform and the lawyers' perversion of outcomes would be seriously constrained.

Or simply remove lawyers altogether? With a system a bit like ACC perhaps...?

[Ocean1]

Cap damages & do tort reform and the lawyers' perversion of outcomes would be seriously constrained.

Why bother? like I said it doesn't make for fewer injuries.

The other issue with a legally driven system is the quantity of unnecessary referrals and tests involved, health providers being hugely professionally risk averse at the clients cost.

Not to mention the unnecessary referrals and tests driven purely by the bottom line...

[Akzle]

Or simply remove lawyers altogether? With a system a bit like ACC perhaps...?

or.... bullets


vote akzle.

[RDJ]

Or simply remove lawyers altogether? With a system a bit like ACC perhaps...?

Removing lawyers from the process would be great but... unpossible. Too many politicians are lawyers for a start.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Removing lawyers from the process would be great but... unpossible. Too many politicians are lawyers for a start.

Everybody hates lawyers. Except THEIR lawyer. He/she is a GC who helps you when you need it. But those other fuckers? Up against the wall!

[Akzle]

Everybody hates lawyers. Except THEIR lawyer. He/she is a GC who helps you when you need it. But those other fuckers? Up against the wall!

nono. i flat out hate the lot of the cunts and think they should all be drowned in buckets in every town square.

[Swoop]

So here's a thing. All very well having a legal remedy against someone. He can sue to his heart's content. But the trick ALWAYS is getting paid, i.e. enforcing the remedy. So if the fuckwit who hit him had no insurance and/or no money then likely there would be no recovery.

An American company that I have dealings with, publicly states on all of its paperwar/advertising/etc that it is uninsured.
If someone wishes to sue them, that person will not get anything resembling a "payout" and will simply force the company to close up shop and re-open under a different name.

[oldrider]

Perhaps N Zuland could learn something here? https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/i...f-the-elderly/