This goes along with (IMO) the generally reasonable modern industrialized nations' tradeoff of protecting individuals from catastrophic harm either by relatively robust regulation and social insurance networks or by reasonable access to legal redress.
Most industrialized nations have chosen the former, I assume because it's more predictable and generally easier to manage. The US seems to have a strong aversion to the former option, because it's "socialist", I guess, and so we've chosen the latter option.
Bushco's tort reform model is of course the corporate dream of "None of the above", which I suspect you can also can find in the poorer nations to which we've been exporting our production work.
The only problem with the above scheme is that it creates no legal deterrent for causing injuries to others neglegently. There is probably still a criminal deterrent for causing injuries purposefully, but the rationale for most of our tort law is that it creates incentives for people to take reasonable care against causing injuries to others by accident.
In other words, the primary benefit of our torts scheme is preventative. Or it is supposed to be. Also, I suspect that Bush's tort reform is a crazy sideshow without much thought behind it, like the rest of his domestic policies. His foreign policies are the crazy main event.
as a caveat, I am a lawyer, though not a personal injury type.
it creates no legal deterrent for causing injuries to others neglegently.
Which is not to say that there's no deterrent: people generally don't like to cause injury to others. More to the point, part of the "ACC" is NZ's "Injury Prevention Strategy," which seems like a bigger, friendlier OSHA. And there's more on the ACC here.
right -- most people don't want to cause others injuries. But where precautions are costly, legal deterrents are probably a good thing, especially when it is a corporation that needs to take the precautions rather than individuals, who tend to act more responsibly without need of threats.
I don't know enough about the New Zealand plan to comment on it; some regulatory schemes work really well. Just wanted to point out that compensation isn't the whole game.
There's always the possibility of state sanctions in the form of criminal or civil penalties for negligence, malice, etc. which in turn would go to finance the compensation system.
In which case you would have the state bringing negligence actions against private parties? Why is that a better system than allowing individuals to bring negligence actions against people that have harmed them? Don't the people who themselves were injured have better access to information about their injuries than a government agency would have?
This makes me sound much more conservative than I am.
We should always remember that the awards in lawsuit are given ONLY after the injured person has been able to prove his case to 12 strangers. These strangers are the ones deciding on the amount of damage, not the lawyer nor the Court. Furthermore, always keep in mind that "frivolous" lawsuits do get dismissed. Those who survive have at least a reasonable argument that, if presented to a reasonable jury, stands a chance.
As of this writing I am more worried about "frivolous defenses" brought by insurance companies planning on exploiting the general negative feeling people have with respect to personal injury claims than frivolous lawsuits. It always takes two to tango: on the opposite of each and every injured party there is a defense attorney equally hell bent on making sure that the award is $0 or the most minimum amount.
I also wonder why the discussion hardly ever gets to to putting a cap on the insurance companies' premium if the general consensus is that they are too high… but I digress.
As I understand it, the bulk of states in the US (certainly when weighted by population) have rejected no-fault auto insurance. Andrew Tobias has heart-breaking tales of how this played out in California. This seems to be part of the same retarded US cultural personality that has the bulk of the population believing that any day now they're going to be part of the topmost quintile so anything that reduces their taxes is a great idea, namely an almost pathological aversion to statistics and common sense in favor of some sort of "winning the lottery" fairy story.
Ahh screw it; they'll get their come-uppance over the next twenty years anyway as the Bush legacy plays itself out.
I'm not advocating that the state bring civil lawsuits against the injuring parties, merely that one way to "threaten" potential wrongdoers would be that model. We already have that model in the US for various regulatory infractions.
Oh, and Fuel, just FYI I had the privilege of reading the various insurance company briefs in their action to unwind the CA state proposition which capped auto insurance premiums (seems reasonable, since one is mandated by law to have either purchased insurance or be wealthy enough to self-insure). I recall one of them saying that the company in question was constitutionally entitled to a 40% profit margin, and that regulation of their rates constituted a taking.
I am in New Zealand. Granted, I'm not an expert, but here's more details.
ACC is funded mainly through a levy on employer payrolls.
People do have a right to sue for exemplary damages.
The health system here is not too bad. I currently have a problem with my leg. I paid $58 twice for two consultations with my GP. I paid for antibotics - which were also subsidised by the government. I had blood tests - no charge. I went to hospital twice, having a consultation with an orthopaedic registrar in an ER, and today having a consultation with an orthopaedic resident, X-Rays, blood tests - no charge. I'll have to go back within a week or two and get a bone scan - no charge. It's possible I'll need a bit of surgery to the leg, scraping a bit of bad bone if the resident is correct - I believe there's no charge to that either. How much would that set me (or my insurer - I have no medical insurance) back in the US? The drawback is that I did spend 5 hours today going through consultation and a few tests - I was non urgent, and they were busy.
There are no delays for civil actions, no need to show negligence and no need to bring lawyers into it.
See here for one perspective on it. The main player in ensuring employers obey the law is OSH.
The public health system certainly ain't perfect - my grandmother went private for a hip replacement, and a few years back I plumped for paying $600 for toe surgery by the same doctor who would have also provided it for free under the public system - only I would have had to wait a couple of months. But no system is perfect, and the stories I hear from the States about what can go wrong make me cringe.
Posted by
Phoenician in a time of Romans |
Link to this comment |
01- 6-05 10:13 PM
13
Wow, thanks for the comment, Phoenician. Let's compare with my insurance, under which I have a $10 co-pay (that's my share) for GP office visits and each prescription, and pay 20% of everything else. I know a few doctors read the blog, so I'll defer to them, but I'd guess that a bone scan and surgery would cost at least $2000-$4000 in a hospital (less as an outpatient in the doctor's office, if that's a possibility), and 20% of that would be $400-$800--my share.
Do those numbers sound right to folks?
And while we have you on the line P, what do you have to say to someone considering (vaguely, but still considering) moving to your country?
This goes along with (IMO) the generally reasonable modern industrialized nations' tradeoff of protecting individuals from catastrophic harm either by relatively robust regulation and social insurance networks or by reasonable access to legal redress.
Most industrialized nations have chosen the former, I assume because it's more predictable and generally easier to manage. The US seems to have a strong aversion to the former option, because it's "socialist", I guess, and so we've chosen the latter option.
Bushco's tort reform model is of course the corporate dream of "None of the above", which I suspect you can also can find in the poorer nations to which we've been exporting our production work.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 6:31 PM
The only problem with the above scheme is that it creates no legal deterrent for causing injuries to others neglegently. There is probably still a criminal deterrent for causing injuries purposefully, but the rationale for most of our tort law is that it creates incentives for people to take reasonable care against causing injuries to others by accident.
In other words, the primary benefit of our torts scheme is preventative. Or it is supposed to be. Also, I suspect that Bush's tort reform is a crazy sideshow without much thought behind it, like the rest of his domestic policies. His foreign policies are the crazy main event.
as a caveat, I am a lawyer, though not a personal injury type.
Posted by RD | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 9:16 AM
it creates no legal deterrent for causing injuries to others neglegently.
Which is not to say that there's no deterrent: people generally don't like to cause injury to others. More to the point, part of the "ACC" is NZ's "Injury Prevention Strategy," which seems like a bigger, friendlier OSHA. And there's more on the ACC here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 9:28 AM
right -- most people don't want to cause others injuries. But where precautions are costly, legal deterrents are probably a good thing, especially when it is a corporation that needs to take the precautions rather than individuals, who tend to act more responsibly without need of threats.
I don't know enough about the New Zealand plan to comment on it; some regulatory schemes work really well. Just wanted to point out that compensation isn't the whole game.
Posted by RD | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 9:38 AM
Point taken. Maybe I'll get ballsy and move there for some first-hand reporting.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 9:54 AM
There's always the possibility of state sanctions in the form of criminal or civil penalties for negligence, malice, etc. which in turn would go to finance the compensation system.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 2:20 PM
In which case you would have the state bringing negligence actions against private parties? Why is that a better system than allowing individuals to bring negligence actions against people that have harmed them? Don't the people who themselves were injured have better access to information about their injuries than a government agency would have?
This makes me sound much more conservative than I am.
Posted by RD | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 3:10 PM
We should always remember that the awards in lawsuit are given ONLY after the injured person has been able to prove his case to 12 strangers. These strangers are the ones deciding on the amount of damage, not the lawyer nor the Court. Furthermore, always keep in mind that "frivolous" lawsuits do get dismissed. Those who survive have at least a reasonable argument that, if presented to a reasonable jury, stands a chance.
As of this writing I am more worried about "frivolous defenses" brought by insurance companies planning on exploiting the general negative feeling people have with respect to personal injury claims than frivolous lawsuits. It always takes two to tango: on the opposite of each and every injured party there is a defense attorney equally hell bent on making sure that the award is $0 or the most minimum amount.
I also wonder why the discussion hardly ever gets to to putting a cap on the insurance companies' premium if the general consensus is that they are too high… but I digress.
Posted by Fuel | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 3:50 PM
As I understand it, the bulk of states in the US (certainly when weighted by population) have rejected no-fault auto insurance. Andrew Tobias has heart-breaking tales of how this played out in California. This seems to be part of the same retarded US cultural personality that has the bulk of the population believing that any day now they're going to be part of the topmost quintile so anything that reduces their taxes is a great idea, namely an almost pathological aversion to statistics and common sense in favor of some sort of "winning the lottery" fairy story.
Ahh screw it; they'll get their come-uppance over the next twenty years anyway as the Bush legacy plays itself out.
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 4:18 PM
I'm not advocating that the state bring civil lawsuits against the injuring parties, merely that one way to "threaten" potential wrongdoers would be that model. We already have that model in the US for various regulatory infractions.
Oh, and Fuel, just FYI I had the privilege of reading the various insurance company briefs in their action to unwind the CA state proposition which capped auto insurance premiums (seems reasonable, since one is mandated by law to have either purchased insurance or be wealthy enough to self-insure). I recall one of them saying that the company in question was constitutionally entitled to a 40% profit margin, and that regulation of their rates constituted a taking.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 4:27 PM
Well we can all agree that insurance companies are evil. I've got nothing else to add but that.
Posted by RD | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 5:45 PM
I am in New Zealand. Granted, I'm not an expert, but here's more details.
ACC is funded mainly through a levy on employer payrolls.
People do have a right to sue for exemplary damages.
The health system here is not too bad. I currently have a problem with my leg. I paid $58 twice for two consultations with my GP. I paid for antibotics - which were also subsidised by the government. I had blood tests - no charge. I went to hospital twice, having a consultation with an orthopaedic registrar in an ER, and today having a consultation with an orthopaedic resident, X-Rays, blood tests - no charge. I'll have to go back within a week or two and get a bone scan - no charge. It's possible I'll need a bit of surgery to the leg, scraping a bit of bad bone if the resident is correct - I believe there's no charge to that either. How much would that set me (or my insurer - I have no medical insurance) back in the US? The drawback is that I did spend 5 hours today going through consultation and a few tests - I was non urgent, and they were busy.
There are no delays for civil actions, no need to show negligence and no need to bring lawyers into it.
See here for one perspective on it. The main player in ensuring employers obey the law is OSH.
The public health system certainly ain't perfect - my grandmother went private for a hip replacement, and a few years back I plumped for paying $600 for toe surgery by the same doctor who would have also provided it for free under the public system - only I would have had to wait a couple of months. But no system is perfect, and the stories I hear from the States about what can go wrong make me cringe.
Posted by Phoenician in a time of Romans | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 10:13 PM
Wow, thanks for the comment, Phoenician. Let's compare with my insurance, under which I have a $10 co-pay (that's my share) for GP office visits and each prescription, and pay 20% of everything else. I know a few doctors read the blog, so I'll defer to them, but I'd guess that a bone scan and surgery would cost at least $2000-$4000 in a hospital (less as an outpatient in the doctor's office, if that's a possibility), and 20% of that would be $400-$800--my share.
Do those numbers sound right to folks?
And while we have you on the line P, what do you have to say to someone considering (vaguely, but still considering) moving to your country?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 10:25 PM
And while we have you on the line P, what do you have to say to someone considering (vaguely, but still considering) moving to your country?
Come on, apostropher, you must have a good sheep joke up your sleeve. I've got nothing.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 8:09 AM
A good sheep joke? No, I'm afraid all mine are ba-a-a-a-ad. [sheepish grin]
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 8:19 AM
What's the difference between Mick Jagger & a Scottish (or Kiwi) shepherd?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 8:37 AM
What?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 8:54 AM
Mick Jagger says "hey you, get offa my cloud"; a Scottish shepherd says "hey MacLeod, get offa my ewe".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 9:04 AM
You're banned.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 9:05 AM
Mean!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 9:36 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 10:03 AM
There's also: Why do Scottish men all wear kilts?
A: Because sheep can hear a zipper a mile away.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 10:13 AM
FL, you're too easy.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 3:47 PM
And while we have you on the line P, what do you have to say to someone considering (vaguely, but still considering) moving to your country?
Bring money, don't block traffic, shut up when the rugby is playing, and never ever refer to anything in New Zealand as "quaint", even if it is.
Posted by Phoenician in a time of Romans | Link to this comment | 01- 8-05 10:02 PM