 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2012 11:33, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2012 11:30, Warp wrote:
>>> This crosses the line between stupid and outright sick in the head:
>
>> Meh. She's suing the estate to get paid her medical expenses. A bit gory,
>> but remember we don't have government-paid medicine here.
>
> I don't understand how that justifies it in any way.
I don't understand what you need justified. She's not suing the dead kid.
She's suing the dead kid's life insurance or whatever, to get paid for the
damage caused by the dead kid.
If he threw a ball at the train, and it bounced off and hit her and smashed
up her face, you'd say "sure, she deserves to get reimbursed for that
expense." The fact that it was a body part shouldn't make a difference.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2012 13:09, Warp wrote:
> It wasn't the fault of the relatives of the deceased that an accident
> happened. Why would it?
She's not suing the relatives. She's suing the estate. If the kid died
penniless, the relatives aren't responsible for the costs. It just means it
comes out of the money the relatives *would* have inherited if the kid
didn't injure the woman while he was still alive.
>> - so why should she have to pay for it out of pocket?
> Blame the healtcare system of the US.
Given that the healthcare system of the US is fucked, it's not unreasonable
for the woman to sue the kid's insurance company to get her medical expenses
paid.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2012 13:11, Warp wrote:
> So the solution to the problem of having a shitty healthcare system is
> to sue people around until someone else pays your medial bills?
Not just "someone." The person who actually injured you. Don't hyperbole and
it'll make more sense.
Why *shouldn't* she get the money from the person who caused the injury?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2012 14:07, Warp wrote:
> there's basic public healthcare that takes care of any injuries at no cost,
And here there isn't. So you're blaming the woman for getting injured in a
country where the person causing the injury is expected to pay the costs
rather than tax money?
Yes, we know the system is fucked. Why would you beat on this woman in
particular?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2012 11:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Why *shouldn't* she get the money from the person who caused the injury?
Because he is dead.
She should instead sue the republican party for scuppering the health
bills that were presented by Mr Clinton and Mr Obama.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2012 11:20 PM, Darren New wrote:
> The fact that it was a body part shouldn't make a difference.
Does "act of God" fit the bill?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2012 15:34, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/02/2012 11:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Why *shouldn't* she get the money from the person who caused the injury?
>
> Because he is dead.
Even better. He doesn't need it any more. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2012 15:36, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/02/2012 11:20 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> The fact that it was a body part shouldn't make a difference.
>
> Does "act of God" fit the bill?
When God comes and claims responsibility, I'll consider it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:09:46 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Person commits suicide
>
> He didn't, but even if he did, it wouldn't make any difference.
True, his estate would still be responsible for costs incurred.
>> It wasn't her fault she was injured
>
> It wasn't the fault of the relatives of the deceased that an accident
> happened. Why would it?
But it's not the relatives of the deceased that are being sued. It's the
estate, which is different. It's what that person had in assets before
it's disbursed to the heirs.
Just like if someone dies, there is normally some sort of settlement with
their creditors before the estate is passed along to their heirs, as I
understand it. That way the heirs aren't responsible for any debt left
(that isn't paid by insurance - for example, in our homeowner's policy,
we have a clause that pays off the balance of the due mortgage in the
event of our deaths so our son isn't stuck with having to come up with a
way to make the payments, for example).
> If someone accidentally falls off a cliff and smashes your car, are
> you
> going to sue his relatives to pay up for the repairs? No, it was an
> accident. The relatives are in no way responsible for anything.
Actually, yeah, if someone falls off a cliff and smashes someone else's
car, then the repair/replacement cost is borne by the person who causes
the accident.
But that's not the relatives, that's the person who died paying for it.
>> and the medical expenses were presumably considerable
>
> Completely inconsequential. They could be a hundred billion of
> dollars,
> and it would make no difference.
Sure, the amount really is immaterial, but in the event that it's a
considerable expense, that's not an out of pocket expense when it was due
to someone else's negligence, even if they did die in the event.
>> - so why should she have to pay for it out of pocket?
>
> Blame the healtcare system of the US.
Until the healthcare system in the US is fixed, this is how things get
done.
I think the US is far too litigious, but this instance is not one of
those cases.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:11:38 -0500, Warp wrote:
> So the solution to the problem of having a shitty healthcare system is
> to sue people around until someone else pays your medial bills?
So tell us, what should this woman have done? Just lived with the injury
because the healthcare system is broken and she's not in a personal
position to fix it?
You work with the system you have. At the same time, when that system
itself is broken, you try to change it, but you don't change it
overnight, certainly not if you're one citizen who's been done harm that
needs to be made right.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
