On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:38:40 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
>   What exactly are you suggesting?
> 
>   Imagine that she had a pure accident where no other person was
>   involved.
> Maybe she was walking in the wild and a tree branch fell over her. What
> should she do? Sue somebody until someone pays her bills?

That's not the case that we're talking about.  But in that particular 
case, your own insurance would cover it, if you had insurance.  If you 
didn't, then yes, you'd pay for it out of pocket.

But when someone else is involved, the insurance companies tend to want 
to assign "fault" in order to avoid paying out if they can.  That's what 
insurance companies *do*.  They manage risk - and when an incident 
occurs, they have to work out whose risk is responsible for covering the 
costs.

>   If you live in a country where an accident can leave you crippled for
> the rest of your life because you don't have money to fix yourself, then
> perhaps it would be better to move to some other country. It's not like
> you would have to move very far. I hear the public health care system in
> Canada is pretty ok.

Yeah, because anyone can just pick up and move to another country for any 
reason.

Oh, wait, no they can't.  We looked at it - getting actual legal 
immigration status in most countries is fairly difficult.

I couldn't, for example, just pick up and move to Canada.  I'd have to 
demonstrate that I had a job offer there, that I wouldn't be a burden to 
their system, and that my moving there would be beneficial to Canada.

There's also the small issue of the person actually *wanting* to move to 
another country.  Saying "well, just move to another country" doesn't fix 
the problem with the US healthcare system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:39:21 -0500, Warp wrote:

> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> That woman has no way of repairing the healthcare system, so what else
>> would you expect her to do than sue someone?
> 
>   Move to Canada? (No, that was not a joke.)

How does that fix the healthcare system in the US?

It most certainly is a joke.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:53:34 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> On 20/02/2012 03:08 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 20.02.2012 15:06, schrieb Invisible:
>>> I know a lady called Sue. She seldom seems happy...
>>
>> Neither was the Boy Named Sue...
> 
> Haha! Oh man... that was damned funny.

You do know that's the name of a song, right?

(I know it because my mom wanted to name her daughter "Sue", but she had 
two boys and no girls...)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2012 19:25, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/20/2012 0:09, andrel wrote:
>> In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns
>> including his
>> debts.
>
> That sounds like an awful system. I certainly don't want to be
> responsible for the debts of whatever random person might have named me
> as an heir. I think you're likely oversimplifying, tho.

Yes I forgot to mention clearly that you can reject, but that means 
everything. Easy in case of a random person, somewhat difficult for a 
close relative.

>> If otoh the system works in such a way that the medical and other
>> costs must
>> come from his personal belongings, you might argue that he does not
>> need it
>> anymore anyway.
>
> It comes from his estate, which is his possessions left over after he's
> dead.
>
>> Still this wasn't a case of suicide and in the eyes of a simple
>> European not
>> even a case of negligence,
>
> Right. If you read, the court already decided it's a case of negilgence
> on the part of the dead kid, and not on the part of amtrack.

This is a case where I don't care what an USAsian judge decides. ;)
Technically he/she may decide that it is negligence, in real life it wasn't.

>> *) she might as well be hit by the remains of a deer crossing the
>> line. Oh
>> no, that wouldn't work as just bad luck. She could sue Amtrak for not
>> preventing the deer from going on the track...
>
> She tried that. And indeed, that's how the system works here. For
> unlikely stuff like this, the business is supposed to have insurance.

Here in the Netherlands it is not uncommon that the railway company or 
any other large company decides to pay even if they can technically not 
be blamed. Partly out of decency, partly because not doing so is bad 
publicity and conversely this is cheap and good publicity.

Probably it is indicative of the moral state of the USA that Amtrak did 
not do the decent thing and can get away with it. ;)



-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2012 20:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:53:34 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 20/02/2012 03:08 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 20.02.2012 15:06, schrieb Invisible:
>>>> I know a lady called Sue. She seldom seems happy...
>>>
>>> Neither was the Boy Named Sue...
>>
>> Haha! Oh man... that was damned funny.
>
> You do know that's the name of a song, right?
>
> (I know it because my mom wanted to name her daughter "Sue", but she had
> two boys and no girls...)
>
> Sue

well, it is quite famous actually, nr 406 in our top2000 of all time in 
the last edition of 2011. That means that only 405 songs were considered 
better.

-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2012 19:20, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 23:24, andrel wrote:
>> Why would you beat on the relatives that recently suffered a great
>> loss and
>> are is no way responsible for what occurred?
>
> It's not the relatives getting sued. It's the estate of the dead person,
> which means basically she's petitioning a judge to sign a check on
> behalf of the dead person to pay her back for her medical expenses.
> There's no need for the relatives to even hear about the lawsuit,
> technically. It's just a thing that goes through probate along with the
> rest of the inheritance process. It's really no more discombobulating
> than having the people inheriting some real-estate property going to the
> judge saying "please sign a deed that gives the heirs the ownership of
> the house."

We don't have such an estate construct as far as I know. I am trying to 
understand how that works in practice. I assume that the heirs hear 
about it anyway because there is a bill. What happens if the dead person 
has not enough money in the bank to pay? Will someone sell his car to 
settle it?

> Remember that a "lawsuit" doesn't necessarily even mean someone is
> contesting something. It just means you're asking the judge to apply
> some law.

Sure. The only time I was in court was when my godfather was made my 
second guardian after my father died. I don't remember someone jumping 
to his feet shouting 'objection' or something.


-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:01:35 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> You do know that's the name of a song, right?
>>
>> (I know it because my mom wanted to name her daughter "Sue", but she
>> had two boys and no girls...)
>>
>> Sue

LOL, funny change, because both my brother and I have been referred to as 
mom's "two boys named Sue".

It's far less common than people saying "hey, aren't you the Muppet guy?" 
- which I've heard so often it's become tiring.  (In fact, someone 
arguing with me on a mailing list recently tried to use it as an insult 
because he didn't want to behave like a reasonable human being.)

> well, it is quite famous actually, nr 406 in our top2000 of all time in
> the last edition of 2011. That means that only 405 songs were considered
> better.

History has shown that that doesn't mean Andy knows this. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20/02/2012 7:23 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:38:40 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> >  Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>> >>  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?
>> >
>> >     What exactly are you suggesting?
>> >
>> >     Imagine that she had a pure accident where no other person was
>> >     involved.
>> >  Maybe she was walking in the wild and a tree branch fell over her. What
>> >  should she do? Sue somebody until someone pays her bills?
> That's not the case that we're talking about.  But in that particular
> case, your own insurance would cover it, if you had insurance.  If you
> didn't, then yes, you'd pay for it out of pocket.

I'll jump in here as I know that you won't think that I am being personal.

One thing that no one has mentioned is the distress, worry or even anger 
that it may have caused the woman who had to go to court to get her 
medical bills paid.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:27:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> That's not the case that we're talking about.  But in that particular
>> case, your own insurance would cover it, if you had insurance.  If you
>> didn't, then yes, you'd pay for it out of pocket.
> 
> I'll jump in here as I know that you won't think that I am being
> personal.

I don't see how the following could be taken personally. :)

> One thing that no one has mentioned is the distress, worry or even anger
> that it may have caused the woman who had to go to court to get her
> medical bills paid.

That's certainly true. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/20/2012 12:01, andrel wrote:
> What happens if the dead person has not
> enough money in the bank to pay? Will someone sell his car to settle it?

Probably. I don't understand all the details myself, mind, but your "estate" 
includes all your belongings. It's basically just like "bankruptcy" except 
without any of the protections against stuff like taking your home or means 
of employment.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message