andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Not only the medical bills but also the lawyer's. Still, it makes sense 
> if you think of it in the USAsian way. Just be glad that you don't have 
> to live there.
> God is lucky not to have a representative on earth or he would be sued 
> for every accident that can not be blamed on any human being.

  Sometimes some people try the same here, but it seldom succeeds, and
even when it does, the payoff is usually very small. That's because here
there's basic public healthcare that takes care of any injuries at no cost,
and compensation for "emotional trauma" is usually of rational size, rather
than being the millions of dollars typical of the US.

  (In principle you could want to go to a private hospital instead, which
the government does not cover, and try to sue for your medical expenses,
but I don't think it would be very likely to succeed precisely because
the free alternative is there, and you deliberately chose not to use it,
so it's your fault if you get medical bills.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 19-2-2012 23:07, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Not only the medical bills but also the lawyer's. Still, it makes sense
>> if you think of it in the USAsian way. Just be glad that you don't have
>> to live there.
>> God is lucky not to have a representative on earth or he would be sued
>> for every accident that can not be blamed on any human being.
>
>    Sometimes some people try the same here, but it seldom succeeds, and
> even when it does, the payoff is usually very small.

You are thinking of individual people. The insurance companies sue each 
other all the time. Luckily most often on a level that leaves the 
victims out of 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 2/19/2012 11:33, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  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

On 20/02/2012 1:24 AM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>

Won't we all. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2012 0:28, Darren New wrote:
> 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?

Why would you beat on the relatives that recently suffered a great loss 
and are is no way responsible for what occurred?



-- 
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 2:24, Darren New wrote:
> 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. :-)

Just for clarification, the USA system might work different than ours.

In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including 
his debts. Here suing a dead person would mean suing the heirs. Assuming 
that he did own less than the doctor's and lawyer's bills, losing their 
son could also be a financial disaster for the parents.

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.

Still this wasn't a case of suicide and in the eyes of a simple European 
not even a case of negligence, but simply a case of bad luck.* This 
whole concept of trying to blame someone for bad luck is completely 
alien to me. At the same time I understand why the US system (the 
combination of a broken health system and no cure no pay lawyers) gives 
rise to this sort of ridiculous court cases where everybody looses 
except the lawyers.

*) 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...
A goose dying in mid air and dropping precisely at the front of the 
train at the right time. Amtrak should have put up nets in the 
neighbourhood of stations...


-- 
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

Strange, Thunderbird does not seem to allow me to remove my own posts.

I saw your clarification that the estate construct does indeed works 
different than our system.
How likely is it that a 18 yo kid has a life insurance or a medical 
insurance that could cover the bills?


On 20-2-2012 9:09, andrel wrote:
> On 20-2-2012 2:24, Darren New wrote:
>> 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. :-)
>
> Just for clarification, the USA system might work different than ours.
>
> In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including
> his debts. Here suing a dead person would mean suing the heirs. Assuming
> that he did own less than the doctor's and lawyer's bills, losing their
> son could also be a financial disaster for the parents.
>
> 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.
>
> Still this wasn't a case of suicide and in the eyes of a simple European
> not even a case of negligence, but simply a case of bad luck.* This
> whole concept of trying to blame someone for bad luck is completely
> alien to me. At the same time I understand why the US system (the
> combination of a broken health system and no cure no pay lawyers) gives
> rise to this sort of ridiculous court cases where everybody looses
> except the lawyers.
>
> *) 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...
> A goose dying in mid air and dropping precisely at the front of the
> train at the right time. Amtrak should have put up nets in the
> neighbourhood of stations...
>
>


-- 
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

Le 20/02/2012 00:20, Darren New a écrit :
> On 2/19/2012 11:33, Warp wrote:
>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  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.
> 

Well, indeed, the lawyers of that country are turning things in strange
language.

I'm from an area where the death of one party automatically close all
the pending trials involving that person, as well as ending all
contracts (excepted the explicit death-related ones which changes phases).

At worst, the heirs could have a new issue raised on "profiting from the
behaviour or action of the deceased", but that would at best remove such
profit from the inheritance (assuming there is some heirs and an actual
inheritance).

> 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.
> 
As long as it remains alive, no difference from a ball or a body part.
As soon as he's dead, no difference either here: you cannot sue a dead
person.

Remember that old joke from US, where a lawyer gives the argument that
it was the right arm of the defendant that did it, so the sentence of
jail should apply to the right arm. Judge agrees (fool!!!), to discover
a few instant later that the defendant had a removable right arm...

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.02.2012 22:11, schrieb Warp:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg>  wrote:
>> Picture yourself in that woman's position: One moment you are standing
>> on the platform thinking no harm and doing nothing wrong, next moment
>> you've got a broken leg and wrist; the hospital won't give you any care
>> unless they know who's paying; your medical insurance isn't, due to some
>> random loophole of the policy (so now you know why it was so cheap that
>> you could afford it); neither is the government, because hey, this is
>> America, so don't any government dare take from the rich and give to the
>> poor.
>
>> Bottom line: Unless you want to spend the future walking around with a
>> crippled leg and wrist, you've got to find /someone/ to blame for your
>> misfortune and force them to pay.
>
>    So the solution to the problem of having a shitty healthcare system is
> to sue people around until someone else pays your medial bills?
>
>    No, just no.

You're missing the point. That woman has no way of repairing the 
healthcare system, so what else would you expect her to do than sue someone?

Having a shitty healthcare system sure doesn't excuse the US-American 
society from being sue-happy - but can you not agree that it may excuse 
some of the individuals filing those lawsuits?

Post a reply to this message

I know a lady called Sue. She seldom seems happy...

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.02.2012 15:06, schrieb Invisible:
> I know a lady called Sue. She seldom seems happy...

Neither was the Boy Named Sue...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Not just "someone." The person who actually injured you. Don't hyperbole and 
> it'll make more sense.

  You make it sound like that person did it on purpose and hence is guilty
of a crime.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including 
> his debts.

  Imagine someone is living his life just minding his own business,
doing his work, paying his taxes and contributing to society as a good
citizen. Then some official comes to him and says "hey, your uncle,
which you have never even heard of, just died and you are his only
heir, so you inherit everything." This guy is like "cool! How much do
I get?" "Nothing. Your uncle had ten millions in debt, and now it's
yours. I'm here to collect or put you in jail if you can't pay."

  Nice.

  (And no, I don't know how it's in Finland.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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?

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.02.2012 16:35, schrieb Warp:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including
>> his debts.
>
>    Imagine someone is living his life just minding his own business,
> doing his work, paying his taxes and contributing to society as a good
> citizen. Then some official comes to him and says "hey, your uncle,
> which you have never even heard of, just died and you are his only
> heir, so you inherit everything." This guy is like "cool! How much do
> I get?" "Nothing. Your uncle had ten millions in debt, and now it's
> yours. I'm here to collect or put you in jail if you can't pay."
>
>    Nice.
>
>    (And no, I don't know how it's in Finland.)

In Germany, as an heir you can choose to decline the inheritance, in 
which case the other heirs get a bigger share; if there are no other 
heirs (or they decline as well), the government gets everything 
(including the debts).

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2012 16:56, clipka wrote:
> Am 20.02.2012 16:35, schrieb Warp:
>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including
>>> his debts.
>>
>> Imagine someone is living his life just minding his own business,
>> doing his work, paying his taxes and contributing to society as a good
>> citizen. Then some official comes to him and says "hey, your uncle,
>> which you have never even heard of, just died and you are his only
>> heir, so you inherit everything." This guy is like "cool! How much do
>> I get?" "Nothing. Your uncle had ten millions in debt, and now it's
>> yours. I'm here to collect or put you in jail if you can't pay."
>>
>> Nice.
>>
>> (And no, I don't know how it's in Finland.)
>
> In Germany, as an heir you can choose to decline the inheritance, in
> which case the other heirs get a bigger share; if there are no other
> heirs (or they decline as well), the government gets everything
> (including the debts).

Same here. I should have mentioned that. I am not sure if declining an 
inheritance means that you can not even keep purely personal things like 
photographs and clothes.

In a case like this you will have to wait till you know the verdict 
before accepting or rejecting. I think you have half a year to decide, 
but think of not being able to do anything with somebody's belongings 
and then after that period opening all the boxes.



-- 
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 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."

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.

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

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.

> *) 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.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 2/20/2012 7:30, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Not just "someone." The person who actually injured you. Don't hyperbole and
>> it'll make more sense.
>
>    You make it sound like that person did it on purpose and hence is guilty
> of a crime.

No, but you don't have to be guilty of a crime to be responsible for your 
actions. If I accidentally crash my car into your parked car, who pays the 
repair bills? Does your insurance rate go up because you parked in my way?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 2/20/2012 7:38, 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?

We're suggesting that this is the normal way one goes about getting 
compensated for the injurious behavior of others in the USA.

If you were on the train, and the seat collapsed and broke your leg because 
they never maintained it, wouldn't you want them to pay to cure you? Why is 
it different just because it's a teenager?

>    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?

No, but in this case, it *was* someone else's fault.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 2/20/2012 2:51, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I'm from an area where the death of one party automatically close all
> the pending trials involving that person, as well as ending all
> contracts (excepted the explicit death-related ones which changes phases).

The same is true in the USA. But this is a new lawsuit against the estate of 
the deceased, and it's a tort, so it's neither a pending trial nor a contract.

> As long as it remains alive, no difference from a ball or a body part.
> As soon as he's dead, no difference either here: you cannot sue a dead
> person.

She's not suing a dead person. She's suing the estate, which means she's 
asking the judge to sign a check on behalf of the dead person.

Say someone owns a house, and dies, and leaves it to you in their will. How 
do you take ownership? Answer: You go to the judge and get him to sign a 
deed on the dead person's behalf transferring the house into your ownership.

Same thing here: She's asking the judge to tell the kid's insurance company 
or bank to sign a check on behalf of the kid to pay for her injuries.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

On 2/20/2012 11:51, andrel wrote:
> Technically he/she may decide that it is negligence, in real life it wasn't.

Running in front of a train going fast enough to pulp you and fling body 
parts all over the station? *I* would consider that a pretty negligent act.

> 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.

That happens here too.

> 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. ;)

It can also be a matter of whether Amtrak wants to set the precedent that if 
you run in front of a train, it's Amtrak's fault for not stopping. I can see 
Amtrak fighting the lawsuit claiming it's their fault even *if* they still 
pay the medical bills out of decency.

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

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.02.2012 20:51, schrieb andrel:

>> 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.

Crossing railroad tracks without looking?

Indeed, that's not negligence - that's plain stupidity.

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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 wasn't aware that it was anything /other/ than a rather humorous song.

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

My mother wanted to name me William, and my sister Wendy. We were only 
spared because W.C. would be a crappy set of initials to have...

Post a reply to this message

Le 20/02/2012 19:36, Darren New a écrit :
> Say someone owns a house, and dies, and leaves it to you in their will.
> How do you take ownership? Answer: You go to the judge and get him to
> sign a deed on the dead person's behalf transferring the house into your
> ownership.

It's a bit different here. No judge. A notary.
The notary collects and applie the will, notify the state about the
taxes for the dead (within a six month delay to pay since the death),
and perform the writing of transferring the ownership (yet a few taxes
for that writing) once the taxes have been paid and heirs agrees.

Leaving a house in a will might be a curse, if you are a total stranger
the death-related taxes are about 60% of the evaluated price of the
house. Not including the 7% of writing for land-property. You can opt to
try to have the notary sells the house at the evaluated price, but the
delay of 6 months is playing against you...that's really only 2 months
to find a buyer (due to the delay the buyer get...) Assume you sell at
75% of the evaluated price (unless you get a mortgage to pay the tax ?
strange idea!), remove the taxes and a few needed diagnostic's bills...
lucky if something remains. (and it take you time)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:14:59 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> 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 wasn't aware that it was anything /other/ than a rather humorous song.

Well, given your history here, you never know. ;)

>> (I know it because my mom wanted to name her daughter "Sue", but she
>> had two boys and no girls...)
> 
> My mother wanted to name me William, and my sister Wendy. We were only
> spared because W.C. would be a crappy set of initials to have...

I see what you did there. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2012 21:24, Jim Henderson wrote:

> It's far less common than people saying "hey, aren't you the Muppet guy?"

Shouldn't that be "hey, weren't you the Muppet guy?"?


-- 
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 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:38:58 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 20-2-2012 21:24, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> It's far less common than people saying "hey, aren't you the Muppet
>> guy?"
> 
> Shouldn't that be "hey, weren't you the Muppet guy?"?

Well, my usual answer when I'm feeling relatively charitable about it is 
to check my pulse and say "nope, I've got a pulse, Henson no longer does."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/21/2012 4:37, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> It's a bit different here. No judge. A notary.

Judge, notary, whatever. The point is that it's someone who is authorized by 
the government to sign the name of a dead person on legal documents. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message