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