Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Is it the Government’s job to protect us from everything?

johnboy 5 August 2009 24

The ABC is carrying calls by the ACT public advocate for the ACT Government to take responsibility for all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune:

    ACT Public Advocate Anita Phillips has called for the Territory Government to introduce a no-fault insurance scheme.

    No-fault insurance provides medical treatment for people who have been seriously injured in accidents.

    Ms Phillips says at the moment injured people often have to resort to lengthy and costly court battles.

Your thoughts?


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to
Is it the Government’s job to protect us from everything?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
ausjc 11:17 pm 05 Aug 09

They already have this system in Victoria:

http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do;jsessionid=ODBHILEBEABL?areaID=21

johnboy said :

On the other hand, if these things worry you, you’re free to take out your own insurance.

Medical costs can be astronomical even with private health insurance.

Granny 10:47 pm 05 Aug 09

They are talking about something like $20 per year per vehicle. That’s the cheapest insurance I’ve ever heard of for a system that benefits anybody who needs it.

cranky 9:24 pm 05 Aug 09

Of course ex-judges come from the legal profession.

But with luck they are on a decent pension, and not concentrating on how much they can screw from the proceedings.

Justice could indeed be served.

circusmind 9:06 pm 05 Aug 09

cranky said :

We need to employ ex-judges, and avoid the legal profession.

Where do you think judges come from?

bannister 8:49 pm 05 Aug 09

If someone crashed into me and hurt themselves, and then sued me, I would be outraged.

cranky 8:39 pm 05 Aug 09

The current system obviously works to some extent, with damages (dollars) transferred
from one party to the other. This money comes from somewhere, possibly from insurance, and likely from bankrupting the loser. Unfortunately it is a given that the legal practitioners will have taken a substantial slice.

By widening the spread of insurance, to cover as many, if not all the population, and removing the drain on the system by the legal eagles, a system could well be win/win.

The dollars are in the system already. We should be able to manage them far more equitably. Spreading the risk, removing the leaches, and affordability beckons.

OK, the wisdom of Job may be required to decide the financial outcome, but the current system of Judge dictated damages is probably a fair result.

We need to employ ex-judges, and avoid the legal profession.

circusmind 8:20 pm 05 Aug 09

Granny said :

If they do get something through the courts, half of the money meant to help them goes straight to well-off lawyers.

On the other hand, a no-fault scheme has all of society foot the bill which would normally be borne by the responsible party. Costs orders can help alleviate the burden of legal fees on plaintiffs.

If they were even slightly at fault, they get nothing.

Totally untrue.

farnarkler 7:52 pm 05 Aug 09

The law society will love this. They’ll be bleating about losing fees.

cranky 7:00 pm 05 Aug 09

I’m hard pressed to find a reason not to support this idea.

The fact that it removes the fault/litigation factor is enough to sway me. Would anyone (apart from some Abbott turkey) go back to the ridiculous ‘at fault’ divorce laws?

So some solicitors find it harder to make a crust? Stiff chedder!

Granny 5:24 pm 05 Aug 09

monomania said :

The world is what we make it. Those making the world have lots of better stuff and intend to keep it.

I’m sure you do.

PM 5:19 pm 05 Aug 09

In answer to the question: no.

monomania 4:33 pm 05 Aug 09

johnboy said :

Yes well, stuff costs money, people with more money have better stuff.

Granny, meet the world.

The world is what we make it. Those making the world have lots of better stuff and intend to keep it.

astrojax 3:49 pm 05 Aug 09

only if served with a nice cold ginger beer, of course granny!

Granny 3:35 pm 05 Aug 09

In other words, let them eat cake.

johnboy 3:28 pm 05 Aug 09

Yes well, stuff costs money, people with more money have better stuff.

Granny, meet the world.

Granny 3:26 pm 05 Aug 09

johnboy said :

On the other hand, if these things worry you, you’re free to take out your own insurance.

That would require an income, surely?

Dante 2:32 pm 05 Aug 09

davo101: I’ve never heard of the NZ ACC but I like the merits of such an organisation/scheme scheme. This seriously reduces the need for public liability insurance in New Zealand?

dvaey: This wouldn’t cover my financial involvement in the scheme because I don’t own or register a car. Would this suggest I wouldn’t be covered by the scheme?

dvaey 1:50 pm 05 Aug 09

Deano said :

For a scheme like this to work, it would have to be compulsory just like the current third party scheme for motor vehicles. If it is going to be compulsory then it is essentially just another tax. It would be more effective just to increase taxes to adequately fund the schemes we already have in place.

I think it would make more sense to just include it in the registration cost. Seriously, who really cares that with registration cost, includes 50c road-rescue, $2 road-safety, $3 road-repair, etc etc taxes on top.

Maybe with the re-investigation of the CTPI scheme in Canberra, they can look at merging some of these fees and surcharges into registration costs. Fees and surcharges are simply a way of showing you have a flawed business plan to begin with, for example airlines who charge a ticket price, then add a ‘surcharge’ for fuel or airport costs, etc.. that should be included in upfront the ticket price.

peterh 1:32 pm 05 Aug 09

re your own D&D insurance, there are several companies around who provide the insurance as a part of your super – mine do, and I am in an industry fund. Total disability allows a person to be covered for the things that medical insurance doesn’t – in the event of an accident, medical insurance covers you for the medical component of the equation, but not the costs associated with income loss, bills, and ongoing requirements for a family. The other component offered as a part of your super is death cover, and it is there to assist your family in keeping the house, the car, and pay the bills per month. Additionally, it covers the basic costs for a funeral. (not the fancy casket, though, just the cheap cardboard or pine jobby) Keeping the two insurance types separate from the medical fund enables your claims to be processed quickly. if it was a part of the medical offering, then the medical bills would be paid, but the monthly bills might be delayed until the claim was substantiated.

davo101 1:12 pm 05 Aug 09

I think what she is referring to is something like the ACC in NZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation).

What it means is that you can no longer sue shop owners, home-owners, the Government, etc. if you slip over at their place. You just get a payout from the insurance scheme. Lawyers hate the system because it cuts them out of the deal. It also explains why NZ can have bungee jumping, white-water rafting, crocodile wrestling et al–because businesses don’t have to carry massive public liability insurance policies.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site