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

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.

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.

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.

cranky said :

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

Where do you think judges come from?

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

In answer to the question: no.

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.

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

In other words, let them eat cake.

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

Granny, meet the world.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.