4 ms·

No fault insurance is something that a lot of people would like to see in places where it's not. It allows for an environment where problems see the light of da

by barking 10y ago

No fault insurance is something that a lot of people would like to see in places where it's not. It allows for an environment where problems see the light of day and can be fixed. Germany commonly seems to get a lot of things right.

patrickdavey 10y ago
"no fault insurance" kinda sounds like what we have in New Zealand with ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). Everyone contributes a bit into it through tax, but the flip side is that _everyone_ on New Zealand soil (not just citizens) is covered for accident related issues. For example, I was hiking (or tramping as it's called in NZ) with a foreign friend visiting. They were unlucky and broke an ankle. We called the police, a helicopter was dispatched, picked her up, brought her to the hospital and fixed the ankle up. Zero cost to her. One of the many upsides is that it's quite difficult to sue for personal injuries in NZ - as ACC basically covers the costs (or at least, that's my understanding anyway) Sure there are downsides to any system, and some people do fall through the cracks of ACC, but on balance, I think it's one of the best things about NZ (besides the nice relaxed atmosphere and killer scenery)
- freddyc 10y ago
  I was reading about tort reform once and stumbled upon NZ's ACC concept and was staggered by its effectiveness. I suspect its success is due in part to NZ's population size, but any system that ensures all accident related issues are covered AND for the most part renders the civil courts redundant for personal injury claims is pretty phenomenal. I don't have a source for this, but I also remember reading that the ACC is now one of NZ's largest institutional investors with something like $30bn under management!
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Does it cover loss of income and other consequential losses from the injury? If person A's negligence causes the loss of arm of person B, once person B is out of danger of dying and the acute injuries have healed, person B still has on-going harm from person A. Suppose person B was a surgeon and lost their dominant arm/hand. Is that loss of income covered by ACC, via suing person A, or "too bad, so sad"?
    - patrickdavey 10y ago
      I don't know the exact details, but yes, your income is covered up to some percentage, I'm not sure exactly what (80% springs to mind but I'm not certain - though Wikipedia suggests it's about right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporat... )
Xylakant 10y ago
Assuming no fault is something you want in a lot of places. For example the general rule for all emergency services (that is police, fire brigade etc.) is that unless you deliberately place a fake call, you're generally not held liable. The reasoning is that all emergency services would prefer to be notified earlier rather than later (for example for smoke rather than a full blown fire) and holding the caller liable for false alarms provides a strong incentive against that. So all in all, false alarms are considered something that the community/society needs to bear in return for peoples willingness to help/notify.
- 7402 10y ago
  Although (in the US), many cities will bill you for ambulance service. If things work out ideally, your insurance will then pay the ambulance fee. There are also cities that charge fees for sending fire trucks to vehicle fires and accidents if non-residents are involved.

by barking 10y ago

patrickdavey 10y ago

"no fault insurance" kinda sounds like what we have in New Zealand with ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). Everyone contributes a bit into it through tax, but the flip side is that _everyone_ on New Zealand soil (not just citizens) is covered for accident related issues. For example, I was hiking (or tramping as it's called in NZ) with a foreign friend visiting. They were unlucky and broke an ankle. We called the police, a helicopter was dispatched, picked her up, brought her to the hospital and fixed the ankle up. Zero cost to her. One of the many upsides is that it's quite difficult to sue for personal injuries in NZ - as ACC basically covers the costs (or at least, that's my understanding anyway) Sure there are downsides to any system, and some people do fall through the cracks of ACC, but on balance, I think it's one of the best things about NZ (besides the nice relaxed atmosphere and killer scenery)

freddyc 10y ago
I was reading about tort reform once and stumbled upon NZ's ACC concept and was staggered by its effectiveness. I suspect its success is due in part to NZ's population size, but any system that ensures all accident related issues are covered AND for the most part renders the civil courts redundant for personal injury claims is pretty phenomenal. I don't have a source for this, but I also remember reading that the ACC is now one of NZ's largest institutional investors with something like $30bn under management!
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Does it cover loss of income and other consequential losses from the injury? If person A's negligence causes the loss of arm of person B, once person B is out of danger of dying and the acute injuries have healed, person B still has on-going harm from person A. Suppose person B was a surgeon and lost their dominant arm/hand. Is that loss of income covered by ACC, via suing person A, or "too bad, so sad"?
  - patrickdavey 10y ago
    I don't know the exact details, but yes, your income is covered up to some percentage, I'm not sure exactly what (80% springs to mind but I'm not certain - though Wikipedia suggests it's about right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporat... )

Xylakant 10y ago

Assuming no fault is something you want in a lot of places. For example the general rule for all emergency services (that is police, fire brigade etc.) is that unless you deliberately place a fake call, you're generally not held liable. The reasoning is that all emergency services would prefer to be notified earlier rather than later (for example for smoke rather than a full blown fire) and holding the caller liable for false alarms provides a strong incentive against that. So all in all, false alarms are considered something that the community/society needs to bear in return for peoples willingness to help/notify.

7402 10y ago
Although (in the US), many cities will bill you for ambulance service. If things work out ideally, your insurance will then pay the ambulance fee. There are also cities that charge fees for sending fire trucks to vehicle fires and accidents if non-residents are involved.