Get into an accident, pay a "Crash Tax"

Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
9,900
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Steve S
 Originally Posted By: oilyriser
It would be reasonable to have insurance for these costs. The insurance co can also more vigorously defend against fraud by local towns. A related topic is rescue from extreme circumstances. Who should pay for a rescue if some guy wants to climb a mountain for fun and gets injured while perched on a wall somewhere? Normal people don't do that thing every day, so normal taxes should not pay for it.
I can 100% agree on that unless the rescue people are paid[Government workers] from the sloptrough of the taxpayer.
Slippery slope your on there... Defining what is "normal" gets tough and soon no one is "normal". How about riding a bike to work and getting hit by a car? 99% of people don't ride a bike to work... Or riding a bike on a trail, or a horse... Again 99% don't do this. What about getting fat and eating [censored]? No health care coverage for you? Or being anorexic? Normal people don't starve themselves... Ian
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
 Originally Posted By: XS650
Gary, If fleas could talk they would tell you how they benefit the dog.
Yeah, I do feel naive, at times ...make that most times. "You mean you're just catching on ? Where you been? C'mon, son ..get up to speed here. "
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
19,479
Location
Chicago Area
Maybe there should be extra payment in rare cases. Like when a bank robber is fleeing police and causes a car accident. Or O.J.Simpson when he wasted so much of the Police and court's time and resources. Things like that. But regular accidents ? Never. This is so wrong on so may levels that it infuriates me.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
7,077
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: IndyIan
 Originally Posted By: Steve S
 Originally Posted By: oilyriser
It would be reasonable to have insurance for these costs. The insurance co can also more vigorously defend against fraud by local towns. A related topic is rescue from extreme circumstances. Who should pay for a rescue if some guy wants to climb a mountain for fun and gets injured while perched on a wall somewhere? Normal people don't do that thing every day, so normal taxes should not pay for it.
I can 100% agree on that unless the rescue people are paid[Government workers] from the sloptrough of the taxpayer.
Slippery slope your on there... Defining what is "normal" gets tough and soon no one is "normal". How about riding a bike to work and getting hit by a car? 99% of people don't ride a bike to work... Or riding a bike on a trail, or a horse... Again 99% don't do this. What about getting fat and eating [censored]? No health care coverage for you? Or being anorexic? Normal people don't starve themselves... Ian
Health insurance costs more for smokers. This makes perfect sense as they are hurting themselves voluntarily, and should pay for the costs of their behaviour. Accident benefits insurance is mandatory in Ontario already, to pay for the increased costs of helping people who put themselves at risk by driving a car.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
36,711
Location
ME
 Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Maybe there should be extra payment in rare cases. Like when a bank robber is fleeing police and causes a car accident. Or O.J.Simpson when he wasted so much of the Police and court's time and resources. Things like that. But regular accidents ? Never. This is so wrong on so may levels that it infuriates me.
You can't define a rare case in a way that a lawyer couldn't instantly unravel. Look at all the definitions for elevated, agravated, or elevated-aggravated assault, all "extra special" at one time, now taken for granted. Same with "gross negligence". Nobody has yet pounced upon the fact that it's a for-profit collection agency "helping" the local emergency officials.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
 Originally Posted By: oilyriser
A related topic is rescue from extreme circumstances. Who should pay for a rescue if some guy wants to climb a mountain for fun and gets injured while perched on a wall somewhere? Normal people don't do that thing every day, so normal taxes should not pay for it.
Bullimore was a classic case of that. I've no problem with people getting lost, and recovered, but that guy cost us a squillion. Same as yacht races when they take off in ridiculous wind conditions, and all need rescuing...they should pay. Seen a couple of ambulance things. Daughter sprayed glowsticks into her eye. While I was rendering first aid, better half called the ambulance. I provided the ambulance drivers with MSDS, first aid recommnedations etc. Bill $600 (insurance paid), but they did use up half an hour of an ambulance and two guys. A guy at the local speedway was involved in a rollover, and the ambulance on the scene called a chopper...$17 grand.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
 Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Slippery slope your on there... Defining what is "normal" gets tough and soon no one is "normal". How about riding a bike to work and getting hit by a car? 99% of people don't ride a bike to work... Or riding a bike on a trail, or a horse... Again 99% don't do this.
Down here, you are covered by worker's compensation insurance the second you leave your front gate, to the time that you re-enter, as you are carrying out those activities because of your employment. However, the insurers have started work, and are pushing continually. "Most direct route" was included a few years ago, meaning that workmates who diligently drove an extra 50 km to get around a snow closed road are not covered by their detour, nor am I (technically) if I stop at the shops on the way home. Now they are trying to say that people cycling (or motorcycling) to work are putting them (the insurance companies) to greater risk of larger payouts, and are technically similar to people travelling extra distance...and shouldn't be covered if they chose a "more risky" form of travel. As to the slippery slope. http://www.jibjab.com/view/842
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
7,077
Location
Ontario, Canada
Collisions create a real per-incident cost to both the victims and the emergency response people. Someone has to pay for this. The emergency response is not chosen by the accident victim, so he should not have to pay the full amount if an excessive response occurs.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
19,479
Location
Chicago Area
eljefino - Good point. Everyone would be promoted as specially guilty, then. But since we have States that have a greater criminal punishment/sentence for killing a police dog than a civilian, any thing is possible.
 
Top