Car accident

Superduper2

hi, I was recently rear ended while sitting at a traffic light. I didn't go to hospital straight away as I planned to go to Westdoc (and not wanting to spend the night in A&E). After contacting Westdoc, they advised I needed to go to A&E as it was a RTA. I duly received my €100 bill from the hospital (which I have no problem with) but they also sent me a road traffic accident form. It advises that I have to complete regardless of whether I want to make a personal injury claim or not. It also states that I would be liable for a charge of €335 for first attendance, follow up attendances of €165 and €130 per physio visit if I proceed to claim. It requires a solicitor signature and an obligation on my solicitor to provide the actual settlement figure. Firstly, why would they charge more for an RTA, at the end of the day I was involved in an accident and was left sitting on a hard chair all night until they loaded me up with pain relief, gave the bog standard chest x-ray and sent me off with a prescription with no request of a follow up but go to my GP. Is it just me or does seem like extortion?

L1011

It's the law to charge full cost recovery in case of an RTA as there are insurers to claim off

Xterminator

Hi Superduper.

Hospital visits are subsidised by taxpayers. EG what you pay as a public patient isnt the full cost. Now in the case of an RTA it makes sense the hospital recoups the full cost, protecting the taxpayer, and allowing the allocated money to go further.

Its not extortion, you should google what you would have paid in a country like america where your visit is not subsidised and you are at a 'for profit' hospital.

Superduper2

Hi Xterminator, I take your point, however, I do have private health insurance (which I provided details when I checked in) so would they not charge them? Additionally, I would suspect I wouldn't be left for hours if I was in the same situation in other countries either. I presume it also furthers the argument for other types for costs to be recouped by the HSE in the case of work place accidents etc.

Sultan of Bling

Superduper2 wrote:

Hi Xterminator, I take your point, however, I do have private health insurance (which I provided details when I checked in) so would they not charge them? Additionally, I would suspect I wouldn't be left for hours if I was in the same situation in other countries either. I presume it also furthers the argument for other types for costs to be recouped by the HSE in the case of work place accidents etc.

AFAIK I think your health insurer will also look to be refunded in the event you make a claim.

Del2005

Xterminator wrote: »

Hi Superduper.

Hospital visits are subsidised by taxpayers. EG what you pay as a public patient isnt the full cost. Now in the case of an RTA it makes sense the hospital recoups the full cost, protecting the taxpayer, and allowing the allocated money to go further.

Its not extortion, you should google what you would have paid in a country like america where your visit is not subsidised and you are at a 'for profit' hospital.

If someone drinks themselves to oblivion and ends up in hospital they don't get charged extra, if someone falls into a river due to being UI they don't get charged extra. If a cyclists mows down a pedestrian there's no extra charges for emergency services. Why should someone be charged extra because they were in a vehicle? They all pay tax yet one is unfairly charged extra.

Superduper2 wrote: »

Hi Xterminator, I take your point, however, I do have private health insurance (which I provided details when I checked in) so would they not charge them? Additionally, I would suspect I wouldn't be left for hours if I was in the same situation in other countries either. I presume it also furthers the argument for other types for costs to be recouped by the HSE in the case of work place accidents etc.

I'd be less worried about the ~€500 for the crash charge, which will come off the other persons insurance, then the ~€1000 they charged your insurance for you to sit on the chair.

L1011

That there is an insurer with liability is why they are charged.

magicbastarder

why should the public health system pay for treatment which the injured party is explicitly paying his or her insurer to indemnify them against?

if someone had taken out 'falling into a river' insurance, and fell into a river, why would you then expect public money to pay for the treatment, rather than the insurance company which were being explicitly paid to handle the costs in the event of an incident?

Del2005

magicbastarder wrote: »

why should the public health system pay for treatment which the injured party is explicitly paying his or her insurer to indemnify them against?

if someone had taken out 'falling into a river' insurance, and fell into a river, why would you then expect public money to pay for the treatment, rather than the insurance company which were being explicitly paid to handle the costs in the event of an incident?

If you got a different level of treatment then yes the insurance should cover it, but there's no difference between public or private patient care in the public system so charging the insurance is screwing people who are insured.

L1011

The insurer of the liable party pays. Part of the cost of causing the incident

Bards

And who pays the increased premiums...guess who ... We all do because of the way the govt screws us at every opportunity available

magicbastarder

one issue i do see with the above is the cost of physio visit. €130 for a visit is extortionate, no matter who pays.

jimmycrackcorm

magicbastarder wrote:

why should the public health system pay for treatment which the injured party is explicitly paying his or her insurer to indemnify them against?

If you have private health insurance and have an overnight stay, hospitals try to get you to sign a form to to allow them charge ten times the public patient cost even though you get the exact same treatment.

Even if you have private health insurance you've already paid for your treatment in your taxes.

AndrewJRenko

Bards wrote: »

And who pays the increased premiums...guess who ... We all do because of the way the govt screws us at every opportunity available

If by 'screws' you mean 'requires insurers of those those drivers who cause injuries to pay for the damage caused', then yes, you're correct.

Trampas

Just cause a person has private health insurance doesn’t mean they’ve to use it.

If you’re in a public ward then why should the insurance company cough up. Hse are quick enough to put that form in your hand to sign it when person still not with it.

AndrewJRenko

Trampas wrote: »

Just cause a person has private health insurance doesn’t mean they’ve to use it.

If you’re in a public ward then why should the insurance company cough up. Hse are quick enough to put that form in your hand to sign it when person still not with it.

I don't think the health insurance is the issue - it is the car insurance.


If there is an insurer on the hook for damage caused by the driver, surely it makes sense for the State to ensure that the driver pays. Otherwise, all of us are paying for those drivers.