Why we can't have nice things anymore

Doctors room ghost

Tilikum17 wrote: »

My auld fella was in a small tip with a women (who has sued before). Anyway, she was suing for small tissue damage all over her body. I caught her running in a road race also attending a gym class.

When I sent the details onto his car insurance crowd, they didn’t want to know about it & said they’d be paying out.

Disgraceful.

I hope the money she gets fattens her until she bursts the greedy sow and may she never have a days luck

Skylinehead

biko wrote: »

Hairdresser Annette O’Connor, from Dublin of course; bangs knee, feels pain but bravely manage to finish her meal, gets an ice pack and a drink by staff.

Explain?

Hedgelayer

There's a really easy way to out the claim culture, change legislation to people being responsible for their own negligence and shortcomings.

Unless the proprietor was blatantly negligent, there should be no claim.

Or if they're working and have a legitimate accident, let them get a tax free allowance on their pay packet with free medical care covering their expenses and the quicker one gets back on their feet they will get a few years paying less tax to the exchequer....

Reduce it accordingly over the next few years and in time they'll be back on a regular taxation.

I find it hard to explain my idea on paper, maybe someone else could come up with something similar.

LeinsterDub

Hedgelayer wrote: »

There's a really easy way to out the claim culture, change legislation to people being responsible for their own negligence and shortcomings.

Unless the proprietor was blatantly negligent, there should be no claim.

Or if they're working and have a legitimate accident, let them get a tax free allowance on their pay packet with free medical care covering their expenses and the quicker one gets back on their feet they will get a few years paying less tax to the exchequer....

Reduce it accordingly over the next few years and in time they'll be back on a regular taxation.

I find it hard to explain my idea on paper, maybe someone else could come up with something similar.

So you're idea is that we all pay for a negligent proprietor?

jam_mac_jam

I think there has to be some sort of proof that the place was negligent. There seems to be an acceptance that if there is any injury then there must be payment. In some cases bad things happen and its nobody's fault.

LirW

Hedgelayer wrote: »

There's a really easy way to out the claim culture, change legislation to people being responsible for their own negligence and shortcomings.

Unless the proprietor was blatantly negligent, there should be no claim.

Or if they're working and have a legitimate accident, let them get a tax free allowance on their pay packet with free medical care covering their expenses and the quicker one gets back on their feet they will get a few years paying less tax to the exchequer....

Reduce it accordingly over the next few years and in time they'll be back on a regular taxation.

I find it hard to explain my idea on paper, maybe someone else could come up with something similar.

Or go and pay in medical vouchers. You need physio for Whiplash? Here have credits for it, the insurance pays it.

It gets more complex though when people are left with life-long or life-altering injuries that requires an adjustment of their surroundings, like for example major adjustment to their living space or their ability to still stay independent.
Or cases with genuine violation of health and safety codes or negligence causing bad injuries to an employee.

But I think a system where minor injuries are getting payouts directly to the medical provider is the way to go.

Hedgelayer

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So you're idea is that we all pay for a negligent proprietor?

That's a clever response , I didnt think about that.

Sure haven't we been paying for negligent sick pay in the public sector for years.

Paying for poor standards of service and lack of insight.

What's your recommendation?

LeinsterDub

Hedgelayer wrote: »

That's a clever response , I didnt think about that.

Sure haven't we been paying for negligent sick pay in the public sector for years.

Paying for poor standards of service and lack of insight.

What's your recommendation?

Medical expense paid on a card that's accepted by medical professionals , perjury to be harshly punished , those found to be lying to be hit with all costs . Fraud to be reported to CAB like organisation instead of insurance companies who are writing it off

RustyNut

VinLieger wrote: »

Hopefully swingapalooza causes enough chaos for them that they start to properly tackles the issue

Why would they. They will point the finger at Margret Cash and say how bad that sort of thing is while at the same time making dodgy claims and doing the legal work on these claims, which often amounts to more than the actual claim itself while getting a handsome wedge of public money for what seems like not very much.. The system is designed to keep the fat cats fat, that's why it won't change too quickly.

Hedgelayer

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Medical expense paid on a card that's accepted by medical professionals , perjury to be harshly punished , those found to be lying to be hit with all costs . Fraud to be reported to CAB like organisation instead of insurance companies who are writing it off

I don't see any problem with that.

There's plenty of people creaming it, it's being done by upper class, middle classes, and other diversity in the population.

I suppose the Judges are just going with the status quo.

There was two people in particular I know of who had similar injuries one decided to take off work and recover and went sick for a year and a half, the other just put up with the pain and stayed working, went to physio and took painkillers and did exercises etc...

Both came out with similar payouts, 24k or there abouts.

But in retrospective the person who kept on working came out the better, because they got their weekly wage and their compensation.

The guy who kept working had legitimate injuries which showed up on an mri the one who stayed at home just proclaimed they had pain, the scans showed nothing...

So in hindsight it pays better to be honest and keep going, as for the spoofer they had no luck since....

The medical proven legitimate injured party is fitter than ever again.

The irony of it.

Sleepy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The appeal was dismissed at the High Court sitting in Ennis after Ms Mongans failed to show. Mr Smyth confirmed Aviva has paid its own legal costs of €20,000 in the case.

This is surely a major part of the problem: excessive legal costs.

If it costs €20k to successfully defend a €5k claim, it's no wonder Insurance companies are so quick to settle with claimants before things get to court.

Perhaps the solution is to be found in the removal of lawyers from the process. Have claimants make their claim before a judge with a member of staff from the insurance company representing the other side?

Or perhaps we could impose limits on the fees the legal profession are entitled to charge?

biko

Skylinehead wrote: »

Explain?

Just from reading the compo claim threads here in AH they are all/mainly from the pale.

riffmongous

Caspian Broad Squabble wrote: »

The centre and the middle classes - what?

People need to stop buying into this anti middle-class bandwagon. It involves zero thought. And give me a centrist before an extreme right or extreme left leaning person any day. They're the one more likely to be open minded about matters like this.

What bandwagon? In fact the opposite is really the case, any criticism of the middle/centre here on Boards is decidedly unpopular. Even if they are that much more open-minded,it'll be just whinging in the end while any call to actually try do something about it will be met with silence or derision. For sure the far left and right are too quick to go to action but staying quiet except to complain won't help the centre much in the long run.

Kivaro

Michael D’Arcy, Fine Gael TD and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Insurance industry/cartel, last week defended the Minister for Justice’s decision to shelve plans for a dedicated Garda Insurance Fraud Unit. For these last few years he was promising us reform, including a Garda unit to go after the fraudsters. And I thought that this was Government policy i.e. other Fine Gael politicians promised the electorate that a Garda unit would be set up to help reduce our premiums. What a bunch of liars/lawyers.

There is very little that we can guarantee in life, but I can 100% guarantee that if there were consequences for fraudulent insurance claims e.g. Gardai investigating/charging people making fraudulent claims, then the amount of claims would substantially decrease.

There would be such a reduction in lawsuits that the insurance premiums would have to be reduced also. (That is not a 100% guarantee though).
Of course, this announcement last week to shelve the Garda unit was kept fairly quiet. I presume that they were worried that maybe one or more of their Fine Gael party colleagues would get "caught up" in the dragnet of insurance fraudsters.

Tell me how

Kivaro wrote: »

Festivals, marts, creches, play centres, outdoor parks, and other small businesses around the country are closing down due to exaggerated insurance claims and corresponding insurance costs.

One of the biggest adventure playgrounds in the country had to remove two trampolines from its grounds after its insurance was hiked by €25,000 ........ just for the two trampolines alone. And that's after no claims on those trampolines in the last 15 years. 61 play centres have been threatened with closure this year alone. (From the Irish Independent piece this morning: They're going to close down the country).

Looking at the problem, we have judges awarding ludicrous, non-justifiable awards to claimants; many of whom are serial claimants.
We have an inept Government minister Michael D'Arcy, who for the last 2 years have repeatedly told us ad nauseum on various television programs that he is making great progress in targeting insurance costs.
We have an obvious insurance cartel in this country, who are exacerbating the problem so much that the EU had to send in a team to investigate their practices. Unfortunately, the Insurance cartel know that this formal antitrust investigation will take years to complete, and will gleefully money grab from us while they still allowed to do so.

And then we have the fraudsters, which without a shadow of a doubt, make up the vast majority of claimants in this country.
Case in point (From the examiner this morning): A study has found 100% of Irish whiplash patients attending a spine specialist pursued lawsuits — but the visits almost always stopped once the legal action was settled. Only 3% continued with follow-up treatment when litigation ended. That fact alone speaks volumes.

Since the government is like a deer in the headlights tackling this issue and just watching businesses closing down (and people losing jobs) around the country due to insurance costs, and since Judges will not change their "ways" of awarding payouts that are multiples greater than other parts of Europe, let's have a referendum to drive down these compensation pay-outs.
It is obvious that the current government and solicitor firms do not want this problem solved, so let the people decide .............. in a referendum.

All of the above is fine and true except for this thing about a referendum? Do you know how they work? What exactly would the question be on the ballot?

Next time there is a local or general election, pay attention to the candidates and vote for someone whose principles are aligned with yours. Then, watch them as they serve their term and ring their office or email them if they are going off point. When they are up for re-election, decide if they are deserving of your vote again.

We keep in a situation where things don't change, largely because we have an electorate that doesn't change even though we have the opportunity to do so, or else, it is because the majority of people are simply happy with the way things are going.

Kivaro

Tell me how wrote: »

All of the above is fine and true except for this thing about a referendum? Do you know how they work? What exactly would the question be on the ballot?

Next time there is a local or general election, pay attention to the candidates and vote for someone whose principles are aligned with yours. Then, watch them as they serve their term and ring their office or email them if they are going off point. When they are up for re-election, decide if they are deserving of your vote again.

We keep in a situation where things don't change, largely because we have an electorate that doesn't change even though we have the opportunity to do so, or else, it is because the majority of people are simply happy with the way things are going.

I know exactly how referendums/referenda works.
Our legislature is failing to legislate on the insurance debacle due to various issues, including incompetence and vested interests.
The citizenry need to take it out of their hands and be allowed to vote on the correct course of action. We need to do similarly with affordable housing and criminal sentencing e.g. stop repeat offenders getting multiple hundreds of 'second chances'.

Regarding your second point about contacting elected representatives; I've been doing that way back since the anchor baby issue. I remember well when Michael McDowell (the then justice minister) assured me after contacting him that there would never be a referendum on the issue in his lifetime, as did other ministers in government at the time.
9 months later the referendum passed when almost 80% of the Irish public decided that heavily pregnant African women showing up at our airports were really taking advantage of our hospitality and our obvious flawed laws.
This referendum happened due to the amount of people like me who were contacting members of government, TDs, local counselors etc.

Tell me how

Kivaro wrote: »

I know exactly how referendums/referenda works.
Our legislature is failing to legislate on the insurance debacle due to various issues, including incompetence and vested interests.
The citizenry need to take it out of their hands and be allowed to vote on the correct course of action. We need to do similarly with affordable housing and criminal sentencing e.g. stop repeat offenders getting multiple hundreds of 'second chances'.

Regarding your second point about contacting elected representatives; I've been doing that way back since the anchor baby issue. I remember well when Michael McDowell (the then justice minister) assured me after contacting him that there would never be a referendum on the issue in his lifetime, as did other ministers in government at the time.
9 months later the referendum passed when almost 80% of the Irish public decided that heavily pregnant African women showing up at our airports were really taking advantage of our hospitality and our obvious flawed laws.
This referendum happened due to the amount of people like me who were contacting members of government, TDs, local counselors etc.

Honestly, this just backs up my original feeling that the idea for a referendum on insurance costs is nothing more than populist nonsense.

Your anecdote on Michael McDowell further proves my point. He was leader of his party, Tanaiste of the government and he failed to hold his seat in the GE of 2007 because people didn't like what he was doing (for whatever reason) and didn't return him. If the same logic is applied now, then we get the government the people want.

In relation to the 2004 referendum, recent polls indicate that greater than 70% would vote to reverse that decision. Are you in favour of holding that referendum again?

Kivaro

Tell me how wrote: »

Honestly, this just backs up my original feeling that the idea for a referendum on insurance costs is nothing more than populist nonsense.

At least we now know where you stand on the topic.

Tell me how wrote: »

In relation to the 2004 referendum, recent polls indicate that greater than 70% would vote to reverse that decision. Are you in favour of holding that referendum again?

Some Labour party members recently proposed legislation to reverse what almost 80% of us voted back in 2004. Goes to show why they do so badly in the elections.

Nowhere in the real world would "greater than 70%" of the Irish population vote to allow the return of the debacle that was happening prior to the 2004 referendum.
Besides those on the liberal left, who would want the return of the situation where heavily pregnant Africans, Pakistanis, and others from all over the planet arriving in Ireland and hit the welfare lottery as soon as they touch Irish soil ....... because they are pregnant and are awarded Irish citizenship as soon as the baby is born.

Especially with the insane family reunification program currently being allowed now. One successful asylum seeker recently tried to have 70 "family members" brought to Ireland as part of the reunification program. That's insane. How are we supposed to house and provide welfare services to all of these people that will arrive here if the majority want the reversal of the referendum?
The vast majority of Irish people certainly do not want this.

Tell me how

Kivaro wrote: »

At least we now know where you stand on the topic.



Some Labour party members recently proposed legislation to reverse what almost 80% of us voted back in 2004. Goes to show why they do so badly in the elections.

Nowhere in the real world would "greater than 70%" of the Irish population vote to allow the return of the debacle that was happening prior to the 2004 referendum.
Besides those on the liberal left, who would want the return of the situation where heavily pregnant Africans, Pakistanis, and others from all over the planet arriving in Ireland and hit the welfare lottery as soon as they touch Irish soil ....... because they are pregnant and are awarded Irish citizenship as soon as the baby is born.

Especially with the insane family reunification program currently being allowed now. One successful asylum seeker recently tried to have 70 "family members" brought to Ireland as part of the reunification program. That's insane. How are we supposed to house and provide welfare services to all of these people that will arrive here if the majority want the reversal of the referendum?
The vast majority of Irish people certainly do not want this.

Ditto.

Let me know if you ever figure out a workable question for the ballot paper for this referendum you want to hold.

Liam28

One of the problems with the legal system is that there is no repercussions for fraudulent claims. Maybe legal costs, but some solicitors operate a no win, no fee deal. The example below from the Indo is a clear case of a couple trying it on. After the case is dismissed, there should be civil or criminal charges brought against them, costs awarded against them, and the defendant compensated.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/watch-couples-personal-injury-claims-dismissed-after-cctv-of-minor-tip-shown-in-court-38164003.html

In the US which had a thriving compo culture, one of the things which reduced fraudulent claims was counter claims. When a claim is lodged, the defendant immediately issues a counter claim against the plaintiff for defamation or libel, loss of earnings, costs, etc. Now it is win or lose, not win or break even.

Kivaro

Liam28 wrote: »

In the US which had a thriving compo culture, one of the things which reduced fraudulent claims was counter claims. When a claim is lodged, the defendant immediately issues a counter claim against the plaintiff for defamation or libel, loss of earnings, costs, etc. Now it is win or lose, not win or break even.

There are no consequences for fraudulent claims in this country. If there were, our insurance premiums would be substantially less. It would be good for the ordinary people, but not for the solicitors.

And then last week, we hear that the Fine Gael Justice Minister shelves plans for a dedicated Garda unit specifically to fight fraudsters. For years, we were waiting for this unit to be set up.

Anything that would be good for the ordinary person in Ireland is immediately scuttled by Fine Gael.
Leo will take our minds off it soon though with the introduction of carbon taxes.

Kivaro

So besides the festivals, marts, creches, play centres, outdoor parks, and other small businesses, the fraudsters and judiciary (which is one of the same to many of us) are trying to shut down fast food restaurants.
Supermac's founder Pat McDonagh:
"It's a terrible state of affairs when you have a barrister telling you if you go before one judge you might have a chance but if you get another judge, he's known as Santa Claus and your best bet is to settle the case beforehand," he said.
"There's no justice and there's no consistency."

These comments are the result of case taken against him by a woman who claimed she found a sharp object in her food, but dropped a personal injuries case against Supermac's after footage emerged of her dining in a hotel.
"It's not a fair system and it's not a system you can rely on," Pat McDonagh said. More here on the Independent.

When you have the likes of Fine Gael TD Maire Bailey in government, and the Fine Gael Justice Minister shelving plans for a dedicated Garda unit specifically to fight fraudsters, and when you have the Fine Gael TD Michael D’Arcy who is responsible for insurance oversight, actually appearing to hamper and slow down any progress to fight these fraudsters due to sheer ineptness; what hope do we have in this country for a fair system or a system that we can rely on?

Harry Palmr

Prime Time is covering insurance fraud tonight

Kivaro

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Prime Time is covering insurance fraud tonight

Thanks for the heads up Harry.
They should have the Maria Bailey 'alleged' fraudulent case front and centre on the program tonight, so let's see if that happens.