4. The costs of administering the scheme are transferred from the private to the public,
As to the positive aspects, I can't really think of any.
Quote from: Sloper on April 13, 2014, 04:48:16 pmAs to the positive aspects, I can't really think of any.Really?!Jesus, you're more cynical than I thought.
In a new series of thought-provoking debates, Claire Bolderson looks at something another country does well, or differently, and asks whether it could work here.The trend towards a US-style litigation culture in the UK in recent years has been a growing cause for concern. The costs - both financial and social - of legal claims against public services such as heath and education is escalating year-on-year. But the cases that make it to court are only the tip of the iceberg, with countless others taking up precious resources, time and bureaucracy. Is there an alternative to this name, blame and claim culture?Is demanding compensation for accidents now seen as a the only way of holding public services to account? What does the threat of litigation do to transparency and accountability? Is the fear of litigation damaging to the professionalism of doctors, nurses and teachers and the delivery of services? Do we need to take a long, hard look at this trend and where it is likely to lead us?In New Zealand, patients get compensation for all personal injuries and accidents through a no-fault government-funded compensation system. In turn, they relinquish the right to sue for damages arising from personal injury, except in rare cases of misconduct.Advocates of New Zealand's no-fault system claim that it is cheaper to run and provides more-timely compensation to a greater number of patients, as well as a less stressful process for resolving disputes. Straightforward claims are processed in weeks, with a fixed award structure ensuring that similar injuries receive similar compensation. The system is funded through general taxation and employer levies and is mandatory and universal.Would a similar system work in the UK? What would be the advantages and disadvantages?
Just a bit of a google while waiting for a meeting revealed the following:1. The levy on employers ranges from .1% to c 6.5% of employment costs (wages) assuming things like construction etc is a high risk this would equate like a £1000 per year premium per employer on £20k which is a very significant loading and more than I imagine would be the cost of private EL cover.Then it appears that there's a non EL contrib of 1.7% on top of tax. . . .
4. Then there's a levy on drivers on average $350 (not sure if US$ or NZ$)
The costs of motor premiums in the UK have been driven down by better car security, ANPR, fewer serious injuries resulting from collisions and reduced fees to PI lawyers. If you have data that shows otherwise then post it (bearing in mind a lot of uk insurance is wrapped up with death in service, PII, PL & etc rather than EL)
I struggle to imagine how a government system would have lower costs.
But let's just keep on bashing the lawyers as banker bashing is now just so old hat.
5. Finally it doesn't appear to be very well managed, posting a loss of nearly $5bn (again not sure whether US or NZ$) but regardless s to the currency value, it comes across as a pretty awful scheme.
Do you have a link to the sauce for that Numbers always need context.