You believe that you “deserve” compensation, but at the same time you guys are all crazy on independence and don’t-tell-me-how-to-behave and whatever else. But as soon as a thing goes wrong you want money for it.
It’s like you don’t believe in the concept of an accident.
We, in the US, have to rely on lawsuits to impose a cost on companies for violating the rules of the market.
That's not to mention that we don't have public healthcare which will pay for medical expenses, like seeing a doctor from the chemical burns that you got while wearing Bose QC-35 II headphones as they exploded during normal operation.
It's just one of these weird quirks of The Land of The Free™, where if you want to get medical care for the bodily injury caused to you by a negligent corporation, you have to sue them.
I know it's difficult to understand to an Australian, but the lawsuit is what pays the medical bill.
That might be a fine attitude. Until you get terribly injured and now you seek tens of thousands of dollars from someone else.
Who do you think that this someone else is? Don’t you realise that it’s just all of the other Americans?
You don't seem to understand. It's those Americans who assume they would be able to get money for health in case they are injured through no fault of their own by filing a lawsuit.
They are also in the minority; 63% of Americans want universal healthcare[1]. Including the one you are talking to right now.
Perhaps your sample isn't representative?
[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-...
We are pushing for ranked choice voting[1], which is slowly gaining acceptance in the public consciousness.
I don't think most people here were even aware of the complexities of the electoral system until the 2016 election (when, for example, millions of people in NY could not vote for Bernie Sanders because they were required to register a year in advance as Democrats to participate in that election - so first-time voters were effectively excluded -- and it was a NY-specific rule; primaries are effectively unregulated on a federal level).
With ranked-choice voting, the hope is that people will be able to vote for candidates that represent them without fear of "the other side" prevailing. Unsurprisingly, the two-party system is quite reluctant to introduce changes that threaten it.
Read this comment for a polite and concise explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29112349
The specific way the justice system operates in the US isn't the way things are done in Europe or China. In particular, lack of regulations is justified here by the logic of "we don't need regulations; if there's any harm done, one should take the offending party to court".
If you're talking about how no system is truly democratic, or that majority rule is bad, that's a whole another can of worms, and outside the scope of this discussion.
At the end of voting day they do something you would expect everywhere: count all votes the same. And then whoever got the most votes has won. I think the US would really benefit from a system that's more like "everyone can vote, most votes wins".
Well, in the case of a lawsuit, it's just that specific, negligent American (or company) that caused damages and owes that compensation. There needs to be some kind of system for compensating victims when an accident happens. With socialized medicine, everyone compensates a little, in the American system, the entity judged to be at fault compensates a lot. Not saying which one I believe is better, but they both make sense.
However, this also legitimizes dealing with the potential of human tragedy or injury as a mere financial risk. Companies are already terribly dehumanized, and I don't think this legitimization helps for this. At least with regulation there is a direct effort to prevent tragedy, and the framing is also closer to this objective. Of course, the goal for companies will still be "we have to adhere to the regulation", but at least the question "why does the regulation exist?" remains nearby. I think it's also the more democratic approach: rather than putting the incentive mechanism in the hands of a judge, democratically elected governments take direct measures to protect their citizens.
Also, note the stigma and shaming of "lawsuit-happy Americans" who are "entitled" and "sheltered", etc. - even in this forum, where people should know better!
So not only people don't understand that the lawsuits are a compliance enforcement mechanism, but they are actively preventing it from working by saying things like "nothing is perfectly safe, hurr durr".
Anyway. Thank you for putting it this succinctly; I wish your comment was at the top:
>There needs to be some incentive for companies to ensure the safety of their products or actions. In the US, this seems to be (punitive) damages, whereas in Europe it's more through stronger regulations. The nice thing about damages is that it's in terms of moeny, and since companies optimize for money, this does sorta make sense.
Everything about it is quite unfortunate.
Do you believe that all Americans share these exact traits?
Assuming for a moment it is, what would be the impact to life expectancy if nobody went and saw a doctor?
But putting that aside, I too found the claim implausible and went looking for data. Here is what the CDC has to say:
Leading Causes of Death
Data are for the U.S.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
* Heart disease: 659,041
* Cancer: 599,601
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005
* Alzheimer’s disease: 121,499
* Diabetes: 87,647
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,565
* Influenza and pneumonia: 49,783
* Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,511
> The Johns Hopkins team says the CDC’s way of collecting national health statistics fails to classify medical errors separately on the death certificate. The researchers are advocating for updated criteria for classifying deaths on death certificates.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...
I don't know if this is credible or not, but it's coming from the John Hopkins School of Medicine which I think is broadly credible.
https://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/...
> Using a weighted average of the 4 studies, a lower limit of 210,000 deaths per year was associated with preventable harm in hospitals. Given limitations in the search capability of the Global Trigger Tool and the incompleteness of medical records on which the Tool depends, the true number of premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year. Serious harm seems to be 10- to 20-fold more common than lethal harm.
The parent's point was that, unlike in Europe, when someone is injured by no fault of their own, the expected way for them to pay for the (very high) medical costs is to sue the offending party.
That's the excuse for not offering universal healthcare. Incidentally, it also explains why the doctors need insurance (because malpractice does happen sometimes, and if your health is damaged by it, you won't get a nickel of support unless you sue the offending party - i.e. the doctor).
That wouldn't be such an issue if we had universal healthcare and a support net for people who can't work.
if you buy a product that comes with a pamphlet telling you how safe it is, you have to trust the manufacturer. you are also trusting that the product has passed all the necessary safety requirements. if that product is food or for children, that trust is even higher.
if an accident happens to you, you need to contact the right people so: 1. it does not happen to others 2. your damages, if possible, are covered.
that's how we make it safer for everybody.
I prefer that a decently regulated or public health insurance system covers costs instead of letting the risk to the consumer. The insurance can claim damages from the corporation if there is neglect.
Uhmm, no, at least not here in Germany. The amount on compensation is related to the severity of the injury. For things that heal you will get Schmerzensgeld ("pain" money), as well as compensation for things that broke (e.g. your car or bike in a traffic accident). If the injury takes a while to heal, in which time you're unable to work, you get compensated for that as well. If it's lasting damage, you will get disability money. If you need care/help (from grocery shopping and cooking, to full blown 24/7 nurse care) that is compensated as well, and may amount to tens of thousands of euros per month. If you're permanently unable to work you will get compensated for that in a "reasonable" way (you won't be poor), and the liable party will also have to pay your retirement insurance dues[0]. If you requires changes to your living situation[1], you will get "reasonably" compensated as well. And so on. Basically, every damage that can be monetarily valued or at least estimated will be "reasonably" compensated.
>In US you could sue for millions.
Where you're right is that you won't get rich from such a lawsuit. Regardless, the total amount in compensation you will receive over a life time could as well amount to millions as well. The amounts awarded in the US may seem large sometimes, until you realize that it's a one time thing, and the health and care costs over a lifetime you will incur may still not be covered by that lump sum.
The only thing here in Germany that isn't really direct compensation but "extra" money is the Schmerzensgeld, and that's usually a one time pay of a couple hundred bucks for light injuries up to low six figures for major injuries.
And it might be harder to "fully" win such a lawsuit too, as in Germany you don't have jury trials[2].
[0] Retirement insurance dues may have to be paid even if the injured party was not working yet, e.g. when the person was still in school.
[1] E.g. you need a wheel chair ramp, or move to a wheel chair accessible place, or need to make changes to your bathroom to get in and out of the shower/bathtub. In some cases, defendants were ordered to pay the difference for getting a larger house so family providing some care could move in.
[2] Tho, there are Schöffengerichte, with "regular" people sitting on a panel with a judge, usually 2 regular people and 1 judge in the lower courts. While the judge can be outvoted in theory by the 2 other, the judge is part of the deliberations and therefore has great input into the decision finding.
Trust me. I have recent first-hand experience in the healthcare of Australia, and my sister has recent first-hand experience with the (lack of) healthcare in USA. I'm nearly 100% recovered, only because of the recency of injury, while she nearly died for the incredibly rare condition of giving birth, through a surgeon causing internal bleeding during a c-section. And no-one noticing she was dying for hours.
I am glad to hear your sister survived that ordeal.
In the US, doctors that have maimed and killed patients can switch specialties and become a lucrative medical marijuana prescriber:
https://www2.mbc.ca.gov/BreezePDL/document.aspx?path=%5cDIDO...
https://www.laweekly.com/after-almost-30-years-as-a-surgeon-...
What a great way to describe libertarianism in a single sentence. The vast majority of their talking points and ideas fall apart quite easily under any sort of scrutiny or contact with the real world.