Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
No-Fault just means that you cannot sue the other party. You can still sue your insurance company if they are not delivering the benefits you are supposed to receive... if you can afford it.
Besides, Alberta is already looking at moving to No-Fault (care first) automotive insurance while keeping it private and allowing the prices to skyrocket. We are going to end up paying the largest insurance rates and receiving the worst results.
On the one hand, I agree with eliminating suing from the process. It is a system that benefits people who have the money to afford a lawyer and sue other people and thus puts people at the disadvantage if they cannot navigate the suing process.
On the other hand, how this is being implemented is wrong (as with most things the UCP does). Private insurance companies are not answerable to the people and yet in a no-fault system, the insurance company gets to decide the care and benefits that you receive. Since their motivation is profit, they will always select the worst outcomes for the people and then wait to see who has enough money to sue the insurance company.
The A-NDP should add public insurance to their platform for next election.
|
Yes, I know we're taking away that right here in Alberta, and I disagree. Most injury lawyers work on contingency, so there generally isn't an issue with people not being able to afford someone to represent them in those cases. And yes, you can sue your insurer if you feel they're not providing the care you should receive.
But the thing is, if someone is negligent and causes an injury to me, I want to be able to sue them for damages. That makes perfect sense. Sure, the treatments and such are covered, and that's all well and good. But what about all of the other issues that come with that? I can go get the treatment regularly and that's "free", but all of the accompanying issues with that are for me to deal with, when the cause was someone else's negligence.