Personal responsibility.

[Purple]

There are a few threads about compo culture and costs at the moment and it struck me that it all feeds in to a larger societal issue.
That leads into things like healthcare costs and welfare and why we spend so much on these things and have such relatively bad outcomes.
I think a large factor is a general lack of personal responsibility in Irish society.

If you twist your ankle on a path/road that thousands of other people manage to walk on without twisting their ankles then it is your own fault and you should get nothing.
If you fall down a stairs that nobody else fell down and break your spine then it is your own fault and you should get nothing and yet you can and will get massive compensation from someone else.
This feeds into a culture where nobody is responsible for their own behaviour.

Get drunk and fall down a stairs? Don't worry, you can sue the premises and your fellow citizens will pay for you to be brought to hospital and treated.
Get really fat? Don't worry, your fellow citizens will pay for you to receive really expensive healthcare and, if you can't get your ass up off the couch and walkaround the place they will pay for you to receive disability.

Drink or Smoke too much? Don't worry, your fellow citizens will pay for you to receive really expensive healthcare and, if you can't stop damaging yourself they will pay for you to receive disability.

Couldn't be bothered working? Don't worry, your fellow citizens will pay for you to receive welfare for your entire life.

Want to have a load of kids that you can't afford to raise? Don't worry, your fellow citizens will pay for it.

 

[cremeegg]

I think your approach here is too broad brush.

There are two, at least, separate issues here. The question of liability and the question of compensation.

If you slip down a stairs that nobody else fell down the question of liability is not as simple as saying, well no one else fell there, if the stairs was in a dangerous condition, that is also relevant.

The question of compensation, is where I think the Irish system is in a complete bubble. So you fell down the stairs, that does not mean you should get an award equal to several years average after tax income.

Perhaps a third issue is that claims for soft tissue injuries are difficult if not impossible to disprove, with the massive compensation available, the temptation to exaggerate the injury is great.

 

[WolfeTone]

Perhaps a third issue is that claims for soft tissue injuries are difficult if not impossible to disprove, with the massive compensation available, the temptation to exaggerate the injury is great.

Here is a 'menu' of estimated compensation rates. In particular, the soft tissue, good recovery rates are somewhat outlandish

Compensation Calculator* - Lawyer.ie

Interactive Injury Compensation Amount Calculator based on estimates from the Injuries Board Book of Quantum. Check how much is paid for each injury type.

www.lawyer.ie

It does appear that the American 'free-for-all-sue-for-breathing-too-close-to-me' approach has been adopted. Which is really unfortunate, for businesses saddled with outlandish claims, and genuine claimants labelled as jumping on the compo gravy train.

One point stood out in another related thread. It was said by another poster, that it is the insurance companies themselves that determine the settlements, not the defendant?
It is odd, is it not, that insurance premiums are apparently rocketing on foot of outlandish settlements that are determined quite often by the insurance industry?
Seems like a gluttonous rat-race, driven by the legal and insurance industries, and not necessarily by claimants.

 

[Firefly]

The question of compensation, is where I think the Irish system is in a complete bubble. So you fell down the stairs, that does not mean you should get an award equal to several years average after tax income.

Totally agree. If the compensation was greatly reduced there would be a lot fewer claims. Perhaps the compensations should be bench-marked against those in other EU countries?

Perhaps a third issue is that claims for soft tissue injuries are difficult if not impossible to disprove

I'm not a medical expert but I would have thought a few trips to a physio, some anti inflammatories and some R&R would fix many of these. I know it worked for me in the past.

 

[Peanuts20]

I was in France earlier in the month, no dog poop on the street where we were, little or no rubbish on the beach as people tidied up after themselves. Came home to tiptoing around piles of dog poop near where I live, fly tipping on the side of the road and empty cans everywhere. The harsh and cold reality is that we have some people who have no sense of responsibility for what they do and how they do it. Compo culture feeds into that, its always someone elses job or fault.

 

[Purple]

I think your approach here is too broad brush.

We already have threads on the compo culture and compo amounts. I am talking about the broader issue of personal responsibility; being a grown-up and being responsible for your own actions. We just don't operate that way as a society. The compo culture is a symptom of this but so is the "I have a right to..." and "I am entitled to..." culture. Even the communists had the "From each according to his ability" bit before "To each according to his needs". We just have the latter.

If you don't work then you can work you should starve. I mean that literally.
If you get drunk when you are out for a meal and fall down a stairs the restaurant in question should be able to sue you.
If you then need medical care you should be charged the full cost and your house should be sold to pay for it if necessary.

Modern medicine has divorced most of society from the consequences of their lifestyle choices. As long as you can pay for the consequences then drink and smoke away and get as fat as you like but why should other people have to shoulder the considerable financial and social burden of your choices?
If that safety net wasn't there then we would behave differently. We spend over €20 billion a year on healthcare. How much of that is the result of people's poor choices?

If we knew that we would go to prison for making a fraudulent insurance claim and that the insurance company could have our house sold to cover their costs then we would behave differently.

If we knew that we would not have enough to eat and our children would be taken from us if we refused to work (based on reasonable criteria) then we would behave differently.

 

[cremeegg]

I am talking about the broader issue of personal responsibility; being a grown-up and being responsible for your own actions. We just don't operate that way as a society.

An important topic

If you don't work then you can work you should starve. I mean that literally.
If you get drunk when you are out for a meal and fall down a stairs the restaurant in question should be able to sue you.
If you then need medical care you should be charged the full cost and your house should be sold to pay for it if necessary.

What you are describing is basically Victorian society. And the Victorians achieved a great deal. In particular they build most of the water and especially the sewerage infrastructure still in use. Which given our refusal to pay to upgrade our water system may be an important point.

However there are a number of shortcomings with this approach.

Not everyone has the same opportunity to study and work as everyone else.

A society with excessive inequality of outcomes is not a nice place to live even for the better off.

While there are a number of issues around personal responsibility in society that could be improved, I think the the challenges of automation will make current issues look small.

When the times comes that the average person does not have the ability to produce enough wealth to feed and house themselves and provide a pension, the numbers looking to society to provide for them will multiply.

Perhaps we are already there, in my opinion the inability of the average worker to buy a home is not just down to disfunction in the housing market.

 

[WolfeTone]

If you don't work then you can work you should starve. I mean that literally.

What happens if you don't work, when you can work, because there is no work? Didn't something like this happen during the Famine? And people starved, although available for work? As far as I recall, hundreds of thousands were prepared to take life threatening trips, many dying of disease, across the Atlantic in order to just get work.
I think you are being a bit harsh. The circle of people within society that would allow themselves to starve, so as not to work when they can work, is miniscule.

If you get drunk when you are out for a meal and fall down a stairs the restaurant in question should be able to sue you.

Does the seller of the alcohol bear any responsibility in a person getting drunk? I mean, we should all take responsibility for our own behavior, but even with the best will in the world we can all get a bit too tipsy from time to time. Why would the restaurant want to sue a good paying customer anyway? Just for falling? Surely the responsible thing to do would be to check if the person is ok and seek medical help if needed.

We spend over €20 billion a year on healthcare. How much of that is the result of people's poor choices?

Hard to quantify, but if it is legal to smoke, and smokers pay taxes, then its probably only fair that they are not discriminated against in terms of healthcare. If we want to reduce the health costs of people smoking, then ban the sale of cigarettes for a start.

If we knew that we would go to prison for making a fraudulent insurance claim

You can go to prison for fraudulent insurance claims and people have gone to prison for fraudulent insurance claims.

 

[BilliamD75]

I employed a guy a few years who fell off the third step of a ten foot ladder. He only started 3 week previous, it's was his own stupidity however long story short he claimed my liability insurance and was awarded 140k. He said he could never work in the business again and it ruined his love life. Such lies . He was back playing soccer soon after. When time came for insurance renewal I got hammered, I wound up the business because of it. Reason being I had no recourse to go after him and a lot of good guys lost their gobs because of it. (they got work elsewhere) . He even had the cheek to call me 18 months later looking for a start.

 

[Purple]

I'm not advocating a victorian society at all. They didn't have free education or social welfare. I'm strongly in favour of both. Equality of opportunity, just like the free market, is an artificial construct and government intervention is required to maintain it.
I've said before that those who can afford to pay for third level should have to do so and the money saved should be spent increasing grant aid and access to those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.
Short term welfare rates and, in particular, educational supports for unemployed people should be increased.
We need to be a country which rewards hard work and success, not sitting on your ass and expecting someone else to pay your way. That means I don't want a system like they have in America where there are very low levels of social mobility and very rich people pay bugger all tax.

 

[WolfeTone]

According to this, smokers pay their way in healthcare, just from the tax take on cigarette sales alone. Nevermind what they pay in income tax, vat, etc

Government spends €2bn tax revenue from cigarettes on smoking-related illnesses

The Government rakes in an estimated €2 billion a year in tax revenue from cigarettes but roughly the same amount is spent on treating illness caused by tobacco.

www.independent.ie

 

[Purple]

What happens if you don't work, when you can work, because there is no work? Didn't something like this happen during the Famine?

The Famine, really?

Does the seller of the alcohol bear any responsibility in a person getting drunk?

No, none whatsoever.

Hard to quantify, but if it is legal to smoke, and smokers pay taxes, then its probably only fair that they are not discriminated against in terms of healthcare. If we want to reduce the health costs of people smoking, then ban the sale of cigarettes for a start.

Fat people are a bigger burden (no pun intended), you just can't get around that (maybe there). The general point is that as long as the State is your Mammy you know that you don't really have to take responsibility for your actions. Do you not get the generaal point? If you do caan you not discuss the general point instead of going down rabbit holes by getting into the specifics of general points?

You can go to prison for fraudulent insurance claims and people have gone to prison for fraudulent insurance claims.

I could end up banging Ann Hathaway but what are the chances of it actually happening?

 

[Purple]

According to this, smokers pay their way in healthcare, just from the tax take on cigarette sales alone. Nevermind what they pay in income tax, vat, etc

Government spends €2bn tax revenue from cigarettes on smoking-related illnesses

The Government rakes in an estimated €2 billion a year in tax revenue from cigarettes but roughly the same amount is spent on treating illness caused by tobacco.

www.independent.ie

See above; are you unable to discuss the general topic, the theme of the thread?
The lost working time, lost taxed from labour and societal costs are part of that larger discussion.
You can't reduce everything to a transaction.

 

[WolfeTone]

The lost working time, lost taxed from labour and societal costs are part of that larger discussion.

You could apply that reasoning to an unlimited amount of scenarios where people make poor choices. Why focus on drinkers and smokers?

No, none whatsoever

So taking personal responsibility only applies to some people? Not all.

I think you are right, peoples attitudes will change. They will either avoid restaurants altogether or moderate their drinking to minimum amounts. Sales of alcohol will plummet and as a society we will be healthier for it.
Probably put a lot of restaurants out of business and make a lot of people unemployed. But at least we will know that if they don't work, they can starve.

Good luck!

 

[Purple]

You could apply that reasoning to an unlimited amount of scenarios where people make poor choices. Why focus on drinkers and smokers?

I'm not, I'm giving examples which speak to a broader issue.

 

[Purple]

So taking personal responsibility only applies to some people? Not all.

No, it applies to everyone. If the stairs is faulty then the restaurant owner is at fault. But please try to comment on the broader issue rather than dissecting other people's posts without giving your own views.

I think you are right, peoples attitudes will change. They will either avoid restaurants altogether or moderate their drinking to minimum amounts. Sales of alcohol will plummet and as a society we will be healthier for it.
Probably put a lot of restaurants out of business and make a lot of people unemployed. But at least we will know that if they don't work, they can starve.

First the Famine and now the restaurants will close. You're a glass half empty kind of guy, eh?

Good luck!

Thanks, you too!


You've no thoughts on the actual topic of the thread then?

 

[odyssey06]

If you don't work then you can work you should starve. I mean that literally.
If you get drunk when you are out for a meal and fall down a stairs the restaurant in question should be able to sue you.
If you then need medical care you should be charged the full cost and your house should be sold to pay for it if necessary.

That will also mean if you fall down the stairs because they are in a dangerous condition, and have to pay the full cost for the medical care, then you will have to sue the restaurant or lose your house. One of the reasons there is more litigation in the States is to cover the higher cost of medical treatment over there. Personal responsibility means you will have to defend your rights more pro-actively.

We can't bench-mark our payouts against EU countries that have comprehensive free public health systems such as the NHS.
Maybe what we need is some sort of product that insurers pay for, instead of a lump sum, that will cover future treatments. This means genuinely hurt people can continue to access care; but chancers just looking for a big payout won't bother.

 

[Firefly]

I could end up banging Ann Hathaway but what are the chances of it actually happening?

Quote of the week right there

That's me goosed for the rest of the day!!

 

[WolfeTone]

You've no thoughts on the actual topic of the thread then?

I do. I think in general, most people act responsibly. Most people abide by the law, most people try to work when they can and most people generally try to do the best they can for themselves and their families.
That said, for sure people can act in irresponsible ways. Some people try to defraud others, but there are sanctions for that if proven (proof of fraudulent behavior or actions is also a responsible way of conducting affairs) to be fraudulent, can be applied. The application of those sanctions is typically the responsibility of the courts.

So there are very few people who trip on footpaths and get compensation, without having proving liability or an admission of liability - this is responsible behavior.
There are some, who chance their arm and get away with it.
There are very few people, who can work but choose not to work. Instead, such people are as likely not to be offered employment as they are to refuse employment. It is irresponsible to consider allowing anyone to, literally, starve.
Smokers and drinkers are taxpayers too. Many of them pay income taxes like everyone else. They are not a select group of 'other' people. They pay for the healthcare of others who make irresponsible decisions, like people who crash in speeding vehicles, or simply take their eye off the road, or get run over trying to cross a busy road, or who partake in physical sports like boxing and suffer brain damage, or get distracted while operating machinery, or not wear the correct protective clothing while working etc...etc...

There are some who try to defraud. It doesn't help when 'responsible' professions publish menus on the types of awards injured parties may get for soft tissue injuries that generally heal well.
Personally, I think the irresponsibility is at that end.

 

[mathepac]

No, none whatsoever.

Incorrect. It is contrary to the terms of a publican’s licence to serve someone who is intoxicated. Intoxication is enough to justify refusing a customer’s right to service.