You know what would be cool? If Canada had actual public healthcare so insurance companies wouldn't be suing cancer charities (which we also wouldn't need if we had well funded public healthcare).
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
142 points (99.3% liked)
Bicycles
3108 readers
11 users here now
Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca
A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
-
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn.
-
No ads / spamming.
-
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I suspect this wouldn't be cost of healthcare, but lost wages and things of that nature.
True in this case, but a part of healthcare should be making sure that a person receiving care doesn't loose their home in the process.
IMO, income and having a stable place to live shouldn't be so volatile that we need such assurances from the healthcare system.
Affordable housing, and UBI can easily make up the difference.
IMO, affordable housing should be a given, and UBI could simplify and reduce the overhead in many of our systems, such as unemployment insurance, welfare, disability, etc. The money saved in administrating all of those systems and replacing them with UBI could go towards making our healthcare suck a lot less.
They do though, don't they?
And here I thought the insurance company was supposed to pay you and then go after who they think is responsible on their own time...
The courts already found the driver responsible and convicted him... why the insurance company hasn't been forced to acknowledge this is anyone's guess.
It's a case of overlapping coverage. Her personal insurance company isn't disputing that the uninsured driver was responsible. They're arguing—not unreasonably—that the organizer of the event is more directly responsible for damages incurred while participating in their event (after the driver, naturally), so their insurance should cover the expense.
No one likes to be caught in the middle of something like this, but at the same time it would be irresponsible of the insurance company, toward both their investors and their other customers, to simply pay out without question when someone else should be paying.
If that's the case, then the only insurance company left is hers. The one she pays for.
She shouldn't have to wait years for a resolution.
I'm guessing $$.
While I think this is bonkers, the organisation and the charity should ideally both have insurance too. I'm a trustee for a charity that organises marathons for fundraising and we have insurance partly in case the worst happens.
I do agree, but part of me wonders if the insurer for an event would still give her the runaround.
The fact remains that the driver was found to be responsible, so someone's insurance needs to help this lady out. The driver was uninsured, so her insurance company needs to step up.
I'm glad the article names and shames the company. 😀
Agreed. It's one thing to defend an insured from a claim. It's another thing entirely for an insurer to refuse to protect its own customer who was paying it insurance premiums for years just in case she got in a crash with an uninsured driver. Shame, shame on them.
I have less of a problem with the comparative fault assertions, assuming there is a legitimate basis for them. And yeah, it's weird the charity didn't have insurance for the event, but I can think of several ways it could have been excluded from coverage, so it's hard to say.
Getting mild Mr Bates vs The Post Office vibes from this article.
No, that's just normal insurance things.
!fuckinsurance@lemmy.world