New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 10, 2005

Thomas Szasz proposes a new form of insurance that will pay even when nobody's at fault.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← New at Reason | Main | DC Residents: Get Ready for Your… →

See all 7 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|1.10.05 @ 7:45PM|#

Just five cents from a little country: in New Zealand, the Accident Compensation scheme works quite nicely, and has done for three decades. I can't really ramble much more, as I'm at work, but anyone interested would be well-served to look into it.

|1.10.05 @ 9:27PM|#

Would this be something like the air traveler's insurance that one can by at the airport before a flight? In other words, you wouldn't buy it until you need it.

If so, what surgery, which doctor and hospital should dramatically effect the rate you would pay. The price would reward good doctors and hospitals, and punish bad ones - a good thing.

Also, is this something that could be offered by the doctor/hospital and considered part of the cost of the procedure; perhaps like rental insurance when you rent a car.

|1.10.05 @ 9:43PM|#

Sounds intriguing although moral hazard might be a bigger problem with this type of insurance. (I have and provide no evidence whatsoever for that assertion.)

However, I still don't understand why civil juries are responsible for computing damages. In criminal cases the jury decides matters of fact and the judge applies the penalties. Why not switch to that approach in civil cases? At the very least, couldn't punitive and pain and suffering awards be assigned by the judge?

|1.11.05 @ 12:02AM|#

Another benefit that might result from insurance companies offering "malresult insurance", is that it would be of benefit to those companies who offered it to become aware of the best medical practices to reduce malresults and they might give financial incentives to consumers who patronized medical providers who engaged in these practices, thus engendering better health.

Capitalistic, market based solutions so often turn out to be not only more fair, but also more humane.

David Rollins|1.11.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Isn't this similar to what's offered in the AFLAC commercials? Not medical insurance per se, but compensation if you're unable to work?

Unfortunately this doesn't cover the malresult of a baby born with spina bifida, retardation, etc. But in that case a determination of "benefits" seems largely subjective. A family's reaction could be for the mother to quit her job because of the extra care required for this special child. Or they could keep him chained up in the basement and go about life largely as usual. Or if they're the Kennedys they could give her a lobotomy and warehouse her in an institution, out of sight and out of mind a la Rose Kennedy. How would an insurance company make that determination?

I suppose the answer is that you agree on the level of malresult "coverage" before purchasing the policy. But this seems the kind of picayune morbidity I'd rather not have to deal with. Far better would be a type of "umbrella" policy that covers unusual malresults.

|1.11.05 @ 12:32PM|#

The ACC scheme in New Zealand provides no fault coverage of a wide range of accidents including those typically covered in other countries by various vehicle and workplace injury schemes. It is incredibly cost effective (about half the cost of comparable premiums in Australia and Im sure much lower than U.S.) because benefits are defined (e.g. lose an eye, you get $20,000, lose a leg you get $50,000 and so on) and since there is no need to prove that anyone is at fault, lawyers and courts are not involved. Plus there are none of these lottery size 'pain and suffering' awards...