When immobilizers became compulsory on all new cars sold in Australia back in July 2001 the theft rate was at about 142,000 cars a year. That has dropped to somewhere in the vicinity of 52,000 now, but new tactics have been deployed and today's car thief is a vastly more clever animal !
Police statistics show that car theft is much more likely to be the outcome of a break and enter crime at the owner's home. When a car is not in use by it's owner the keys are often conspicuously somewhere in the house and if a particular make and model is the objective of the thief, this is a far easier way of attaining that objective.
There has also been a change in the recovery rate. Before immobilizers only about fifteen percent of stolen cars were never seen again, but now that has jumped to thirty-one percent because many luxury cars are either stripped for parts, or shipped overseas and given new "birthing "records to be legally sold in another country.
The style and type of theft has also changed dramatically. Once the favourite haunt of car thieves was commuter parking at railway stations and cars parked at shopping centres. Those are still attractive for "joyriders "making off with pre immobilizer era cars, but the vast majority of car theft now happens outside the owners residence.
The world of technology that gave us the immobilizer also provides what is called a "diagnostic unit " needed by mechanics who work on cars - to disable the car's immobilizer - and they are freely available for as little as $ 150. This clever little gizmo simply plugs into a socket under the dashboard and turns off the immobilizer to allow the mechanic to access the cars computer system and search it's memory bank for faults that need repair. They are an integral part of the car repair trade - and obviously they are also falling into the hands of criminals.
A new tactic is emerging. The target is the upper echelon of high priced luxury cars virtually stolen to order to satisfy the demand from an overseas buyer - and in many cases an individual colour is part of the deal. The thieves simply cruise the streets of affluent neighbourhoods looking for the cars of visiting guests parked in the street. Most cars are fairly easy to gain access because owners rely on the immobilizer to deter theft, but with this latest technology in hand that famous "gone in seconds" rule applies.
So far, a phenomenon that is quite common in some overseas countries has not made an appearance in Australia. Hijacking by menacing a driver at gun point and driving away with the desired vehicle is still a very rare occurrence here. In some parts of the world, acquiring a conspicuously high priced vehicle brings the danger of attracting the attention of both car thieves, but also an underworld that specialises in holding captives for ransom.
It seems that these days, choosing the car we intend to drive requires an evaluation of the risk factor. Provided the vehicle is adequately insured, no personal risk accompanies our taste for luxury !
Monday, 7 September 2015
Sunday, 6 September 2015
Religion - and the Law !
It seems that common sense goes out the window when conflict arises between the law and the religious convictions of those serving the law. The woman tasked with issuing marriage licenses in the Rowan county clerks office in the American state of Kentucky is refusing to do so - on moral grounds.
The American High Court recently handed down a judgement making it legal for same sex couples to marry and Kim Davis, the Rowan registrar is refusing to process marriage certificate applications to gay and lesbian couples because she says this conflicts with her religious beliefs - that marriage is God's union only between a man and a woman.
Not surprisingly, County officials have ducked for cover and left her to face the music alone. As an employee of the county, it would be usual for officials to stand her down or move her to another department when a morals issue arises. In extreme cases, she could be dismissed for not upholding the law that applies to an official of public standing, but it seems the world of officialdom wants to stand clear of moral issues.
" God's moral law conflicts with my job duties ", she told US District court judge David Bunning in Kentucky. He promptly jailed her for contempt of court - and now this case in an obscure backwoods town is headline news across the entire world.
Comparisons have been made to Martin Luther King's battles to gain civil rights for blacks in the American south. His march in Selma was against the law in that it lacked a permit from the authorities, but the brutality of the response went beyond the expectations from civilized law enforcement agencies. Beating people senseless with truncheons and allowing savage dogs to maul them is way out of step with the standards of common decency.
That was then - and this is now ! There is still a degree of racial discrimination in many parts of America, but a black person can not be denied the right to vote and the vast majority of " Jim Crow " laws no longer apply. The battle for equality still has a way to go to reach finality.
The highest court in the land has spoken on this gay marriage issue. A lot of people disagree with it's finding, but this marriage license refusal in Rowan county is simply a person tilting against windmills - and the vast majority of the nation is obeying that law. In the Rowan county office other clerks are processing marriage license applications for gays - and normalcy has returned.
There will now be a rush to smooth ruffled feathers. No doubt Kim Davis will be quietly released on the basis of " time served " for her offence, but if she still refuses to change her stance a face saving change of official designation will probably be necessary in the Rowan county office structure - and officialdom will have to be involved in sorting out that mess.
Sooner or later this gay marriage issue will reach finality here in Australia. It may be settled by a vote in parliament, or it may go to the people by way of a referendum, as was the deciding factor in Ireland. No doubt there will be holdouts who refuse to accept a new legal definition of marriage and it is quite possible that this Rowan county dispute may be replicated somewhere in one of our states.
At the time, they generate angst and public interest, but that quickly fades from view. The world we live in is subjected to constant change. A year from now issues that seemed world shattering will have simply become part of the background - and we will wonder what all the fuss was about !
Remeber that first Sydney Gay Pride MardiGras on June 24, 1978. The authorities refused the LGBT community a license for the parade and they held it anyway - with some baton wielding cops trying to drag performers off the passing floats while other uniformed officers stood with the cheering crowds lining the sidewalks. Today the police march in empathy with this event that is covered by the media on a world wide basis - and who would have predicted that as a likely outcome for the future - back in 1978 ?
The American High Court recently handed down a judgement making it legal for same sex couples to marry and Kim Davis, the Rowan registrar is refusing to process marriage certificate applications to gay and lesbian couples because she says this conflicts with her religious beliefs - that marriage is God's union only between a man and a woman.
Not surprisingly, County officials have ducked for cover and left her to face the music alone. As an employee of the county, it would be usual for officials to stand her down or move her to another department when a morals issue arises. In extreme cases, she could be dismissed for not upholding the law that applies to an official of public standing, but it seems the world of officialdom wants to stand clear of moral issues.
" God's moral law conflicts with my job duties ", she told US District court judge David Bunning in Kentucky. He promptly jailed her for contempt of court - and now this case in an obscure backwoods town is headline news across the entire world.
Comparisons have been made to Martin Luther King's battles to gain civil rights for blacks in the American south. His march in Selma was against the law in that it lacked a permit from the authorities, but the brutality of the response went beyond the expectations from civilized law enforcement agencies. Beating people senseless with truncheons and allowing savage dogs to maul them is way out of step with the standards of common decency.
That was then - and this is now ! There is still a degree of racial discrimination in many parts of America, but a black person can not be denied the right to vote and the vast majority of " Jim Crow " laws no longer apply. The battle for equality still has a way to go to reach finality.
The highest court in the land has spoken on this gay marriage issue. A lot of people disagree with it's finding, but this marriage license refusal in Rowan county is simply a person tilting against windmills - and the vast majority of the nation is obeying that law. In the Rowan county office other clerks are processing marriage license applications for gays - and normalcy has returned.
There will now be a rush to smooth ruffled feathers. No doubt Kim Davis will be quietly released on the basis of " time served " for her offence, but if she still refuses to change her stance a face saving change of official designation will probably be necessary in the Rowan county office structure - and officialdom will have to be involved in sorting out that mess.
Sooner or later this gay marriage issue will reach finality here in Australia. It may be settled by a vote in parliament, or it may go to the people by way of a referendum, as was the deciding factor in Ireland. No doubt there will be holdouts who refuse to accept a new legal definition of marriage and it is quite possible that this Rowan county dispute may be replicated somewhere in one of our states.
At the time, they generate angst and public interest, but that quickly fades from view. The world we live in is subjected to constant change. A year from now issues that seemed world shattering will have simply become part of the background - and we will wonder what all the fuss was about !
Remeber that first Sydney Gay Pride MardiGras on June 24, 1978. The authorities refused the LGBT community a license for the parade and they held it anyway - with some baton wielding cops trying to drag performers off the passing floats while other uniformed officers stood with the cheering crowds lining the sidewalks. Today the police march in empathy with this event that is covered by the media on a world wide basis - and who would have predicted that as a likely outcome for the future - back in 1978 ?
Saturday, 5 September 2015
The " Death Lottery " !
It sounds so appealing ! Have a fabulous holiday at an Asian luxury resort and then a few days in hospital getting long awaited cosmetic surgery - at a price unheard of here in Australia - and then fly home with new boobs or a younger face.
That appealing scenario has a down side. Cosmetic surgery is certainly a lot cheaper in some overseas countries, but it is a fact of life that some of the surgeons are less skilled and some of the hospitals do not make it to the standards we expect here in Australia - and that can result in some very unpleasant after effects.
Some travellers return with not only unsatisfactory visual results, but afflictions which can range from cardiac arrest to infections that include flesh eating bacteria - and even Tuberculosis - and of course they immediately look to Medicare to fix their problem here in Australia.
Clearing up the usual result of a botched cosmetic surgery job often results in a six day stay in a public hospital bed - at a cost of about $ 33,000. It is something that our struggling Medicare system can ill afford.
The logical way to fix this problem is to insist that those considering cosmetic surgery overseas take out private health insurance so that this treatment does not come from the public purse, but that runs foul of our much vaunted promise that all Australians are entitled to free public hospital treatment in our public health system.
Most overseas travellers take out travel insurance which covers accommodation and flight disruptions, stolen baggage and urgent medical evacuation, but which specifically excludes cosmetic surgery. In fact, reading through the usual exclusions in the policy the traveller finds that many other activities of a dangerous nature also have similar exclusions.
Private health insurance does cover the ill effects of cosmetic surgery, but most events other than accidents are subjected to a twelve month waiting list from the date of first signing up to come into effect. Perhaps the insurance industry would consider a one-off policy for overseas cosmetic surgery jaunts, but the premium would be commensurate with the risk - and out of the question for most travellers.
Unfortunately, this is a fast growing problem. We are seeing a steady expansion in cosmetic surgery advertising in which a package deal is offered and this includes air fares, luxury accommodation and the medical component all rolled into one. It is an attractive package - and this appears to be a fast expanding avenue of travel attractions.
The likely knock-on effect will be an expansion of clinics offering cosmetic surgery to meet demand and consequently more surgeons with limited skills offering their services. It seems inevitable that those who suffer an unfortunate after effect will make a quick dash back to this country and the safety of our excellent public health system - and further erode the cost expansion that is spinning out of control.
Buying on price alone is risky business. It could be compared to " Russian Roulette " !
That appealing scenario has a down side. Cosmetic surgery is certainly a lot cheaper in some overseas countries, but it is a fact of life that some of the surgeons are less skilled and some of the hospitals do not make it to the standards we expect here in Australia - and that can result in some very unpleasant after effects.
Some travellers return with not only unsatisfactory visual results, but afflictions which can range from cardiac arrest to infections that include flesh eating bacteria - and even Tuberculosis - and of course they immediately look to Medicare to fix their problem here in Australia.
Clearing up the usual result of a botched cosmetic surgery job often results in a six day stay in a public hospital bed - at a cost of about $ 33,000. It is something that our struggling Medicare system can ill afford.
The logical way to fix this problem is to insist that those considering cosmetic surgery overseas take out private health insurance so that this treatment does not come from the public purse, but that runs foul of our much vaunted promise that all Australians are entitled to free public hospital treatment in our public health system.
Most overseas travellers take out travel insurance which covers accommodation and flight disruptions, stolen baggage and urgent medical evacuation, but which specifically excludes cosmetic surgery. In fact, reading through the usual exclusions in the policy the traveller finds that many other activities of a dangerous nature also have similar exclusions.
Private health insurance does cover the ill effects of cosmetic surgery, but most events other than accidents are subjected to a twelve month waiting list from the date of first signing up to come into effect. Perhaps the insurance industry would consider a one-off policy for overseas cosmetic surgery jaunts, but the premium would be commensurate with the risk - and out of the question for most travellers.
Unfortunately, this is a fast growing problem. We are seeing a steady expansion in cosmetic surgery advertising in which a package deal is offered and this includes air fares, luxury accommodation and the medical component all rolled into one. It is an attractive package - and this appears to be a fast expanding avenue of travel attractions.
The likely knock-on effect will be an expansion of clinics offering cosmetic surgery to meet demand and consequently more surgeons with limited skills offering their services. It seems inevitable that those who suffer an unfortunate after effect will make a quick dash back to this country and the safety of our excellent public health system - and further erode the cost expansion that is spinning out of control.
Buying on price alone is risky business. It could be compared to " Russian Roulette " !
Friday, 4 September 2015
The " Netting " Question !
The Greens say that placing shark nets off beaches to safeguard swimmers is no solution. But the statistics that apply tell an entirely different story. There have been no fatal shark attacks off the fifty-one netted beaches between Wollongong and Newcastle in more than fifty years. That compares with twelve recent attacks on un-netted beaches, two of which were fatal.
Netting is carried out only in the summer beach season at a cost of $ 1.4 million, and these nets have disposed of 222 " target " sharks since 2008. There is no scientific explanation of why nets are so successful, but some people think that the distress signals from sharks caught in this way may persuade other sharks to avoid the area. Whatever the reason, the statistics are clear. Swimmers are a lot safer entering the water at a netted beach.
The big question is whether to extend this netting option to the northern beaches that are seeing swimmers and surfers attacked by sharks. The fanatical greens are vehemently opposed and in fact some of their " Eco-warriors " have been actively sabotaging nets by cutting their anchor lines and similar mischief.
One of the objections voiced by the Greens is that nets catch other harmless creatures such a Dolphins, Sea Turtles and even Whales. Safety comes at a cost and the people tasked with managing the nets do their best to free any unintended catch. The mesh of these nets is such that only very large sea creatures find them an obstacle.
The obvious solution is to net those northern beaches for a season and evaluate the results. If there is a sharp reduction in shark attacks they are obviously worth keeping on a permanent basis, but the Greens reject that logical argument. They claim that the safety nets bring is purely an illusion and they will fight tooth and nail to stop a trial that may prove them wrong.
A lot of things about the sea and the creatures that live in it are still a mystery to science. Sharks do not automatically attack any human they encounter and some type of sharks are more likely to attack than others - to the extent that a few species are regarded as harmless. The Grey Nurse shark is in this category - and it is now fully protected.
At the top of the food chain in the sea is the Great White. It - and the Bull shark - account for the big proportion of shark fatalities, and yet it all seems to depend on the mood of the shark at that particular time - if it swims harmlessly by or decides to make a meal of somebody !
It is evident that there is safety in numbers. Nobody has ever been attacked swimming between the flags on a beach supervised by lifesavers, and those northern beaches are very attractive to surfers who in small numbers wait offshore for the right wave. The time of day and the extent of cloud cover are also factors that seem to have a bearing on shark behaviour.
Netting the northern beaches will certainly be a safety experiment. The cost will be worth it to settle the argument, but it is doubtful that the Greens will have a change of attitude either way. Logic is never part of the equation when it conflicts with ecological dogma - or politics !
Netting is carried out only in the summer beach season at a cost of $ 1.4 million, and these nets have disposed of 222 " target " sharks since 2008. There is no scientific explanation of why nets are so successful, but some people think that the distress signals from sharks caught in this way may persuade other sharks to avoid the area. Whatever the reason, the statistics are clear. Swimmers are a lot safer entering the water at a netted beach.
The big question is whether to extend this netting option to the northern beaches that are seeing swimmers and surfers attacked by sharks. The fanatical greens are vehemently opposed and in fact some of their " Eco-warriors " have been actively sabotaging nets by cutting their anchor lines and similar mischief.
One of the objections voiced by the Greens is that nets catch other harmless creatures such a Dolphins, Sea Turtles and even Whales. Safety comes at a cost and the people tasked with managing the nets do their best to free any unintended catch. The mesh of these nets is such that only very large sea creatures find them an obstacle.
The obvious solution is to net those northern beaches for a season and evaluate the results. If there is a sharp reduction in shark attacks they are obviously worth keeping on a permanent basis, but the Greens reject that logical argument. They claim that the safety nets bring is purely an illusion and they will fight tooth and nail to stop a trial that may prove them wrong.
A lot of things about the sea and the creatures that live in it are still a mystery to science. Sharks do not automatically attack any human they encounter and some type of sharks are more likely to attack than others - to the extent that a few species are regarded as harmless. The Grey Nurse shark is in this category - and it is now fully protected.
At the top of the food chain in the sea is the Great White. It - and the Bull shark - account for the big proportion of shark fatalities, and yet it all seems to depend on the mood of the shark at that particular time - if it swims harmlessly by or decides to make a meal of somebody !
It is evident that there is safety in numbers. Nobody has ever been attacked swimming between the flags on a beach supervised by lifesavers, and those northern beaches are very attractive to surfers who in small numbers wait offshore for the right wave. The time of day and the extent of cloud cover are also factors that seem to have a bearing on shark behaviour.
Netting the northern beaches will certainly be a safety experiment. The cost will be worth it to settle the argument, but it is doubtful that the Greens will have a change of attitude either way. Logic is never part of the equation when it conflicts with ecological dogma - or politics !
Thursday, 3 September 2015
A Building " Defect Bond " !
Sydney has the highest home and unit prices in Australia and ownership is eventually the greatest asset the average person can expect to accumulate. Sadly, protection from shonky builders and developers cutting corners to increase profits has been lacking.
In particular, defects in high rise units is causing concern. It is hard to get redress for faults and in many cases it is the owners who are stuck with repairs that can run to millions of dollars, and now the government is planning to clean up it's act and deliver justice.
A new law will require a " Defect Bond " at two percent of the contract price for the building to be withheld in trust as security against defective work on all new buildings which exceed three stories of height. In addition, the developer will be required to pay for an independent quality inspection timed in the twelve to eighteen month period after completion.
Many people will hope for more protection. Basically, this defect bond should ensure that a new building meets standards, but it gives no protection against long term faults that appear later in the buildings normally expected lifetime. It seems that buildings and their warranties are very similar to the car industry. When bought new the driver is offered a factory warranty period, and when that expires - they are on their own with repair costs.
Builders in the house industry are required to carry a form of insurance to cover defects but in practice it is hard to force repairs. In many cases a claim leads to protracted time in the courts and obscure definitions on exactly what is covered by the insurance leads to frustration. So many things boil down to a matter of interpretation - and sometimes items such as hot water services come with their own individual period of warranty. Determining exactly who is responsible for what - can be time consuming.
At least this is a step in the right direction. We are seeing instances where new buildings fail to meet fire regulations. Owners have every right to expect that to be fixed - at the cost to either the developer or the builder. It also raises the troubling question of how this building could possibly be signed off by the council inspectors who must certify that a new building meets standards before it can be occupied.
A lot will depend on the small print when it comes to that " independent inspection " a year after the buildings completion. Hopefully, the choice of the inspection firm will rest with the owners and obviously there will be conflict between owners and builders when it comes to standards that apply - and eventually determinations will need to be settled by either an adjudicator or a court. The government will need to make sure that this regimen is squeaky clean !
Buying a house or unit is like all other financial transactions - subject to caution. The buyer would be wise to check the financial status of whoever did the building work. Should a builder have declared bankruptcy and the work been taken over by another, extreme caution would be advised. A builder desperately short of money may have taken disastrous short cuts and these may reappear later in the buildings lifetime. A " Defect Bond " is really only assurance that a building is up to standard at it's time of completion !
In particular, defects in high rise units is causing concern. It is hard to get redress for faults and in many cases it is the owners who are stuck with repairs that can run to millions of dollars, and now the government is planning to clean up it's act and deliver justice.
A new law will require a " Defect Bond " at two percent of the contract price for the building to be withheld in trust as security against defective work on all new buildings which exceed three stories of height. In addition, the developer will be required to pay for an independent quality inspection timed in the twelve to eighteen month period after completion.
Many people will hope for more protection. Basically, this defect bond should ensure that a new building meets standards, but it gives no protection against long term faults that appear later in the buildings normally expected lifetime. It seems that buildings and their warranties are very similar to the car industry. When bought new the driver is offered a factory warranty period, and when that expires - they are on their own with repair costs.
Builders in the house industry are required to carry a form of insurance to cover defects but in practice it is hard to force repairs. In many cases a claim leads to protracted time in the courts and obscure definitions on exactly what is covered by the insurance leads to frustration. So many things boil down to a matter of interpretation - and sometimes items such as hot water services come with their own individual period of warranty. Determining exactly who is responsible for what - can be time consuming.
At least this is a step in the right direction. We are seeing instances where new buildings fail to meet fire regulations. Owners have every right to expect that to be fixed - at the cost to either the developer or the builder. It also raises the troubling question of how this building could possibly be signed off by the council inspectors who must certify that a new building meets standards before it can be occupied.
A lot will depend on the small print when it comes to that " independent inspection " a year after the buildings completion. Hopefully, the choice of the inspection firm will rest with the owners and obviously there will be conflict between owners and builders when it comes to standards that apply - and eventually determinations will need to be settled by either an adjudicator or a court. The government will need to make sure that this regimen is squeaky clean !
Buying a house or unit is like all other financial transactions - subject to caution. The buyer would be wise to check the financial status of whoever did the building work. Should a builder have declared bankruptcy and the work been taken over by another, extreme caution would be advised. A builder desperately short of money may have taken disastrous short cuts and these may reappear later in the buildings lifetime. A " Defect Bond " is really only assurance that a building is up to standard at it's time of completion !
Wednesday, 2 September 2015
Change the Law !
The outcome of a recent court case will have the public seething ! A magistrate dismissed a charge against a woman who punched a police officer in the face and threatened to " slit the throat " of another - on a technicality ! This woman's lawyer will now make an application for costs against the police and this is expected to be in excess of $15,000.
During a counter terrorism raid the police encountered a 24 year old burqua clad woman and a female police officer reached for the phone she was shielding under this garment. This woman is alleged to have said: " Don't touch my phone, you're a Christian, you will burn in hell. You will be the first one in uniform to have your throat slit. " She then punched another male police officer in the face when he tried to restrain her. She was arrested and charged with " religious vilification ", combined with a threat of violence, making it a serious offence.
When the matter went to court the magistrate found that the police " failed to make their case " because they " were not acting in the execution of their duty " - because this woman's name was not on the search warrant and therefore the police had no right to frisk her.
It seems that when the police raid a drug lab or have reason to think that an address is being used to plan a terrorist action they are legally prevented from searching those found on the property - unless they have somehow managed to include those names on the search warrant. They can legally search the property - but not the people, and if those people are carrying concealed arms or have explosives this presents an incredible danger.
The whole purpose of a police raid is to gather evidence - and to stop the further progression of a crime that may kill or injure innocent people. It seems a fine legal point to seize any phones found on the premises, but to exclude phones in the possession of a suspect simply because that person is not named on the search warrant. If that is the way this law is framed, then it urgently needs to be changed. The police need the right to search the premises - and any person found on those premises at the time of the raid.
It seems that the law contains many intricacies that can be exploited by clever lawyers. One man has had his speeding fine set aside because his legal counsel has claimed that the police LIDAR gun used to record his speed lacked a certificate of accuracy - and that it also required authentication that it was capable of measuring speed. It is possible that many others fined for speeding may launch an appeal on similar grounds.
Both the public and the civil liberties people usually applaud these fine points of the law to keep the police on their toes in adhering strictly to the letter of the law, but when it comes to both the drug trade and terrorism we are dealing with threats that seriously endanger lives. Arcane laws which dot the i's and cross the t's have no place hindering the life and death actions going on behind the scenes to search out and destroy terrorism cells who plan war on our country.
This act of insanity in our courts delivers a message. If we have a bad law on our books - then change that law !
During a counter terrorism raid the police encountered a 24 year old burqua clad woman and a female police officer reached for the phone she was shielding under this garment. This woman is alleged to have said: " Don't touch my phone, you're a Christian, you will burn in hell. You will be the first one in uniform to have your throat slit. " She then punched another male police officer in the face when he tried to restrain her. She was arrested and charged with " religious vilification ", combined with a threat of violence, making it a serious offence.
When the matter went to court the magistrate found that the police " failed to make their case " because they " were not acting in the execution of their duty " - because this woman's name was not on the search warrant and therefore the police had no right to frisk her.
It seems that when the police raid a drug lab or have reason to think that an address is being used to plan a terrorist action they are legally prevented from searching those found on the property - unless they have somehow managed to include those names on the search warrant. They can legally search the property - but not the people, and if those people are carrying concealed arms or have explosives this presents an incredible danger.
The whole purpose of a police raid is to gather evidence - and to stop the further progression of a crime that may kill or injure innocent people. It seems a fine legal point to seize any phones found on the premises, but to exclude phones in the possession of a suspect simply because that person is not named on the search warrant. If that is the way this law is framed, then it urgently needs to be changed. The police need the right to search the premises - and any person found on those premises at the time of the raid.
It seems that the law contains many intricacies that can be exploited by clever lawyers. One man has had his speeding fine set aside because his legal counsel has claimed that the police LIDAR gun used to record his speed lacked a certificate of accuracy - and that it also required authentication that it was capable of measuring speed. It is possible that many others fined for speeding may launch an appeal on similar grounds.
Both the public and the civil liberties people usually applaud these fine points of the law to keep the police on their toes in adhering strictly to the letter of the law, but when it comes to both the drug trade and terrorism we are dealing with threats that seriously endanger lives. Arcane laws which dot the i's and cross the t's have no place hindering the life and death actions going on behind the scenes to search out and destroy terrorism cells who plan war on our country.
This act of insanity in our courts delivers a message. If we have a bad law on our books - then change that law !
Tuesday, 1 September 2015
Who Pays ?
A curious situation has arisen where Medibank health insurer has negotiated a new contract with the Catholic hospital system. The old contract is due to expire and the insurer is refusing to cover what it terms " preventable " incidents in hospital care. Specific events that would fall outside the guidelines are " death in pregnancy ", " suicide in hospital " and " broken bones from a hospital fall ".
Childbirth mortality is certainly rare in this country, but it can not be entirely excluded. It would seem very unfair to have an exclusion in the private system for something that is covered in the public system and exactly what this means needs to be clearly spelt out to fund members.
Suicide in hospital also covers a wide gambit. A disturbed person with mobility might leave their bed and deliberately jump from a high window and it could be inferred that they should have been more closely watched, but that would involve a financially impossible level of staff required.
The edict on hospital falls resulting in broken bones suggests lack of care in ensuring bed guard rails are raised by nursing staff, but bone degeneration in the elderly is rampant and this would require even those with mobility to be escorted by a nurse at all times, and that would impose an impossible level of care cost.
What many find disturbing is that a new agreement has been negotiated, but the details have not be revealed to the public. It is unacceptable that a person needing to go into hospital for a procedure and faced with making a choice between a Catholic hospital, other private hospitals or the public system could face a very different cost structure and be seriously out of pocket because of vagaries about exactly what is covered by private insurance.
This seems to be an attempt to impose a penalty for incidents that can be attributed to lack of professional care back onto the hospital concerned, rather than become an added cost to the provider of health insurance. Should a patient suffer broken bones from a fall that should not have happened,
then recovery time remaining in hospital to recover would be at hospital expense, not a cost incurred by the insurer.
Anything that contributes to hospital safety is commendable, but this does tend to put the patient in the position of being the meat in the sandwich. An accident that breaches the guidelines leaves a substantial bill hanging in the balance, rejected by the insurer but claimed by the hospital - and legally recoverable by court action.
It also raises an interesting legal can of worms. The validity of contracts can be challenged and usually this results in a test case in court, and every court finding is likely to be subjected to appeal in a higher court. Should an unfortunate patient be chosen as the example on which a finding is sought, he or she could find themselves embroiled in legal costs that run into millions.
This is a tactical manoeuvre between hospitals and an insurer to set new payment guidelines. The outcome is of more than passing interest to those covered by this form of insurance and it is totally unacceptable that an outcome has been reached - and that outcome is not being revealed to those who will be affected by it's implementation.
Childbirth mortality is certainly rare in this country, but it can not be entirely excluded. It would seem very unfair to have an exclusion in the private system for something that is covered in the public system and exactly what this means needs to be clearly spelt out to fund members.
Suicide in hospital also covers a wide gambit. A disturbed person with mobility might leave their bed and deliberately jump from a high window and it could be inferred that they should have been more closely watched, but that would involve a financially impossible level of staff required.
The edict on hospital falls resulting in broken bones suggests lack of care in ensuring bed guard rails are raised by nursing staff, but bone degeneration in the elderly is rampant and this would require even those with mobility to be escorted by a nurse at all times, and that would impose an impossible level of care cost.
What many find disturbing is that a new agreement has been negotiated, but the details have not be revealed to the public. It is unacceptable that a person needing to go into hospital for a procedure and faced with making a choice between a Catholic hospital, other private hospitals or the public system could face a very different cost structure and be seriously out of pocket because of vagaries about exactly what is covered by private insurance.
This seems to be an attempt to impose a penalty for incidents that can be attributed to lack of professional care back onto the hospital concerned, rather than become an added cost to the provider of health insurance. Should a patient suffer broken bones from a fall that should not have happened,
then recovery time remaining in hospital to recover would be at hospital expense, not a cost incurred by the insurer.
Anything that contributes to hospital safety is commendable, but this does tend to put the patient in the position of being the meat in the sandwich. An accident that breaches the guidelines leaves a substantial bill hanging in the balance, rejected by the insurer but claimed by the hospital - and legally recoverable by court action.
It also raises an interesting legal can of worms. The validity of contracts can be challenged and usually this results in a test case in court, and every court finding is likely to be subjected to appeal in a higher court. Should an unfortunate patient be chosen as the example on which a finding is sought, he or she could find themselves embroiled in legal costs that run into millions.
This is a tactical manoeuvre between hospitals and an insurer to set new payment guidelines. The outcome is of more than passing interest to those covered by this form of insurance and it is totally unacceptable that an outcome has been reached - and that outcome is not being revealed to those who will be affected by it's implementation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)