JustAsking said:
Is anyone surprised? I think there are great social needs and great injustices that can only be solved by huge institutions with the economies of scale to do that. The default choice of the Democrats for this is the Gov't.
But I only agree with that choice because I can't think of any other institution that would do that on so large a scale. I personally think the Gov't does a bad job of this stuff usually, although I agree with the intent and the need. Besides doing a bad job of it, the only means they have is coercion through lots of laws.
You've piqued my memory, Just Asking.
One of the world's great government success stories actually comes from the Australian state of Victoria. Through one of the few state enterprises it didn't sell off--the Transport Accident Commission.
Some years ago, the State of Victoria handled personal injury from car accidents like any other jurisdiction. Smart lawyers inflated claims to breaking point; insurance companies sued insurance companies, and occasionally, the odd penniless uninsured driver. One needed to have so-called third-party insurance to drive legally, but many didn't. It was an expensive upward spiral.
One day (1987, I believe? Melburnians, help me here.) almost NO insurers were willing to cover drivers in Victoria. CTP cover (compulsory third party) became so prohibitively expensive that double digits of the driving population took to the road uninsured, and so bankrupts were minted in their thousands. Surely, a social ill that only a government could cure.
They did. They created an insurance company: I guess you could call it a QANGO. When you paid your car registration (MOT) part of it was an insurance premium to the TAC.
Clever. The TAC had no-one to sue but itself. No interest in pursuing outrageous claims. They merely had to meet their obligations to the insured for medical costs, income lost, and a reasonable compensation for pain and suffering. Billions were saved.
Furthermore, if you had an accident and there was no-one to sue (e.g. if you ran into a tree) then you would still be compensated for your loss.
The TAC thinks like an insurance company. What can it do to maximise income and minimise loss? As far as maximising income, it realises that I should not rely on premiums for its payouts--the TAC invests in shares and real estate...its own building, for example. Minimising loss? How do you prevent accidents amongst your insured?
The TAC was, perhaps, the first insurance company in the world with a commercial vested interest in STOPPING claims and litigation. Thus, it studied public education campaigns for road safety and found them wanting.
They created ground-breaking advertising campaigns that really, really upset you when you watched them. Not because they necessarily showed blood and guts. Many showed the emotional consequences of an accident; the distraught mother crying over the child run over on his bike, the respirator being turned off, the agonising rehabilitation for a spinal injury.
The result? The road toll in Victoria halved. Billions of dollars saved. Thousands of court cases avoided. Thousands of lives saved.
Could any institution but
government have done this?
Here's their
website. Check out the
2005 annual report.
headbang8
Still mildly buzzed, but faking it. Car keys hidden.