Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
Nope.
"As a general instance of a (so-called) daft lawsuit, this story might be considered funny (especially in the UK where we're still quite prudish about sex and sex workers)."
Does not imply:
"the entire population of the UK thinks that suing for medical damages is "daft." "
|
OK .... that answers that question. So, ..... why?? Assume for a minute that you are not living in a country with a good socialized medical system. You pay into an insurance fund to cover your injuries, and then when you have an injury, they won't cover it.
You have three choices. One is to do nothing about the injury. The other is to pay the doctors what amounts to a year worth of your earnings. The last is to file suit.
So .... what exactly is daft about the lawsuit?? To me, the only thing that is daft is that the US doesn't have some kind of universal health care system.
I suppose I also think that it's pretty damn daft that the poor woman had to file suit, since her idiot employer should have covered the damages.
So ... could you please clarify? Is it simply because the woman was a sex worker?? Is that really the entire point of the "joke" ... that this woman had a degrading job??