Can a customer hold wage for an incident that occured?
Question Details: I have a cleaning company and in the order of two months ago an incident occured with a floor, we never received a formal complain from the customer, but we fixed the problem, we dont work anymore near them but they need to reward us for one month, we didnt received payment for the month so we arranged to called them, they said they are holding the sum for my company until we fix the floor, we never received a complain during the time we work for them, and never received a notification and now almost a month that we dont work for them they are holding our fee, we have insurance they can cause a claim to, can they hold the payment, can they do that?Answers: In the construction buisness, this is call a retainer, That being, a customer, holds $x amount rear legs, until fully satisfied. However, If the problem be fixed, and they still won't pay, ask what your supposed to fix? They may right to be heard they used the money owed to you to get someone else to fix it.
ask them for library of payment to whomever, so you can contact the insurance company,
However.
But if they still utter something is wrong, and that's the only apology for holding funds, Ask them who they talked to going on for filing a complaint to, and the casing number, so you can get contact the insurance company.
If nought is fixed from this, look into filing a lien against them, for the amount owed, This would connote you could get your money from them within the event they sell the place within question.
If you have insurance at the time, you should be covered under that time frame.
Find out exactly the problem, why they are withholding, obtain it in writing. Contact a attorney, or someone in the insurance company you have and tell them the situation. These are a few ways to try and remedy the situation.
goodluck
You won't know if it's permitted in your state, until you rob it to court and a judge rules on it.
But it's a vastly common practice.
Plz answer?
when your car insurance say-so $500 deductible does it mean if you motor gets harmed upto $500 you pay for itAnswers: Yes. The deductible is a channel of preventing the insured (you) from filing lots of tiny claims to the delivery service. You are essentially "self insured" for the first $500. The way insurance works, the highly developed the deductible, the lower the premium and vice versa.
You might look into lowering your deductible if you can. Often times it's not a significant amount more to lower it. And vice versa, if your deductible is low, sometimes increasing doesn't return the amount of premium you would expect. Its a good thought to get quoted near different deductible options to see what is the most practical.
Think of a deductible as self-insurance. You promise to insure the first portion of the claim (the deductible). In exchange for taking on more of the risk, you recompense less within premium. So if your window breaks, for instance, and cost $499. You wages it. If you want to pay smaller amount out of your pocket per claim, lower your deductible. Then you will have THEM assume more of the risk, and within turn, they will charge you accordingly.
What will universal health care cost?
Answers: Far more than anyone can imagine. There is not one single country with it that can afford it and that is after they RATION the care.
Britain:
The NHS, the oldest system, is in Britain:
"“Staff are being laid off, and deficits are at an all time high (£1.07bn for 2005-2006)” (Hazel Blears, Labour Party Chair and Minister Without Portfolio, labourachievements.blogspot.com/2006/08/...
In the National Review Online article, Coburn & Herzlinger state “more than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S.” Just recently Alex Smallwood of the BMA (British Medical Association) was quoted in the Scotsman as saying: “’Rationing is reduction in choice. Rationing has become a necessary evil. We need to formalise rationing to prevent an unregulated, widening, postcode-lottery of care. Government no longer has a choice.’” (Moss, “NHS rationing is ‘necessary evil,’ says doctors,” 26 June 2007).
Canada:
"Comparing Canada with other industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that provide universal access to health care, a study released by The Fraser Institute in May revealed that Canada spends more on its system than other nations while ranking among the lowest in several key indicators, such as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.
...
In 1999, Richard F. Davies, MD, described how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, 71 patients died before surgery and another "121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery;" 44 left Ontario and had their CABG elsewhere, such as in the USA. In other words, 192 people either died or were too sick to have surgery before they worked their way to the front of the waiting line.
One of the reasons Canadians are slow to acknowledge the problems with their system is that general practitioners have been relatively easy to access and reasonably efficient at providing everyday services for common complaints, such as colds, sprains, aches and pains.
As time passes, however, more and more Canadians are confronted by the halting quality of their system when they face complex and expensive medical problems. They often cannot get timely or appropriate care for bone fractures, prompt treatment for cancer, or non-emergency surgery such as hip replacements. Their doctors complain that they are unable to help them and the government pleads shortage of funds.
...
Canadian physician frustration with their inability to provide quality and timely care is resulting in a brain drain. According to one poll, one in three Canadian doctors is considering leaving the country. A doctor shortage looms, as the nation falls 500 doctors a year short of the 2,500 new physicians it needs to add each year to meet national health needs, according to Sally Pipes, a policy expert formerly with the Canadian Fraser Institute.
Another casualty of the lengthy waiting periods is Canada's much-vaunted equal access to medical treatment. Even though medical emergencies allow some people to jump ahead in the waiting line — making others wait longer — a survey published in the Annals of Internal Medicine medical journal found that more than 90 percent of heart specialists had "been involved in the care of a patient who received preferential access" to cardiac care based on non-medical reasons including the patient's social standing or personal connections with the treating physician."
Jewish World Review June 11, 2004 written by Dr. Cihak
AND
"The biggest Canadian fiscal drain comes from the single-payer medical system. "Current model of health-care delivery leading us down the path to financial ruin," states the lead editorial in the Calgary Sun. Health-care costs would consume 50% of Alberta's budget by 2016 (according to the Fraser Institute) or 2017 (according to Aon Consulting, a firm hired by the Alberta government). Health care would devour 100% of the provincial budget by 2030, if present trends continue.
...
An estimated 90,000 Canadians sought medical care outside their country in 2005. The cry "no two-tiered system" could be replaced by "set our patients free," stated a lead editorial (National Post 9/18/06)."
Jewish World Review Dec. 1, 2006 by Dr. Glueck
So why no total collapse yet? Because “illegal, for-profit health-service centers” have “proliferated” in Canada and are so accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association (“Individual Freedom vs. Government Control,” 1 August 2007, nationalreview.com).
Japan doesn't fare any better:
"According to Japanese legislator Takashi Yamamoto, who was just diagnosed with cancer, "abandoned cancer refugees are roaming the Japanese archipelago." Patients are told they¹ll never get better, even when treatments exist, and many are not even informed of their diagnoses. Cancer mortality rates in Japan have been steadily climbing and are now more than 250 per 100,000, while U.S. rates are now around 180 per 100,000. (Glueck, “Far East illustrates the limitations and dangers of universal health care,” 26 January 2007, jewishworldreview.com)
Sweden:
A May 2007 article the National Center for Public Policy Research ran called “Sweden’s Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations” (Hogberg, nationalcenter.org) indicates that this government with good GDP ($31,600) and relatively low unemployment (5.6 percent) had a single-payer system for much of the 20th century. They covered basically all health care costs and as a result, had to ration health care, and found themselves with waiting lists for both surgeries and doctor visits. In the 1990s, there was a move toward semi-privatization which reduced those problems, but they have re-emerged. In that author’s, view, the reforms were not permitted to work as they were not full-on free market ones.
The much lauded French system raises some questions as well. From their Embassy site (ambafrance-us.org) they state that 96 percent of the population receives free or 100 percent reimbursed health care. They state the system is part of their Social Security and is funded from worker’s salaries (60 percent), “indirect taxes on alcohol and tobacco and by direct contribution paid by all revenue proportional to income, including retirement pensions and capital revenues.” They state that it appears that health insurance pays less to its doctors in France than in other European countries, but that 80 percent of the public have supplemental health insurance, typically from their employers. If they’re providing so well for the needs of the public, why is there a need for “supplemental” health insurance for the majority of the public and what about the additional cost that imposes? The site states that the poorest have free universal health care, funded by taxes. Long-term illness sufferers are to be reimbursed for their treatments. They do have private clinics, as well as public hospitals, and not-for-profit healthcare. In fact, “private medical care in France is particularly active in treating more than 50% of surgeries and more than 60% of cancer cases.”
Private insurance, which the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) site said in a 2004 report, was held by 92 percent of the French, helps to cover both vision and dental care which are not well covered under the government system. “The public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost containment policies have not proved very successful.” The government is interested in having more of the tab picked up by private insurance (Buchmueller & Couffinhall, “Private Health Insurance in France,” 2004, oecd.org).
Etc. Be glad we do NOT need it.
What we want is QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all.
That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are screwed again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented).
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World
Free markets really do work.
It will actually depend on how <insert politician here> sets up Universal Health Care. What is the base coverage? Is it just preventive, or comprehensive coverage? What are the terms of the plan - deductibles, co-pay, co-insurance, etc. Will premiums be paid for by taxes, by employers, by a combination of the two?
I agree with most of the posters who have stated that complete government control of health care would be disastrous. Look at what they did with Medicare Part D, for example... just disastrously stupid in design.
Most likely the solution will require stronger federal regulations of the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to control overall cost, while requiring some sort of employer contributions toward an "uninsured" fund as well as some sort of tax consequence for everybody else.
Anyway you slice it, it'll cost billions, if not trillions - the real question will be: "Who will pay? How will the cost be distributed?"