[briandear]

"...these structured agreements often deliver monthly payments across decades to protect vulnerable recipients from immediately spending the money."

Why must someone, an adult, be "protected" from spending their own money. This nanny state nonsense has got to stop. Do people really have to be protected from themselves? If they aren't smart enough to take care of their business, they ought not be allowed outside of a group home.

[DanBC]

> if they aren't smart enough to take care of their business, they ought not be allowed outside of a group home.

Lack of capacity should be limited as far as possible. A person with intellectual disability may be able to live a reasonably normal life but need help with cooking; or with financial planning. Suggesting that we imprison (because that's what you're calling for) people who have no committed any crime; who pose no risk of harm to others; and who lack capacity over one small aspect of their life is fascistic.

What you're asking appears to be is "Why should this industry, which is heavily regulated to protect the general population from abusive practices, and which has a long history of illegal, unethical, sleazy, behaviours have to comply with regulation to protect society's vulnerable members?"

[Lawtonfogle]

>Suggesting that we imprison (because that's what you're calling for) people who have no committed any crime; who pose no risk of harm to others; and who lack capacity over one small aspect of their life is fascistic.

This is largely how we treat children. For the extreme cases, look at those re-education camps parents can send their teens to, often with a 'transporter' that would by any other name be called a kidnapper. And if the child runs away and claims abuse... the police will be right there to send them back.

Is it wrong that the child is treated in so many ways as belonging to the parent?

[DanBC]

That's the American experience. It's less the case in any country that has signed up to the convention on the rights of the child.

In the case of children we protect them because they lack capacity. When they develop capacity we reduce the constraints.

Have a look at English guidelines for medical competance: "Gillick competance". This is used to decide whether someone under the age of 16 can consent to medical treatment without their parents knowledge or permission. (The perhaps odd age of 16 is used because that's the age of consent for sex and the name Gillick Competance comes from a case where a mother did not want girls under the age of 16 to be prescribed the contraceptive pill. (16 is the age of sexual consent in England.)

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-sy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

For examples of what this means with real life examples:

14 year old refuses chemotherapy for a highly treatable brain tumor: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0643x61

14 year old with type 1 diabetes is non-compliant with treatment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0499j2f

Can a 9 year old be given treatment her parents don't agree with? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t3z65

[IkmoIkmo]

1) it genuinely protects people who otherwise don't have to live in a group home. silly exaggeration.

2) as you by now should know if you didn't know already, you can sell guaranteed future payments and get your lump-sum if you really want to. tons of businesses will do buy it from you. you're not forced into receiving monthly payments if you don't want to, you can change it on day 1, it just happens to be the default because it makes more sense for most people.

that's not a nanny state, it's incredibly sensible.

[hollerith]

>This nanny state nonsense

Is the state even involved in the decision to structure these settlements (other than through its role as enforcer of a contract between 2 non-state parties, namely, the insurer and the insured)?

It could be that the insurer chose to write structuring into the contract to avoid negative publicity from the insured's spending the entire settlement and ending up poor again.

[simonh]

This setup is also protecting the state from having to support these people through increased welfare and other social program costs. Therefore the state has an interest in encouraging or even mandating this form of agreement. Otherwise these people are more likely to end up on benefits and receiving assistance from social services that your tax money pays for. But if you'd rather have tax payer funded group homes set up with all the associated costs, that's up to you. I'm not a US citizen, so I've no skin in this particular game.