What I hope the Supreme Court does to health care.

Jarod said:
I disagree with most of what you say here, you seriously lack a real understanding of how economics work in an industry such as insurance, its not comparable to the mom and pop grocery store economics.
Click to expand...

Dear Douchebag... I sell insurance contracts constantly. I know how the actuaries price the contracts. You are a fucking idiot, it is comical that you are pretending to know more than I do on this topic. Competition will price these correctly. Those that refuse to come down, will lose the business to those that do. Unless you are suggesting that all of the major insurance companies are going to collaborate in maintaining high prices (which would be illegal).

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, you are just making moronic statements and living in a make believe world. You might want to shut the fuck up in the future to avoid looking like such an ass clown.

Jury awards have nothing to do with what the attorney is paid. The jury is not told anything about what the attorney is paid and it is not one of the factors that goes into calculating verdicts. Are you suggesting that the government has a right to tell you how much you are allowed to pay for legal services?
Click to expand...

Attorneys typically charge a fee in these situations based on the amount won... do they not? Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most of them charge about the same fee too? About 25-33% of the award amount?
 
Jarod said:
Supercandy belives that if Romney asks nicely, the insurance companies will agree to lower rates.
Click to expand...

For the retards: None of these on their own will reduce it. So no cherry picking one and pretending that it is the sum of what I have stated.
Click to expand...

you are a fucking retard Jarod. It is obvious that you do not wish to have an actual discussion. If you ever grow up, do let us know.
 
Rana said:
If they scratch the whole thing, people with pre-existing conditions will suffer. I agree with the premise of Congress actually dealing with healthcare's escalating costs.
Click to expand...

insurance isn't a charity. it's a business.
 
The assumption is that no insurance carrier has any form of competition that would use lower costs to drive more customers by charging less.
 
Superfreak said:
Dear Douchebag... I sell insurance contracts constantly. I know how the actuaries price the contracts. You are a fucking idiot, it is comical that you are pretending to know more than I do on this topic. Competition will price these correctly. Those that refuse to come down, will lose the business to those that do. Unless you are suggesting that all of the major insurance companies are going to collaborate in maintaining high prices (which would be illegal).

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, you are just making moronic statements and living in a make believe world. You might want to shut the fuck up in the future to avoid looking like such an ass clown.



Attorneys typically charge a fee in these situations based on the amount won... do they not? Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most of them charge about the same fee too? About 25-33% of the award amount?
Click to expand...

Attorneys charge a fee, but that does not affect the value of the award at all. A jury does not know anything about what the attorney fee is and they are given specific line items upon which an award is based on... None of those line items are "attorneys fee"!
 
Damocles said:
The assumption is that no insurance carrier has any form of competition that would use lower costs to drive more customers by charging less.
Click to expand...

Its like gas prices, all major carriers charge based on what price point brings in the most money, and factor affecting this most is what the market will support, not the price to provide the coverage. ALl you have to do is look at the profit margins to see that they are not cut based on competition, they are set based on what they can get away with.
 
Jarod said:
Attorneys charge a fee, but that does not affect the value of the award at all. A jury does not know anything about what the attorney fee is and they are given specific line items upon which an award is based on... None of those line items are "attorneys fee"!
Click to expand...

dear Jarod... please pay attention to what is written. I know Attorneys charge a fee. As I stated, is it not typically a percentage of the award?

No one... and I mean NO ONE... stated that it affected the value of the award or that the jury would know what the attorney's fee was. What I stated was that the attorneys be capped on how much they could earn on a malpractice claim. ie... if the attorney charges 30% (just for argument sake) and a cap of earnings was $250k/yr, then if a client got an award of $3mm after 11 months... the attorney would be capped at the $250k. If it took two years, the attorney would be capped at $500k. If it took 6 years, then the attorney would collect their 30%.
 
Jarod said:
I do not alledge that they have direct collusion.
Click to expand...

Yet you alleged that the insurance companies would not pass along savings to doctors. You do realize that they have competition do you not? If industry wide malpractice claims go down, insurance companies will indeed adjust their pricing down to remain competitive with their peers. The only way they all keep their prices up is if they collude to do so... which again is illegal. So which is it Jarod? You can't have it both ways....

Will they collude to keep prices high or will their competition drive the prices down to reflect the reduction in malpractice award amounts?
 
Superfreak said:
dear Jarod... please pay attention to what is written. I know Attorneys charge a fee. As I stated, is it not typically a percentage of the award?

No one... and I mean NO ONE... stated that it affected the value of the award or that the jury would know what the attorney's fee was. What I stated was that the attorneys be capped on how much they could earn on a malpractice claim. ie... if the attorney charges 30% (just for argument sake) and a cap of earnings was $250k/yr, then if a client got an award of $3mm after 11 months... the attorney would be capped at the $250k. If it took two years, the attorney would be capped at $500k. If it took 6 years, then the attorney would collect their 30%.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me why that would have any affect on the cost of health care?

And where the Federal Government would get the power to tell clients how much they are allowed to pay there attorney?
 
Jarod said:
Its like gas prices, all major carriers charge based on what price point brings in the most money, and factor affecting this most is what the market will support, not the price to provide the coverage. ALl you have to do is look at the profit margins to see that they are not cut based on competition, they are set based on what they can get away with.
Click to expand...

LMAO... so now you do believe the prices will come down due to competition?

Jarod, all insurance contracts are priced by actuaries. The prices come down to reflect the new expectations of payouts. They know their peers are going to do so. The only way they don't is if they collude together to keep prices high.
 
Jarod said:
Please explain to me why that would have any affect on the cost of health care?

And where the Federal Government would get the power to tell clients how much they are allowed to pay there attorney?
Click to expand...

LMAO... sorry Jarod... but that is exactly what the Government does with my industry. You lawyer get all shocked and appalled when someone suggests you play by the rules that we have to play by. I would gladly tell my clients that I will take a set 30% of anything I make for them over 7% and that I would otherwise work for free. But the government won't let me do that. Yet lawyers can do so...
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... so now you do believe the prices will come down due to competition?

Jarod, all insurance contracts are priced by actuaries. The prices come down to reflect the new expectations of payouts. They know their peers are going to do so. The only way they don't is if they collude together to keep prices high.
Click to expand...

False they do not base price on payout expectations, if they did the profit margin would not be so great! They would have lowerd price to compete and accepted a smaller profit margin. They base price on what they belive people will pay. They make the profit via investment in the market and go from there. It is well known in my industry that when the market is up, they settle cases, when its down the hold onto the money!
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... sorry Jarod... but that is exactly what the Government does with my industry. You lawyer get all shocked and appalled when someone suggests you play by the rules that we have to play by. I would gladly tell my clients that I will take a set 30% of anything I make for them over 7% and that I would otherwise work for free. But the government won't let me do that. Yet lawyers can do so...
Click to expand...

That does not make it right...

and you have not answered my question about how setting limits on attorney priceing would bring down the cost of health care...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top