Capping awards is a different argument than capping attorneys fees.
What I hope the Supreme Court does to health care.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Capping awards is a different argument than capping attorneys fees.
LMAO...so you're obviously talking through your butthole and choose to remain ignorant about single payer. How many 'employees' do you think will be needed to administer a single payer system compared with the current one?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I agree there are many ways we can streamline. While single payer will help stream line payments, its major inefficiency is that it will treat everyone with similar if not equal plans. In other words, it will create a cookie cutter plan or one size fits all. Which is highly inefficient.
As we watch whole economies collapse under the weight of "entitlements" your only solution is to follow that same path. We have a unique opportunity in the US to come up with a solution that doesn't end in Grecian style riots as people demand to receive all the benefits they believe they are "entitled" to from a government that no longer has the money to pay for them. It literally takes hacktackular sheeple to believe that still more entitlements are the answer to these problems.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
If you have no win no fee then capping awards affects lawyers fees, n'est-ce pas?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So once again you fail to answer the simple question as to 'what will incentivize the employees'? As I stated, you continually duck away from answering the question. Yet you expect others to answer yours.
What I can see somewhat working is single payer with the option for supplemental insurance. Single payer that pays for the bare bones, supplemental that pays for more. What I see offered is craptacular insurance that everybody must buy and no supplemental insurance plans.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Will you ever man up and actually answer the questions Jarod?
Do you understand that capping awards will help reduce health care costs in the manner I described? (start here, answer this one honestly... if you don't understand this, I will explain it to you again)
If you do understand the above...
The capping of attorneys fees is a PART of the above. It means the cap can be set at a lower amount (relative to the alternative) if we want to have the actual VICTIM end up with 'x'.
For example... if we stated that the malpractice award for death of a patient we wanted the family of the deceased to receive $5mm. If we have no cap on the attorney fees and the attorney charged 30%, then the malpractice cap would need to be $7,142,857.14 (the lawyer taking 30% or 2.142mm and the family getting its $5mm)
If we capped the attorney at $250k per year and the total time was 1.5 years, then the lawyer would get $375k, the family would get their $5mm and the total cap in that case would be 5.375mm instead of the $7.142mm
Let me make it as simple as possable.
When you are done with a jury trial, the jury they get a form and are told to fill in the line items:
1) What is the total value of medical expences incurred negligance in the past, $______________________.
2) What is the total value of medical expences the plaintiff is reasonably likely to incurr in the future, $______________________.
3) What is the total value of loss of enjoyment of life in the past, $________________.
4) What is the total value of loss of enjoyment of life the Plaintiff is reasonable likely to incurr in the future, $___________________.
5) What is the total value of Pain and Suffering the Plaintiff has suffered in the past, $____________.
6) What is the total vaule of Pain and Suffering the Plaintiff is reasonable likely to suffer in the future, $_______________.
Its a bit more complicated than this, but you get the idea.
There is no place for the jury to award an amount to pay the attorney! The award is not different if the attorney charges 75% or 5%.
When you are done with a jury trial, the jury they get a form and are told to fill in the line items:
1) What is the total value of medical expences incurred negligance in the past, $______________________.
2) What is the total value of medical expences the plaintiff is reasonably likely to incurr in the future, $______________________.
3) What is the total value of loss of enjoyment of life in the past, $________________.
4) What is the total value of loss of enjoyment of life the Plaintiff is reasonable likely to incurr in the future, $___________________.
5) What is the total value of Pain and Suffering the Plaintiff has suffered in the past, $____________.
6) What is the total vaule of Pain and Suffering the Plaintiff is reasonable likely to suffer in the future, $_______________.
Its a bit more complicated than this, but you get the idea.
There is no place for the jury to award an amount to pay the attorney! The award is not different if the attorney charges 75% or 5%.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Which is what leads to the inefficiency. Because it is the latter that most single payer proponents want. The all encompassing government 'pays for everything' plan.
In the former, the problem then comes back to ... 'I have a right to everything the wealthy get, but I can't afford the supplemental plans so can you subsidize that for me and make the rich pay for it'
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Dear retard: No one is suggesting that the JURY award the attorney's fees. NO ONE.
Now that you have explained what you are saying, okay, I see what you are saying. That is different than simply capping attorney fees. I do not agree that capping awards is constitutional or helpfull to society, but I at least now understand your argument.
Medicare is a type of insurance, you improperly call it an entitlement.
Actually, it's like this. Once again, you fail to see the obvious ANSWERS. They've been put before you many times. You ignore them, or you're too stupid to comprehend them. It's one or the other.
And I won't even bother debating with that mindset. Waste of time.
You pay for medicare, I would say its a forced insurance... not an entitlement.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) Thank you. I am glad that example helped you understand.
2) How would it be unconstitutional?
3) If it helps lower costs of health care for everyone, how would that not be helpful to society as a whole?
I like this, it would work like gap insurance with medicare recipiants.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The jury still decides guilt or innocence Jarod. The caps would not change that. It is the same with sentencing ranges for criminals. It puts a restriction on what time is either mandatory or maximum for many crimes.