nutsmakr,

you've taken them seriously enough to argue over the facts of trial lawyer pay for several posts. But, hey, its never too late to affect apathy ("I really don't care what they say man because I don't take their opinions seriously, I'm just trolling them because I got nothing better to do with my time!!!!!")

And nothing suggests they don't know what "constitutes a trial lawyer". At most, I am suggesting that they are referring to only the subset of trial lawyers that are involved with litigation most relevant for the context of this discussion (medical malpractice suits is the example that jumps first to my mind).

Should they have clarified? Maybe (I think the context of the discussion makes the intent clear). But I don't think you have much room to complain that their language is too imprecise, since you seem to suffer from the same failing. But one thing I've noticed about the wolf web is you should never let anything stop you from insulting someone else.

Any luck on digging up that evidence? I honestly have no clue what the typical salary is, so it would be interesting to find out.

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ``]

8/24/2009 12:49:37 PM

Quote :

"And nothing suggests they don't know what "constitutes a trial lawyer". At most, I am suggesting that they are referring to only the subset of trial lawyers that are involved with litigation most relevant for the context of this discussion (medical malpractice suits is the example that jumps first to my mind). "

And then they are only referencing that even smaller subset of trial lawyers who handle medmal cases who also make lots of money off said cases.

Quote :

"Any luck on digging up that evidence? I honestly have no clue what the typical salary is, so it would be interesting to find out. "

It's all dependent on the size of the firm and your position in the firm.

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2009 1:29:16 PM

^ it depends huh? you don't say. hehe I guess I never would have thought that wages and salaries might vary from firm to firm or even person to person.

It's too bad no one ever thought about using mathematical techniques to divine information from collections of dispersed observations. I guess that means we will never know what a typical trial lawyer makes because we don't have ways of measuring the central tenancy of data on trial lawyer salaries.

Wait! That's exactly why we have measures like the mean and the median! We even have ways to measure the dispersion of salaries in the dataset (standard deviation)! If only we had known such things were possible at the outset of this conversation!!!!!!

LoL Anyways, nutsmaker I guess you're trying to say you don't want to be bothered with looking up data on mean or median salaries and that you would rather deal in anecdotes. Of course, I'm still confused as to why you would bust hooksaw's balls for doing the exact same thing. *shrug*

But its no longer my concern. I have no interest in feeding trolls. Peace out, son! I got work to do.

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ``]

8/24/2009 1:40:30 PM

UNC System will require students to have health insurance

Quote :

"CHAPEL HILL – Students in the University of North Carolina system will be required to have health insurance by the beginning of the fall semester in 2010. The UNC Board of Governors approved a 'hard waiver' model on Friday. Students will basically have two choices. They can pick their own insurance, which could include their parents’ dependant coverage. Or they can sign up for a policy offered for the UNC system. The insurance would be in addition to the varying student health service fees that students already pay at their respective campuses, said Bruce Mallette, senior associate vice president for academic and student affairs for the UNC system."

Quote :

"Mallette said that 11 of the 16 UNC campuses already participate with their own hard-waiver insurance models. The five that don’t – N.C. State University, UNC Chapel Hill, East Carolina University, Appalachian State University and UNC Wilmington – have a voluntary model in which students are not required to have health insurance but can participate in the university’s insurance policy if they choose."

http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/insurance-27387-bodycopy-require.html

Uncle Bowles and the gang know what's best for you, dummy.

8/24/2009 3:34:44 PM

^^It's a shame you think everyone who is a Trial Lawyer is just weighted down with cash. You try to throw off this air of knowledge, but you fall victim to the same gimmicky nonsense.

In North Carolina, a trial lawyer working at their own business will make between 20-100,000 a year. It isn't that hard to figure out they aren't rolling around in cash. Now if you want to start talking about the various firms, that is where the divergence will be. A Partner at a large firm can easily bring in millions a year, but they have massive client lists. A Junior Associate will make more than 100,000, but they are working 80+ a week. For them it isn't the number of hours worked, but the number of billable hours worked.


^I thought that was standard practice already. Sounds like good policy.

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2009 3:38:36 PM

^ Blah, blah, blah--meaningless. Anecdotes can be evidence, period. And no amount of flapping, flailing, and foaming can change this fact.

Yeah, and having a centralized governmental authority make decisions for individuals is always a good idea to half-assed commies like you. Way to sign on to the politburo's edict, comrade--no re-education is necessary in your case.

8/24/2009 3:45:45 PM

Have you been thrown over board a ship lately?

NC State has had this requirement for a long time. Why the anger now?

Or are you just finding something to foam away about?



Also, John Edwards's wealth isn't indicative of all trial lawyers.

8/24/2009 4:28:47 PM

Government. The ultimate cost container.

8/24/2009 6:18:21 PM

I'd love to know what that graph is in reference to... I find it hard to believe that the average federal employee is making 100k+. Unless they take out contractors

8/24/2009 8:56:10 PM

^ it's a fairly meaningless graph

It doesn't make any sense to compare all of private industry to what amounts to the crosssection of federal civilian employees.

8/24/2009 9:01:58 PM

^^^^ You're obviously stupid. NC State does not require students to have health insurance, dummy.

Quote :

"Mallette said that 11 of the 16 UNC campuses already participate with their own hard-waiver insurance models. The five that don’t – N.C. State University, UNC Chapel Hill, East Carolina University, Appalachian State University and UNC Wilmington – have a voluntary model in which students are not required to have health insurance but can participate in the university’s insurance policy if they choose."

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 11:49 PM. Reason : PS: ]

8/24/2009 11:49:29 PM

I was pretty sure State required it and if you didn't have it you would get health insurance from the university for the periods of time you were in school.

Either way, it isn't a bad policy. In fact, I defy you to argue that it is a bad policy.

8/25/2009 9:51:11 AM

Owned.

8/25/2009 10:02:07 AM

That's not an owning, hooksaw. An owning is what happened to you in the insurance CEO thread.

8/25/2009 10:48:45 AM

^

Quote :

"[Feel free to] prove that education administrators are not in the upper percentile of U.S. wage earners. . . . Otherwise you can STFU."

[Edited on August 25, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ]

8/25/2009 11:01:29 AM

Quote :

"I find it hard to believe that the average federal employee is making 100k+"

The graph states Wages + Benefits. About once a year federal employees receive a statement of benefits that includes health insurance benefits, retirement benefits, etc. IIRC my last one said my compensation was about $20k higher than my actual take-home pay. That was military compensation, I'm not sure how it works for the civilian side of the house, but I imagine it is pretty similar.

Quote :

"It doesn't make any sense to compare all of private industry to what amounts to the crosssection of federal civilian employees."

Why not?

8/25/2009 11:23:42 AM

Quote :

"Why not?"

a large portion of government work is done by private contractors.

8/25/2009 1:43:55 PM

If the intent is to prove the efficiency of government spending then that is a completely accurate comparison, even with "private" contractors. When a contractor enters a contract with a government private market forces largely cease to function. The retention of that contract isn't an issue of who is the most efficient, but who is the most politically connected. Thus, the contractor is more accurately described as a temporary extension of the government than a true private actor.

The net result is the same, government generally costs more than the private sector.

8/25/2009 1:56:00 PM

unless i'm misunderstanding, this average doesn't include those private contractors, or even for their pay contracted by the gov't.

8/25/2009 2:08:31 PM

The point should still hold then, government is still less cost effective than the market because there is no mechanism for measuring the efficiency of the allocation of resources. Thus, the costs of government run projects, be they internally run or outsourced, will be generally higher than those performed by private entities competing with one another.

8/25/2009 2:18:13 PM

Quote :

""It doesn't make any sense to compare all of private industry to what amounts to the crosssection of federal civilian employees." Why not?"

BEcause the ration of skilled labor to unskilled labor is drastically different.

If you compared the average way of the entire public sector to most any large company, you're going to see similar discrepancies. That statistic is not meaningful to show anything except that there are a lot of low wage, unskilled jobs out there, which is an obvious fact.

8/25/2009 2:21:28 PM

^^perhaps. but that's not what that number is showing at all.

8/25/2009 2:23:07 PM

I know y'all like data and shit like that.

But data or no, I think it's no secret that government generally costs more than private. It's rife with waste. Unfortunately, the most visible government employees tend to take the most shit for this reality, but they're the least guilty. Cops, postal carriers, teachers, garbage men, DMV workers, etc...tend to be hard-working and productive employees. If you want some data-free proof, just take a loot at the footwear: sensible flats if not full-on orthopedic gear. But get back up in those administrative buildings, and you can find people making $100k/year who spend literally half their workdays playing flash games and buying vintage action figures on eBay. And the only time this huge problem ever gets addressed is times like now...cuts are mandated and made, and magically, everything works out just fine...

But it's not clear that any of this applies to an argument about healthcare.

8/25/2009 2:49:55 PM

you're kidding right?

why can't this be applied to healthcare? last time I checked, the public option would turn healthcare into one more government entity with people...

Quote :

"...making $100k/year who spend literally half their workdays playing flash games and buying vintage action figures on eBay..."

8/25/2009 3:14:01 PM

but again, that number isn't illuminating much. there is typically a higher barrier to entry in an actual government jobs. the more menial tasks (and even many of the entry level skilled positions) are filled by contract workers who are often paid less (at least when combined with benefits).

8/25/2009 3:41:19 PM

^^Currently, private insurance companies overcharge for a shoddy service and rake in billions in profits.

The public option might be run by a lot of action figure enthusiasts who make too much money, but it might still be cheaper since obscene profits won't be the goal.

8/25/2009 4:12:04 PM

lets take obama's on comparison of UPS and FedEx vrs the USPS.

So far, UPS and FedEx have managed a 100% accurate delivery since i have moved to my new home. The USPS mail carrier has delivered more then 2 dozen packages/magazines/mail of mine to the my neighbor steve, who, while having the same street number as i do, in fact, lives on a different damn street. This is still a step up from the mail carrier i had while i was in Cary.

These are the people you want involved in your medical care. When they screw up my mail i just take steve his and pick mine up. If they screw up the paper work on a medical procedure, even if i get the right stuff done, i'll be stuck in bureaucratic paper filling hell for eternity sorting shit out. Have any of you supporting this ever had to deal with say, the DOR, the IRS, or the SSA because of misfiled paper work. I have, its a nightmare, it takes months, and they assume exactly 0 responsibility for any fuck up that may have occurred on their end, be it loosing what you sendt them, or even entering the information you send them incorrectly. (and god forbid you ask them to change something thats already in the system, you cant change what the system says)

And lastly, where, exactly do you plan on getting the money for this. Magic fairys or are we just going to keep raising taxes until there's no incentive to actually work

8/26/2009 12:20:46 PM

^

We pay more for health care than any other system that has universal care. A lot of our expense is due to the bureaucracy of maintaining 4 distinct types of payment.

We have a system like Britains (the VA), Canada (Medicare), Burma (pay your self), Germany (get it through your employer). The problem with that is there exists many different pricing structures the medical practices have to follow.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

8/26/2009 12:39:42 PM

and adding more regulations, rules, and payment structures is going to make this better?

Also, you cant just compare health-care with any of these countries you have massive societal and governmental differences between there and here.

if you just look at Germany and the UK. we have 4-5x the population with 1/10th the population density. That alone can have a major impact on medical treatment. Denser populations are just easier to service, and smaller populations have less overhead in management and regulation.

8/26/2009 12:57:27 PM

Quote :

"and smaller populations have less overhead in management and regulation."

i would think larger populations would yield more efficiencies with management and regulation (at least if they were under the same system)

8/26/2009 1:07:02 PM

Quote :

"So far, UPS and FedEx have managed a 100% accurate delivery since i have moved to my new home. The USPS mail carrier has delivered more then 2 dozen packages/magazines/mail of mine to the my neighbor steve, who, while having the same street number as i do, in fact, lives on a different damn street. This is still a step up from the mail carrier i had while i was in Cary."

Or you can have my experience where FedEx delivers my football tickets to someone on a different street than me every year, despite my address being correct.

8/26/2009 1:10:18 PM

i like that usps will actually deliver to my townhome office place, where ups will leave the note that i have to sign. i have even requested before for them to deliver to the office, but they have yet to actually do that. but i've had problems will all forms of delivery at one point or another. usps is good for shipping things fairly cheaply though.

8/26/2009 1:17:18 PM

Quote :

"The public option might be run by a lot of action figure enthusiasts who make too much money, but it might still be cheaper since obscene profits won't be the goal."

Again, what constitutes obscene profits?

Would you say BC/BS at 1% to 2%: http://tinyurl.com/ar6djh
Aetna at 6%: http://tinyurl.com/mn87fw
Cigna at 3.2%: http://tinyurl.com/mn87fw

Those are just three I looked up in a period of about 5 minutes.

Quote :

"but it might still be cheaper since obscene profits won't be the goal."

The Federal Government, especially over the last 70 years, has put together a pretty good track record of the opposite being the case.


Seriously, 80% of Americans have health plans and 75% of those are satisfied with their health care. No American will walk into a Emergency Room tonight and be refused treatment. The idea that there is a health care "crisis" is manufactured by the proponents of this bill whose ultimate goal is Federal control of health care. Talk about astroturfing, the Democratic party is the goddamn manufacturer of this shit.

8/26/2009 1:40:56 PM

Quote :

"No American will walk into a Emergency Room tonight and be refused treatment."

maybe. but they could go bankrupt for trying.

8/26/2009 1:49:39 PM

Even using your numbers, a whopping 40% of the country either doesn't have coverage at all, or is unsatisfied with their current plan.

I can't get my wife and I covered on even a shitty insurance plan with massive co-pays for less than $600/mo. We are both young, healthy adults who don't smoke--god forbid we don't come down with cancer or something. That would ruin us financially and we would never be able to purchase insurance again.

Whether you believe a public option is the solution or not, there is a crisis when two young, healthy adults can't get reasonable catastrophic coverage for less than a mortgage payment or at all if they were to get a disease in between jobs/coverage.

8/26/2009 1:56:55 PM

What went wrong?
It's almost Labor Day. Healthcare reform is struggling, the public option is near dead. Why couldn't Obama deliver?
By Thomas Schaller

Quote :

"Aug. 24, 2009 | Barring a major public groundswell or miraculous reversal in Congress, Barack Obama's healthcare reform package will not include the provision that matters most to the Democratic base, the so-called public option."

Quote :

"1. Despite solid Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill, Obama was never going to get his public option provision through Congress – and certainly not through the Senate – because the votes just aren't there."

Quote :

"2. Obama misplayed his hand by failing to properly explain what the public option is, how it works, who will have to pay for it – and, most of all, to show that he's prepared to fight for it."

Quote :

"3. Obama knew from the outset that the public option was going down in flames, but shrewdly included it anyway as a feint to his base and a bargaining chip to cede to the opposition. "

Quote :

"4. President Obama is not nearly as good at mobilizing supporters from the White House as was candidate Obama during last year's campaign to reach the White House."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/24/town_halls/index.html

8/26/2009 2:00:43 PM

Quote :

"but they could go bankrupt for trying."

Quite frankly, while tragic to the individual, that does not constitute a national health care crisis.

If you want to see a crisis, implement the plan that Sen. Kennedy proposed that would cost $1T over ten years and only cover 13% of the uninsured.

Next you couple that with the fact that China is only on track to buy only around 1/4 of our deficit this year (http://www.newsweek.com/id/212143), the shift away from the dollar as the world reserve currency (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19205.htm), the doubling of the monetary base (http://tinyurl.com/qrtb2l), and the potential effects of either debt repudiation or quantitative easing on the value of the dollar and you'll find a real crisis.

The Federal Government simply cannot go on borrowing money at the rate it is currently borrowing it. None of the projections expressed by proponents of the bill have been substantiated by the CBO. The bill, whatever your intentions, is simply unaffordable.


I could also go into the fact that when government run health care (this is the unabashed goal of the health care reform movement, so let's accept that is what we'll eventually get if they get their way) is implemented, it still will not be distributed in an egalitarian manner. Congressmen will still call in favors for their highest contributors, in effect, increasing both the power and corruption of officials who are supposed to be at the service of the people. Bribery will replace graduated costs of health care plans, and connections, not contribution to the system, will dictate care.


Neither this bill, nor government control of health care, will produce anything remotely close to the medical utopia its supporters expect.

8/26/2009 2:08:30 PM

Quote :

"Whether you believe a public option is the solution or not, there is a crisis when two young, healthy adults can't get reasonable catastrophic coverage for less than a mortgage payment or at all if they were to get a disease in between jobs/coverage."

I still disagree with the term crisis, but you're right, costs are out of control. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't address one of the biggest drivers, court costs.

I don't have much more time to devote to this today, but the annual cost of medical malpractice insurance isn't the cost of a mortgage for a neurosurgeon in Miami, it is the cost of a rather nice house: $237,000. Countries such as Canada have moved to cap pain and suffering benefits to plaintiffs and the medical malpractice insurance reflects that at $29,200 in Toronto (http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1021977.ece).


Also, an article from the DC Writeup dismissing the concept that the Massachusetts health care plan did anything to reduce costs: http://tinyurl.com/nvzmdw

8/26/2009 2:19:30 PM

Final post for now. Part of the reason you're paying so much in private health care? The federal government is under-compensating hospitals for their services:

8/26/2009 2:24:22 PM

Quote :

"I still disagree with the term crisis, but you're right, costs are out of control. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't address one of the biggest drivers, court costs."

Administration costs of managing 4 unique health care systems in one country is far greater than court costs.

From what i've seen admin costs are 14-18% and malpractice/legal stuff is 10%. It's obvious to me that 1/4 of our ~$7000 per capita/year of spending on health would be only $5250 just based on lower those alone.

I agree the current plan doesn't address those costs as well as it should. The biggest problem involves the complexity of operation and the conflicts of interest within the system present.

Quote :

"^ Blah, blah, blah--meaningless. Anecdotes can be evidence, period."

No they can't only within the context of what actually happens. They do nothing but invoke emotion and try to sway people by the heart.

For example, show people a airline accident with blown apart and charred bodies and they will be afraid to fly even though flying commercial is much, much safer.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 2:44 PM. Reason : a]

8/26/2009 2:40:05 PM

^ Sweet Jesus. Some of you are simply tiring.

anecdotal:

Quote :

"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal

Quote :

"Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony could be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Law

8/26/2009 3:11:54 PM

^^ I went through and read that article. He makes some interesting points but fails to cite why any of these countries are more efficient than we are.

I find it a bit laughable that he refers to our system as "free enterprise -- private-sector -- for-profit" when government interference in the market makes it hardly such. One of the reasons Germans can pick from over 200 different health care plans is because they don't have to meet the insurance regulatory standards of 50 different states.

His argument that cost controls do not stifle inflation also ignore the fact that, in a global market, the costs of development can be passed on to nations where there aren't cost controls. Effectively, then, the US consumer subsidies French health care innovation.

Still, there is a lot to be learned from other nation's experiments. It'd be nice if we took the time to do that before throwing legislation out there for the sake of legislating.

8/26/2009 3:45:20 PM

the parts of these bills that are being proposed weren't conceived in the past six months. congressmen and other groups have been working on this issue for decades.

8/26/2009 4:13:31 PM

^^^

Personal observation is flawed there are many studies outling this and the witnesses are rarely experts. If you read accident reports for parachuting or aviation in general you can see this. Reports of parachute not opening are common even though they only account for <1% of all incidents. Data is all that matters I've seen people die driving but making a blanket statement that driving is dangerous without context to how many people die driving is moronic. It is traumatic and like I said it presents an emotional case and most people are weak emotional beings.

^^

The article is a very brief summary of an entire book. He also was on Fresh Air on NPR 2 days ago (Monday the 24th).

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ^]

8/26/2009 4:15:09 PM

Graduate students working towards a degree in Liberal Studies have regressed latent homosexual tendencies that manifest as agression and anger on the internet. They are also hebephiles and ephebophiles. They also engage in sex games involving dressing up like the Lone Ranger whilst making their girlfriend/fiance/wife dress up like Silver.

8/26/2009 4:34:09 PM

^^ I downloaded that episode, I'll be listening to it later.

8/26/2009 4:58:39 PM

^^^^ really? Then why does it take 1000 pages to iron out what has already been "worked out?" Give me a break

8/26/2009 7:02:52 PM

i didn't say the issues had been worked out. don't use quotations unless you're actually quoting me. i said it had been worked on for decades. i was responding to the implication that congress was rushing the legislation. i was saying that these proposals aren't exactly new. in that many of them have been worked on for decades and they are not new ideas to anyone familiar with the healthcare reform debate (ie hopefully many congressmen or people in their staffs)

8/26/2009 7:09:20 PM

come on. just because people have been "talking about it for decades" doesn't mean that this legislation isn't being rushed.

8/26/2009 7:16:11 PM

ok. i don't agree with you, but that's an honest opinion. but you don't have to misrepresent me. and you still haven't corrected your post. but you don't care about truth in your arguments.

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 7:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2009 7:17:28 PM