Your own link [1] says "Ob/Gyn about $30,000- $35,000". The OP said "an Ob's ins CAN COST 71k a year" [emphasis mine] so doesn't sound 'flat out wrong' to me.
Next - could you explain why you are bringing in malpractice CLAIMS data in a conversation about PREMIUMS?
Here is the best argument in favor of the change:
>> if the rule had kicked in, some two-thirds of borrowers wouldn't qualify for a payday loan
If the above is true (and not fake news), I would like to understand how the industry was expected to survive with 2/3rd of its customer base taken away in an instant; and what alternative services these customers would have been routed to...
Yep, it doesn't go far enough - even if all countries did everything in the accord we wouldn't change anything.
If this was a business setting, a proposal like this would be laughed out of existence. Somehow, when it is a Dem/progressive policy people still take it seriously.
A couple of thoughts come to mind when I read this paragraph:
1. If there is meat in her story, I am sure there are multiple lawyers who will be willing to work for a share of the settlement - i.e. she never pays out of pocket.
2. It seems we have a society where the "plaintiff" is wronged bad enough to go to court, but is wronged enough to complain about it and have society decide and punish on her behalf! Even when society doesn't know enough about the case.
This reminds me of the doctor who shot that lion in africa... society punished him really really bad - he lost patients, lost ability to work, and what not. Later, it turned out he had done everything by the book, and is not slated to be punished/held accountable either in US or zimbabwe. Same thing here... idiots on the internet feel they KNOW uber is wrong, and they are willing to punish the company by #deleteuber, and willing to go on a downvote spree towards people like me on online forums.
What happens if 6 months later it turns out Susan was lying? Will all of you come back to upvote me?
Point taken. That's why I am here to sort of point out a counter argument to DHH. He seems to be calling for consumer activism without making a serious case (at least for me) so as to WHY.
There have been allegations of misconduct, fine. Latest there is a sexual harassment claim... Those are VERY attractive to certain class of lawyers. Why not let law take its course? Why do WE, who know nothing of what happened, have to PRE-JUDGE and punish the company upfront?
Because that's what shares represent. I 'give you money' to try to add wealth to the economy. If you do anything illegal, you burn. Not me.
Economics and law 101
Edit - just want to clarify - if the company execs do something ILLEGAL, they should go to jail. Shareholders WILL get punished beause shares will get a hit. But how is it fair to start punishing the company overall with consumer activism just because there are allegations of misconduct?