Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let Consumers Sue Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–279 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#271

Post by somecontext »

will_brown wrote: post #210
lotsofpulp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you believe the people of Florida rewarded the chief of HCA for defrauding the taxpayers of America, by electing him to be their governor!

I live in Florida, so I am all to familiar with the Lex Luther looking SOB. But it's fitting for a state that prescribes 10x more oxycodone pills than all other states combined and whose largest industry is Medicare fraud.

For some context if anyone is curious: to my incredible surprise, the claims in this comment are not obviously made in exaggeration. In particular, many news articles quote the "10 times" claim, eg http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134143813/the-oxy-express-flor... -- perhaps originating in a claim made by US Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer: "According to recent estimates, Florida prescribes ten times more oxycodone pills than all other states combined." https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/fls/PressReleases/2011/...

The claim however does not seem to be true, even in 2010 before Florida took a variety of opioid-related actions. For example, California has approximately twice the population of Florida, but probably no(t much) less than half the oxycodone prescription rate. It was hard to find specific numbers, but for example it appears that at its worst (in 2010) some people claim Florida prescribed 650 million pills per year; at the same time, Pennsylvania definitely prescribed over 200 million pills per year. (Pennsylvania has approximately half the population of Florida.)

The closest approximation to the claim that I can find that might have been true is "in 2010, Florida prescribed ten times fewer oxycodone pills than all other states combined". If the factor of ten is exact, then this would still imply that Florida's prescription rate is higher than the other states, as Florida has less than one-tenth of the population of the other states. In any case, it appears that Florida's prescription rate is now around or below the national average.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#272

Post by mirimir »

will_brown wrote: post #263
mirimir wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But the intention is to protect the Medicare and Medicaid programs. And hey, IANAL.

Of course the intent of these laws are to protect Medicare, but you didn't articulate how Medicare was harmed in my real life example. Whether or not the Pharmacy put extra gifts in with the Rx delivery Medicare was not effected. Moreover, the gift has no bearing on Medicare, patients, physicians or reimbursements. To highlight the distinction, say a Dr. prescribed a drug to be filled at the pharmacy, and the patient…

Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#273

Post by jopsen »

forapurpose wrote: post #249
jopsen wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was certainly an interesting argument :) I suspect that the thinking is that it's efficient in the sense that you don't have the wrong regulation. ie. in the sense that wrong regulation is extremely expensive. And if people was always employing an optimal strategy, then litigation would rarely be needed as the outcome would be predictable. But I guess people aren't optimal :)

> it's efficient in the sense that you don't have the wrong regulation. ie. in the sense that wrong regulation is extremely expensive. How efficient is it to regulate the behavior on a case-by-case basis, taking years and often millions of dollars for each case, and with all the unpredictable outcomes of a lawsuit? Maybe one ruling by an expert regulator rather than many by inexpert judges and juries isn't such a bad…

Note: I'm not arguing that litigation is better :)

Just saying, that's how it's rationalized...

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#274

Post by rayiner »

stult wrote: post #268
vturner wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting response with lots of "You ..." in there. I'm also a conservative minded person (leaning more libertarian) and thought I would add a response. First off, the conservative/libertarian discourse is not "childish" or "uninformed." Libertarian thought has been in development for centuries beginning with classical liberalism. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History ] Second, the commentor clearl…

>First off, the conservative/libertarian discourse is not "childish" or "uninformed." Libertarian thought has been in development for centuries beginning with classical liberalism. The length of time that a school of philosophy has been around does not relate whatsoever to how people talk about it today. See, e.g., flat earthers. >Third, apparently you are not very familiar with environmental regulation. I used to pr…

I will add to your thorough rebuttal the fact that all of this manifests in very concrete ways. I live on a river that flows into the Chesapeake Bay. TDMLs are not some abstract concept--they directly affect the muddiness of the river my family swims in. TDMLs go up and that saves the surrounding farms a lot of money on land management. But I'm directly and negatively affected by way of a muddier river, and receive no compensation for that. That is the negative externality both liberals and libertarians recognized needs to be eliminated.

Nor is it an issue that can be addressed at a state level. The Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia. Water flows to the ocean. The mining industry in West Virginia and the farming industry in Pennsylvania dump pollutants into waterways that affect the tourism industry on the Eastern Shore. The former have every incentive to maximize the externalities they can dump on the latter; the latter has no ability to control how much pollutants are dumped into waterways by the former.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#275

Post by forapurpose »

jopsen wrote: post #273
forapurpose wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's efficient in the sense that you don't have the wrong regulation. ie. in the sense that wrong regulation is extremely expensive. How efficient is it to regulate the behavior on a case-by-case basis, taking years and often millions of dollars for each case, and with all the unpredictable outcomes of a lawsuit? Maybe one ruling by an expert regulator rather than many by inexpert judges and juries isn't such a bad…

Note: I'm not arguing that litigation is better :) Just saying, that's how it's rationalized...

Yeah, I got that. Sorry if my comment looked like it was arguing with you rather than with the theorists.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#276

Post by necessity »

david-cako wrote: post #215
thejerz wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the power not to enter into the agreement. No one is forcing you to download a song from iTunes or open an account at Wells Fargo. If you don't like the terms, don't enter into the agreement.

Your suggestion is effectively a suggestion that anyone who wants to not implicitly agree to such terms simply doesn't participate in the developed world. This makes zero sense. It's on par with saying "dude just turn off javascript". Is the answer to political corruption buying a boat and taking refuge in the pacific ocean, or is actually correcting the problem?

>This makes zero sense. It's on par with saying "dude just turn off javascript".

That's what you actually should do, I use NoScript and it's perfectly fine. Stop bitching and demanding people force others into the things YOU want.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#277

Post by david-cako »

necessity wrote: post #276
david-cako wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your suggestion is effectively a suggestion that anyone who wants to not implicitly agree to such terms simply doesn't participate in the developed world. This makes zero sense. It's on par with saying "dude just turn off javascript". Is the answer to political corruption buying a boat and taking refuge in the pacific ocean, or is actually correcting the problem?

>This makes zero sense. It's on par with saying "dude just turn off javascript". That's what you actually should do, I use NoScript and it's perfectly fine. Stop bitching and demanding people force others into the things YOU want.

What things do you think I want? Do you think I roll out of bed looking forward to using obfuscated javascript on every site I visit?

at least 5-10% of websites shit the bed on me with uBlock turned on. can't imagine what noscript is like.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#278

Post by baddox »

mikeash wrote: post #270
baddox wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone uses the "signing yourself into slavery" example, but it's not clear what that means. If you consent to it, then it's not slavery (you can make arguments about "wage slavery," but I think that's a different issue). If you sign a contract to perform labor for some period of time, then change your mind later, the contract likely has some terms for breaking the contract early, and if it doesn't, it's probably n…

Not being allowed to quit is pretty much the defining aspect of slavery.

A pretty fundamental part of any contract is the cost to a party if they wish to terminate the contract.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#279

Post by luciditywaver »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #169
will_brown wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also has Qui Tam lawsuits, meaning on behalf of the king , one of the more well known versions are whistleblower cases. Though the whistleblower only receives a rather small percent (10% is common, but varies), these lawsuits are some of the largest judgments in history, in particular as related to illegal kickbacks in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. The common facts are the business is engaging…

Non-AMP second link: https://www.qui-tam-attorney.com/amp/10-largest-qui-tam-whis...

Thank you!
Post reply on HN