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

U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 249 posts

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#231

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

sampo wrote: post #228
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...what? You think a society where some votes count more than others is better? That seems to only be possible if you presume that you/people-who-think-like-you-do would be the ones with more votes.

> You think a society where some votes count more than others is better? 2.5% of voting age Americans cannot vote, because of felony sentences. In some states (Florida) it can be as high as 10% of the population. Is some states (e.g. Florida, Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi) over 25% of voting age black male population cannot vote. In most European countries, also felons and prisoners are allowed to vote.

I don't understand the relevance. That's also bad.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#232

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

snowwrestler wrote: post #226
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It would do the most harm to interests that pool resources from large groups of regular folks, like unions or environmental groups. It harms oil lobbyists and big ag and tobacco and all those industries in exactly the same way it's going to hurt the Sierra Club. I'd still call that a win for the little guy. >That would bias the process in favor of rich people who can afford to spend a week hanging out in DC meeting…

> It harms oil lobbyists and big ag and tobacco and all those industries in exactly the same way it's going to hurt the Sierra Club. It would not, because under your rules an industry executive could draw a salary while talking to government officials because they would be pursuing their own self-interest in doing so. But a Sierra Club employee could not because the sole purpose of the Sierra Club is to represent the…

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

>A rule that prohibits a person from getting paid to represent other people

That's not the rule. The rule is you can't get paid to lobby. An executive drawing a salary when his job is primarily talking to congress people is obviously lobbying. To put a finer point on it you're making a distinction between (1) a corporate executive who receives compensation from his corporation speaking to a congress person because it is in his personal interest to advance the interests of his corporation and (2) a Sierra Club executive who receives compensation from the Sierra Club speaking to a congress person because it is in his personal interest to advance the interests of the Sierra Club. They're the same thing, if one is affected so is the other.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#233

Post by ksk »

achandlerwhite wrote: post #183
ksk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just because a company can't force arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option. That is not what is claimed. The CPFB banned financial products and services from using arbitration over class action.

This is false. The CFPB rule only prohibited mandatory arbitration. It still allowed for voluntary arbitration if an individual preferred that path in a dispute.

Interesting, can you point to an official document that says that?

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#234

Post by MR4D »

tehwebguy wrote: post #217
refurb wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, just a few years ago, someone would be denied healthcare due to pre-existing conditions and die. This is an open and shut issue if the only thing you're worried about is the end consumer. The gov't, on the other hand, needs to worry about the system including the insurance companies. Changing the rules so that a person can forgo health insurance until they are sick is a sure fire way to start a death spiral…

I’m sure the free market will find a way to provide healthcare without insurance companies, an all-but-required middleman.

Oddly, it already has, only it’s not for humans. Veterinarians are in a market that is considerably more free than doctors are, and insurance is not only not required, but rare by comparison.

Further, while the technology has advanced (eg cancer treatment for your dog), prices are much lower than what humans pay, and in some cases, declining.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#235

Post by zimpenfish »

ifhd wrote: post #213
zimpenfish wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> letting Wall Street destroy the economy without jailtime The 2007-8 crash was somewhat before Obama's time. > giving guns to Mexican cartels Started under Bush. > spying on and threatening journalists Started decades before Obama. > unprecendented exponetial growth in classified documents That needs a citation. > using the IRS as a political wing Unless I'm reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_contro…

> It is extremely difficult to smear a neo-nazi misogynist more than he already does by his own words. I think Assange is a self-serving hypocrite, but calling him that seems pretty extreme.

Well, to be fair, "neo-nazi" is less by his own words and more by the people he pals around with and supports. But "misogynist" is a trivial proof if you look at his Twitter output.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#236

Post by cinquemb »

grellas wrote: post #170

It is entirely superficial to cast this fight as one between good and evil. As much as anything, it was about proper process. Legislative, executive, judicial - those are the three branches under the Constitution that are supposed to check and balance one another. The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by th…

>For those who don't like it, that is fine. The ballot box is open as the prescribed means to effect a change.

Or for others to exploit those whose political protection only can guarantee very little actual security.

Such others who will now be even more emboldened, to levy attacks against those whose last line of defense now lies with words scribbled on a piece of paper… No prescription from the modern day effectively political skinner box needed.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#237

Post by [deleted] »

comex wrote: post #229
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they have to get all of those millions of lawsuits dismissed individually by advancing that argument and failing in even a single of those cases through a novel argument on the part of plaintiff, sympathetic judge, etc could open an avalanche of lawsuits against the firms. It also would force the courts dismissing the lawsuits to grapple with the sheer scale of criminality that the dismissals are being used to…

I mean, the judge is going to respond by sanctioning the attorney(s) for frivolous litigation. If your legal argument (for why the case shouldn't go to arbitration) has been rejected in court, initiating even one more case before the same court with the exact same argument could justifiably be considered a waste of the court's time. Initiate several of them and you're going to be fined; 10,000 and you're probably loo…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#238

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

comex wrote: post #229
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they have to get all of those millions of lawsuits dismissed individually by advancing that argument and failing in even a single of those cases through a novel argument on the part of plaintiff, sympathetic judge, etc could open an avalanche of lawsuits against the firms. It also would force the courts dismissing the lawsuits to grapple with the sheer scale of criminality that the dismissals are being used to…

I mean, the judge is going to respond by sanctioning the attorney(s) for frivolous litigation. If your legal argument (for why the case shouldn't go to arbitration) has been rejected in court, initiating even one more case before the same court with the exact same argument could justifiably be considered a waste of the court's time. Initiate several of them and you're going to be fined; 10,000 and you're probably loo…

Your position is a reasonable one, and it's beyond debating it on the internet to decide which one would be more practical -- it would depend on the situation, how much money you had, and how damaged you thought the system was. People could certainly disagree on their assessment.

I tend to think that wrench throwing is more effective for systemic problems than discussing it. The assembly line is doing damage while you discuss the problem.

That said, I'm also biased here: the lawsuits idea hits two of my pet peeves, in that it also forces debate around the issue of the justice system being chronically understaffed and underfunded.

Filing that volume of lawsuits would effectively DDOS the courts (which is why they're going to hold you in contempt no matter how legal it was), but even doing due process on your contesting of that would likely drown the justice system to the point it forced a national debate over how it was operated.

That's a resonant issue with the arbitration one, since the forced arbitration is a symptom of that deeper funding issue -- we don't invest in efficient civic infrastructure, so corporations built their own.

tl;dr: Two birds, one stone; forcing instead of discussing; debating the underlying issue, not just a symptom.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#239

Post by speedplane »

grellas wrote: post #170

It is entirely superficial to cast this fight as one between good and evil. As much as anything, it was about proper process. Legislative, executive, judicial - those are the three branches under the Constitution that are supposed to check and balance one another. The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by th…

> For those who don't like it, that is fine. The ballot box is open as the prescribed means to effect a change.

Actually, it's not the only way to effect a change. You can also spend millions on lobbying, smarty lawyering, slow but methodical creeping attack on consumer rights to effect change. In the 1940s, when the law was passed, arbitration agreements were not nearly as persuasive as they are today.

The companies enforcing these arbitration agreements aren't playing by the same rules everyone else is, they are changing the rules to their will, and then funding politicians to prevent and reversal.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#240

Post by speedplane »

MR4D wrote: post #234
tehwebguy wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure the free market will find a way to provide healthcare without insurance companies, an all-but-required middleman.

Oddly, it already has, only it’s not for humans. Veterinarians are in a market that is considerably more free than doctors are, and insurance is not only not required, but rare by comparison. Further, while the technology has advanced (eg cancer treatment for your dog), prices are much lower than what humans pay, and in some cases, declining.

The human health insurance market is quite different than the veterinary market, for some very obvious reasons.

Namely: - Inelasticity: economic terms, human healthcare is extremely inelastic, you'll spend everything you have to save your own life. Not so much with a pet. - Poor information: Because of so many middlemen, there is very little information for human healthcare, you rarely know how much something will cost before you owe it. - Non-Fungible: doctors are not a commodity that you can trade out like cereal. There are human relationships involved, that make it difficult to compare apples to apples.

These are all factors that human healthcare lacks that are generally necessary to make for an efficient market.

Post reply on HN