Because things cost less in a poorer country does not mean that the dollar is worth more than it is in the United States. If in the foreign country, the average wage is $10/day, then sure $10 USD buys a lot, but it is not because the dollar is worth more. Even in the United States, things cost more in Manhattan then they do in Lenexa, Kansas. That doesn't mean the dollar is worth more in Lenexa, it still only purchases $1 worth of goods for every $1 bill. The average wages in Manhattan are also a lot higher than in Lenexa, so the average person has the same purchasing power.
Now, when you talked about travelling to a poorer country, the average wages are not equivalent so the person coming from the United States can purchase more than the person from the local region. However, if they took their USD and ordered something online from Amazon.com, it is still only going to purchase the same amount as if they were in the US. The value of the dollar hasn't changed.
The same $40 goes a lot farther in other parts of the world or represents a much larger proportion of total income or disposable income.
That may be, but only if you are going to a poorer country or one with a lower standard of living. If you are traveling from the US to London or most of Western Europe, the same items you buy at home, say a Big Mac, will cost you more. Currency exchange rates take into account the local standard of living and value of local currency.
To be fair, 40 USD in Estonia are not 40 USD in the US (or in Sweden, for that matter). The GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity of Estonia is less than half of that of the US. A Big Mac is about 2.70 USD in Estonia, compared to 3.70 USD in the US.
Still, your point stands.
40USD is 40USD no matter where you are. What things are priced at is a totally different situation, but the value of the currency doesn't change. If I am in the Middle East, I can purchase gas a lot cheaper than in the US, using US currency. That doesn't mean that a dollar is worth more in the Middle East. It means gas costs less.
If I am in Missouri and a gallon of milk costs $2.65 and then I go to Alaska and the gallon of milk is $4.85, the value of my dollar hasn't changed. The price of milk has.
Likewise, the price of a Big Mac in Estonia is 2.70 and 3.70 in the US (although it is only $2.95 here in the heartland). McDonalds will sell a Big Mac for whatever people will pay for it. In Estonia, evidently it isn't more than $2.70.
But again, 40USD is 40USD no matter where you are. Supply and demand determine local prices.
According to the submitted letter in article (and I haven't got a Verizon phone, so I cannot check) they say they have location services turned off *by default* on all their phones. Also according to the submitted letter if you turn on location services (all three types) you get warnings regarding "the application will know where you are and share with, etc.".
So you have:
1) Sticker on the front saying what location services does.
2) Location services turned off by default.
3) Warning when you turn location services on.
After all that people complain about "Verizon isn't taking my privacy seriously!"? I don't know about the rest of the services, but come on, that's a lot of warnings a user needs to go through. I'd say they've done their due diligence.
Note I'm just talking about location services here, if Verizon is ignoring your privacy elsewhere, that is another thread.
Of course you cannot use most of the features of your phone with location services turned off. No gps, no weather services, etc. You also are still being tracked, as an individual, by the cell towers and if you use messaging, by their gateway. Now obviously, the towers need to track you because they need to know things for billing purposes or even routing calls to and from your phone. That is reasonable.
However, Verizion and AT&T (and Apple, even) also track where you are as in what stores you are in or other places of interest. Then they offer this information to vendors (they sell it). Ever wonder why the pop up adds on your phone tend to be about things you are interested in (other than the porn ones, of course)?
Just as there is the capability to hide your identity when surfing the web from your home computer, there is the capability to do so from your phone. Yes the cell company needs to know where your phone is to route calls and billing. They don't need to know where you are or track you for using a GPS. I'm pretty sure Garmin isn't doing that. And they definitely do not need to know that you tend to surf such and such web sites or play such and such games while at starbucks every morning at 7:45. They don't need to know that, nor should they be allowed to sell that information without your consent.
Until they take steps to rectify the real privacy issues, they are not taking privacy seriously.
There is a very strong slippery slope here - indeed, you point it out yourself when you mention fed-enforced school desegregation as one example of this approach. Powers thus taken are rarely if ever given back. So you end up just slowly dismantling the federation, and replacing it with a single unitarian "what's best for all" state.
I think it hinges on whether you consider the right to healthcare to be a fundamental human right, on par with e.g. freedom of speech. As for myself, I don't - I think that it's a grant that, while perfectly reasonable and necessary for a stable modern society, does not rise to the level where it absolutely must be protected at all costs. Given the strong controversy on the issue - which you yourself point out - I think it's a reasonable approach. Perhaps things will change in the future, and enough people consider it a basic right that there can be a constitutional amendment granting the Feds power to properly implement it. As it is, it feels like a very slim majority is forcing their will on that matter over a big and unhappy minority; in fact, the margin is thin enough that we may well see it all thrown out in a few electoral cycles, once the pendulum swings away from Dems again.
This is an interesting topic. I agree with the slippery slope. I would go so far as to say that it is quite a steep slope and therefore things slide quickly down it. However, the problem is not that the federal government steps in, but what they do when the do step in. Most people now agree that segregation was wrong and it just wasn't getting rectified by the local electorate. To protect and defend the rights of those where being denied equal access, the federal government stepped in. If they had not, who would have? Now, one can argue with whether they went too far or the solution was correct or whatever, but that is a different discussion from whether the government should step in or not.
With regards to access to healthcare, that is a moral argument and one that people can debate for ever. Again, it wasn't too long ago that private doctors and hospitals could pick and choose who they would treat. That is why there are now so many public/county/state hospitals. So, somewhere along the way, it was determined that it was for the common good of society to provide access to healthcare for everybody.
Access to healthcare is not the same thing as free healthcare. As a right (whether it is one or not) it simply means that regardless of race, creed, gender, economic status, etc. one should not be denied health care, at least for life threatening situations.
The federal healthcare plan is an attempt to secure this. But, just like with desegregation, how it is secured is very much open for debate. Prior to the legislation, both major parties, Republicans and Democrats agreed that the current system was broken and something should be done (people tend to forget that the roots of Obama's plan actually started with the Bush Administration). Both parties agree that the system is broken, but disagree on how to fix it.
Ultimately, I think the federal plan or any other one, other than a single payer system will fail. Why? Because they all overlook the profit motive of not just insurers but health care providers. We actually have a lot of experience with single payer plans. We have Medicare, we have the military insurance that veterans and their families receive. We even have congress's own health care plan. All single payer plans. If it is good enough for the elderly and our soldiers to be on single payer plans, why not the rest of America? Or put differently, if single payer plans are so bad as many would want us to beleive, then why do we force them on the elderaly and military?
A big part of this is the failed HMO/PPO experiment. They were supposed to hold down health care costs, which they did, but those savings were never passed on to consumers. Instead they were paid out as bonuses and dividends. In otherwords, it created a
Sorry about the snark, but this is the internet after all. And no amount of tortured logic can overcome the fact that both in reality and by legal requirement you cannot buy or sell health insurance across state lines. Buying and selling shares in a company or reinsurance of liabilities are not the same thing as buying and selling health insurance.
When you get a mortgage from the local bank and it is sold to Citigroup in New York, you are only making payments locally, but your loan is now through another state (unless you live in New York). When Aetna or AIG or some other insurance company underwrites your local insurance is that not selling insurance across state lines? Blue Cross, Healthlink, or whomever only cover a portion of your insurance. The rest is underwritten to cover the majority of it. In short the insurance companies buy insurance to hedge their bet on your health.
That is not how it always occurred. In the past, insurance companies were wholly contained in the state they operated in. In today's global economy, that is not the case. Yes, they are local corporations, but they could not exist in many parts of the country without being able to cross state lines to get their own reinsurance.
The ban on selling insurance across state lines is only to the end consumer. There are also numerous banking regulations about crossing state lines. However, these don't apply to banks working with each other, again, only the consumer.
This is far different than buying shares in a company, which entitle you to a share in profits/losses/assets etc. This is germane as to how the entire industry works. Health insurance is sold across state lines all of the time. It is just not sold to the end consumer that way. What most consumers think of as their insurance company is not. It is simply the network of health care providers they can use. The insurance is on the back end of that.
Since you bring up the the internet, think of it as ordering a part from your local Sears. It is filled, however from a warehouse in LA, which actually gets the part from China. Is there no interstate commerce going on there? Of course there is. Then why is it not interstate commerce for you to order insurance from your local company but it is filled by someone else who is not local?
why not do something that disables the ability to track the individual customer. A stupid sticker doesn't seem that their concern is that great.
Well, the reality is that your phone has to register with various cell sites. Otherwise, how does the system know what tower to use when you receive a call? And, dare I say it, some people actually like the convenience of being able to use a Navigation system and be able to say, "I want to go to this address" and not have to put in their present address.
The problem is that most people don't actually understand this. "The phone knows where I am." It's not the phone, necessarily, it's the whole phone network. You've undoubtedly heard of the various criminals who said, "I was nowhere near the murder scene" when, in fact, cell tower records show them making a call from there. So I think a warning label is reasonable--the nature of the system is such that it can figure out where you are.
If you don't like it, here's a crazy idea: TURN OFF YOUR CELLPHONE. Only turn it on when you need to make a call. When you are done with the call, turn it off.
I know. That's crazy talk.
The issue is not about tracking your phone to receive calls or using a GPS. The problem is tracking what you are doing on your phone, where you are doing it and selling the information to marketing firms and others.
For some reason, using a Garmin as a GPS does not transmit any data about me or what I am doing to Garmin. Why does AT&T or Verizion need to know when I am at Starbucks and how many times a day that may be? Worse yet, why should they be able to sell that information? Same thing for all of those apps on the phone.
Other than billing purposes, why would the cell phone company need to know where I am or what I am doing? Other than billing purposes, why would the cell phone company need to know how I was using my phone (voice or data). And even for billing purposes, why would they need to know anything more than whether it was voice or data and for how long (but not who or what)?
As or turning off the phone to keep the cell phone from tracking you and what your are doing, that is fine, unless you actually use your cell phone to receive calls.
Put it this way, before smart phones, when phones were "dumb," this kind of tracking data wasn't available, and yet, the cell phone companies functioned quite well. Of course, contracts were more expensive then. Probably because they weren't profiting by selling your personal information. What would happen if your bank started selling information on where you wrote checks or used your debit card? Would your response be to not write checks or use the debit card?
It is a federal matter because with regards to healthcare, all people should have the same access, regardless of which state you live in.
Why?
Note that you're veering close to saying that people in some states, effectively, cannot be trusted to set standards for themselves (using their own democratic process), and therefore should be forced to conform to some baseline from above, for their own good.
I have no problem stating that people in some states cannot be trusted to set standards for themselves. School segregation is a prime example of how well that process works. If access to health care is a basic human right, is it best to leave it up to the will of the people without any checks and balances? Right now, we live in a time where the public is very frustrated over public funding of things like medicare and medicaid, programs which are used mainly by the poor and elderly. The same groups that garner very little political support on the state and local level.
Do I think that leaving it all on the state level could work, yes. Do I think it would work, no (look at the whole creationism vs evolution stuff going on in the education system in some states).
Do I think starting on the federal level with basic human rights is ideal, no. I do, however, think it is a necessary evil. If this was the 1940s or 50s when people tended to care for those in the community, I might answer differently. But today, when the general attitude is "what's in it for me," the less fortunate lose every time.
The shit we get ourselves riled up about is downright depressing.
I'll note that prior to cell phones, every time you used your phone, the telco already had location info on you - the service address!
They could not, however, tie it to you. Yes, if you used the phone at home. But what about the pay phone at the local 7-Eleven? How did the telco have location info on "you" from there?
The linked to letter states that "Protecting our customers privacy is our primary concern" or something to that effect. If that were true, then why not do something that disables the ability to track the individual customer. A stupid sticker doesn't seem that their concern is that great.
Verizon is the second largest cell phone company in the US. They should be able to have some clout with what the phones do and don't do and what the applications do and don't do.
I'd switch in a minute if Verizon started offering phones that actually protected my privacy. I imagine millions of others would, too.
. But if you use the service provided (roads) with that car, you must have the insurance. Likewise, nobody has to use healthcare (many undocumented workers in the US do not use healthcare as do many in the Appalachians). But most people, at some point, do use the healthcare system.
Are you saying that it's okay if I don't get insurance, and then never set my foot into a hospital?
That is what the people fighting the mandatory health care are saying. However, even if that is your intention, to never use medical care, by law that hospital is required to treat you. So unless the law is changed and those who can't pay don't get treated, which nobody wants to happen, the likelihood that at some point in your adult life, you will use healthcare is such a high probability that it is almost 100% going to occur (if nothing else when you are dying).
it is the federal government that mandates that hospitals must treat everyone, whether they can pay or not.
Well, maybe that's the problem.
Again, to clarify: I don't have anything against the idea itself (in fact, I would be horrified at the thought that health care could be denied). But why is it a federal matter? Let the states enact such laws, and create healthcare systems to support them. "Liberal" states can perfectly well mandate that for themselves, and the rest, well - in a democracy, what you get is what you asked for.
It is a federal matter because with regards to healthcare, all people should have the same access, regardless of which state you live in. There is nothing keeping a state from providing more care, like MA did when they pushed through their own health care bill. The federal law is the minimum standard. This is similar to the federal government setting standards for automobiles, like the steering is on the left, it has to survive an impact of x mph, etc. These are minimum standards, too. Some states, mainly CA, have expanded on those standards for cars sold in their state. But it doesn't change the fact that the federal government set the minimal standard.
Even without Raich, healthcare falls under interstate commerce, unless you are paying your bills out of pocket without insurance or subsidy. Since nobody does that, they either use insurance, for which the underwriters cross state lines or government subsidy, which being a government service falls under the commerce clause.
Buying and selling insurance across state lines is illegal. There is no interstate market for health insurance - by law.
That is only true for sales directly to consumers. The reinsurers sell across state lines all the time, just not directly to the end consumer. If that were not the case, then people in sparsely populated states would not be able to get insurance at all. Very often, what people call the insurance company (say Healthlink) are really just the healthcare network. Somebody else is actually doing the insuring.
On top of that, there is a very good chance that if you are insured in say, New York and you travel to California and get sick, your insurance company is going to pay, even though it is across state lines.
So, yes, Blue Cross of New York cannot sell directly to people in Maryland. However, Blue Cross of Maryland can sell to those people. And since Blue Cross of New York and Maryland and all the other states are owned by the same Blue Cross parent company, they effectively sell across state lines while abiding by the restriction.
So instead of subsidizing the uninsured via your premiums, you subsidize them via your taxes - and remove any incentive to actually get health insurance, cause if they don't the government will get it for them?
Obviously, the current system in the US, has no incentive to have people actually get health insurance, because somebody else will pay the bill for you if you don't. It's not the government who pays the bill, it is all the people who do have health insurance that pay the bill. Making people get private health insurance doesn't remove any incentive, because there isn't one now. Making people get private health insurance doesn't cause the government to spend money on them either. Making people get private health insurance only makes them be responsible for their own health care expenditures. If they were already responsible, they would have the insurance.
So in short, instead of subsidizing the uninsured via my premiums, they pay for their care directly. Those who are truly poor and cannot afford insurance are the same ones who can't afford to pay for medical care and, yes the government will cover them, just like it does now. Is that not the way it should be with health care? Those who can pay, do pay. Those who can pay and don't are required to pay. Those who truly cannot pay, the rest of us take care of. That way, nobody goes without, but only those who truly are in financial need get the free ride.
Class action lawsuits aren't supposed to compensate customers for companies' wrongdoings, that's impossible to begin with. They are supposed to discourage companies from continuing the practice they were sued for.
But the class action suits in question don't accomplish what you are wanting. The case that brought this was about AT&T charging sales tax on a free phone. Since the consumer had to pay the sales tax, the phone wasn't free. Of course, the suit ignores the fact that it was the State of California that required AT&T to charge the tax and remit it on to the state. Most class action suits fall into categories like this. They are nuisance suits that only the attorneys benefit from.
The ruling does not prohibit class action suits. If a drug company makes a drug that is bad or a product is manufactured that is dangerous, etc. Those types of class action suits can and should still go forward. What it does do, however, is recognize that companies can specify terms of how disputes will be settled in their contracts. Those terms, still have to be lawful (for instance, an employment contract cannot specify that employees cannot sue for discrimination or unsafe work conditions as those rights are under other federal laws).
If AT&T knowingly sold phones that blew up and killed people, they are not protected from a class action suit. On the other hand, if they sell a phone and the battery gives talk time of 3.5 hours instead of 3.6 hours, they are protected (since their contract states how disputes are resolved).
I find it odd that people don't complain about the government saying you must have auto insurance if you want to drive a car, but they do complain if the government says you must have health insurance if you want medical treatment. In either case, if you are uninsured, your actions have an impact on the rest of those who are insured.
You miss the point. You do NOT have to drive. You can take the bus, etc. If you decided you must drive, you are required to get insurance, in case of any accidents. That is a good thing.
With medical stuff, we didn't get a choice to live, we were born. We should be entitle to health care no matter what our financial situation is. Saying you get get health care because you don't have insurance is bullshit. Everyone should be entitled to health care no matter what.
Are you saying that you really have a choice in not choosing health care? If you are hit buy the bus and you don't have insurance who will pay your medical bills if you can't? The rest of us with insurance will. It is pretty much a certainty at some point in your life, you will need medical care.
Everyone is entitle to health care. I am not saying to change that. However, hospitals also have the right to be paid for their services, even if they are non-profit. The mandatory coverage is one way to ensure that everybody does have the right to health care and it is paid for. Other options would be a single payer system, a tax increase or expansion of medicare.
Binding arbitration does not always go in favor of big business.
Not always, but close enough.
It's a stacked game -- the corporations know which arbitrators have ruled for and against them, but an individual has no such knowledge. Those arbitrators who tend to find in favor of consumers tend not to be rehired.
It wouldn't take much to document that and then sue the arbitrator's firm if it could be shown that they always or almost always side with the corporation. A good attorney general would take on a corrupt arbitration system under the guise of fighting for the little guy (but actually for re-election).
I think you will find, however, that even court proceedings often go in favor of the corporation. Even class action ones.
Dunno how it works in the US, but here in Australia, the only compulsory insurance is the third party one - that is, you are covered for the damage you deal to other people and their property if you crash into them. Comprehensive cover, which includes damage to yourself and your property, is completely optional.
Health insurance is like the optional comprehensive cover not third party; it covers you, not innocent third parties you harm.
In the US, auto insurance works the same way. The problem with health care is that many people don't have insurance and can't afford to pay their medical bills, so health care providers charge more to those with insurance to make up for the loss. So, mandating health insurance is like mandating auto insurance - it is to protect the other people (ie keeping them from paying extra).
because having a wrecked car and lhaving a degenerative heart disease are completly different.
Since you have this all worked out and have simplistically figured it out, maybe you can tell us why health costs in the US are twice that per capita compared to UK and Canada.
Can you tell me why company A and company B pay $6000 per year/employee to the same medical insurance provider and company A has a $1000 deductible company B has $300 . Company A pays 5 times as much for lab tests. Company B has dental and medical for the same price. Company A doesn't reach full coverage until $125,000 whereas company B employee reaches it at $75,000? I can tell you why, Company B has 8 times as many employees..
The above is a real world example. So where do you think a person working for neither company A or company B, will be? Self employed, what do you think they get? I have never heard of one that paid $6000 per year.
So if they pass a national law that mandates health insurance, How many people do you think will find that there job just became a contract postion?
So which companies are more likely to deny you a procedure?
It's one thing if state farm says they aren't going to replace your alternator with a new one. You can stop and argue with them about that. But what if (Aetna, United Health, Blue Cross....) denies you a bone marrow transplant or a heart transplant. Which companies are doing this and how often? What if it's for your spouse or child? Do you know the insurance providers track record before you go to work for someone? Its so transparent, don't you think you should be able to find that answer. During a congressional hearing a CEO of an insurance company couldn't provide that information.
Auto insurance is not the same as Health Insurance.
Your auto insurance covers a lot more than your wreck car. Basic insurance doesn't even cover your own car. Auto insurance is about protecting the other driver.
However, the fact that the US has the most expensive health care system in the world is not the issue and the health care plan doesn't attempt to fix that. It does attempt to remove from the equation the 20% hidden cost of healthcare that is due to uninsured people who don't can't pay their bills. That cost is passed on to everyone with insurance.
To combat the total problem would require a single payer system like Canada and many companies have. While many on the left would like that, myself included, it was the right that proposed the mandatory health insurance requirement under the Bush adminstration. Obama picked it up as a compromise.
Now, if you have away for hospitals to not pass those unpaid costs on to the rest of us, I'm all ears.
I find it odd that people don't complain about the government saying you must have auto insurance if you want to drive a car, but they do complain if the government says you must have health insurance if you want medical treatment.
While I'm generally in favor of a public health system, this comparison is not really fair. For one thing, you can avoid paying auto insurance by not buying a car, but there's no way to opt out from health insurance under the new system. For another, auto insurance is mandated by the states, not the feds, and they are free to set limits and provide for other arrangements as they see fit (e.g. in Virginia, you can have a security deposit instead).
From that perspective, the argument is perfectly valid: the problem isn't health insurance, or public option. It's that feds think they have the power to force it on the states, specifically via the commerce clause.
It is true that you can opt out of auto insurance by not driving a car (buying one has nothing to do with it). But if you use the service provided (roads) with that car, you must have the insurance. Likewise, nobody has to use healthcare (many undocumented workers in the US do not use healthcare as do many in the Appalachians). But most people, at some point, do use the healthcare system.
The purpose of insurance for autos is to protect the other guy, not yourself (you can buy additional insurance for that, ie collision). The purpose under the new federal plan for everyone to have health insurance is also to protect the other guy. If you are uninsured and can't pay your medical bills, the cost is passed on to those with insurance. Everyone having insurance keeps that from happening.
While it is true that the state mandates auto insurance, it is the federal government that mandates that hospitals must treat everyone, whether they can pay or not. Therefore, why is it a problem that the federal government says that you must be insured to receive that coverage and since you will receive that coverage at some point, you must have insurance.
Of course, the alternative to no mandate or single payer would be just to increase everybody's taxes so that the fed has money to reimburse the hospitals for unpaid medical bills. But nobody wants that solution either. The insurance mandate is more of a pay as you go system, that ensures that you will pay.
Hopefully a few of 'em 'll retire while the Dems are in and Obama'll man up and put some liberals in
Do we even have any real Liberals left anywhere? Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, and their ilk are basically so centrist they're "Republican Lite". Surely I'm not the only left-leaning person who feels unrepresented. As far as that goes, the Republicans don't do a particularly good job at representing conservatives, either.
Actually, since the right has moved so far to the right, today's liberal is yesterday's conservative. A lot of Reagan's proposals would be shot down as liberal sh*t today.
Um, are you aware that Clarence Thomas took office exactly ten years before Bush's inauguration? How exactly can he be blamed for Thomas' behavior? Furthermore, Bush nominated just two of the nine current justices. I understand that the balance of power in the court is always tenuous and that he nominated very conservative people, but 2 of 9 is hardly stacking the place.
You're also missing the point with your avowed hope that Obama'll "man up" and appoint some liberals. He won't appoint liberals, he'll appoint Democrats. Democrats are slightly better than Republicans, but they both suck. I'd much rather have nine generally conservative independents (and I mean true independents, not guys who are independent because they think George Will and the Constiution party are too gosh durned liberal) than any number of Democrats.
Now you really shouldn't taunt those who can't think for themselves with facts. It only makes them angry and yell louder.
The only reason those suits are ridiculous are because the corporations have come to expect that they can get away with screwing all their customers by a little bit. This just makes it so they will always get away with it. Basically, we're fucked.
Let's say that your phone carrier charges you a little extra one time, and pay it not knowing the bill was willfully misrepresented. You call the company and ask for a credit of the $2 you lost, and they say there was no overcharge, or they just say no. What are you going to do? Take them to court? Who will represent you over a matter of $2? What if it comes to light that your phone company did this to every one of their customers, amounting to tens of millions of dollars stolen? Well, now, no one can do anything about it.
Oh wait, you can stop doing business with that company, only you will have to pull out of your contract and deal with a $350 termination fee and a credit hit if you refuse to pay. At least you'll be sticking it to them. Good thing the market will sort these things out.
Except it turns out that there are only a few phone carriers and every other one does the same thing on an occasional basis already, so much so that it's just an industry standard as a way to pad profits before those quarterly reports go out. Too bad, so sad, sucks to be you, you sorry loser.
So you are preferring the system where you as a consumer will receive a pittance in a class action suit and some attorneys will receive millions? That is fair how? You as a consumer have just as many rights as you did before this ruling. You can still sue. What it does do, is give the corporation to settle those suits before they turn into a class action suit in which most cases nobody but the attorneys win.
I'm slightly torn on this. On the one side, this means that there won't be ridiculous class action settlements where the class members get a $5 coupon towards future purchases while the lawyers get millions of dollars. On the other side, it effectively removes the only real consumer protection from wide spread practices.
I'd have to say, I'm leaning more towards it being a bad thing.
Uh, yeah. Class action suits suck, but in some cases they're all you have. This decision says you don't even have that.
Actually, that is not what the decision says. It does say that corporations do have the right to seek binding arbitration, nothing more, nothing less. Consumers can still file class action suits. It just means that corporations can opt for arbitration instead.
McDonalds requires every employee to sign away class action rights -- boom, they can nick a buck off each employee every day and it will never be worth an individual suit. They can just fire you as the total from you approaches the cost of filing your claim.
Add in Walmart and all the other chain stores and shady dealers. This ruling was NOT limited to consumer cases.
-GiH
(Yes, IAAL)
Since McDonalds, Walmart, etc, were already doing this prior to this ruling, then it probably has no impact on what they are doing.
That's great, but individually, consumers do not generally have the financial clout to take on a massive corporation. Bill Gates might be able to pull it off, but the average Joe who thinks dropping $30,000 on a car is a lot of money, will be outspent before the first day of trial prep is over.
I seem to remember some small guy named Raph Nader who did a real job against the auto companies in the 60s and 70s, anybody remember "Unsafe at Any Speed"?
With today's internet, the average Joe has more power than at any time in history. Look at how the average Joe in Egypt faired recently. All without lawyers or class action suits. The court of public opinion is a much stronger motivator than people give it credit for.
Slashdot Mirror
Because things cost less in a poorer country does not mean that the dollar is worth more than it is in the United States. If in the foreign country, the average wage is $10/day, then sure $10 USD buys a lot, but it is not because the dollar is worth more. Even in the United States, things cost more in Manhattan then they do in Lenexa, Kansas. That doesn't mean the dollar is worth more in Lenexa, it still only purchases $1 worth of goods for every $1 bill. The average wages in Manhattan are also a lot higher than in Lenexa, so the average person has the same purchasing power.
Now, when you talked about travelling to a poorer country, the average wages are not equivalent so the person coming from the United States can purchase more than the person from the local region. However, if they took their USD and ordered something online from Amazon.com, it is still only going to purchase the same amount as if they were in the US. The value of the dollar hasn't changed.
The same $40 goes a lot farther in other parts of the world or represents a much larger proportion of total income or disposable income.
That may be, but only if you are going to a poorer country or one with a lower standard of living. If you are traveling from the US to London or most of Western Europe, the same items you buy at home, say a Big Mac, will cost you more. Currency exchange rates take into account the local standard of living and value of local currency.
To be fair, 40 USD in Estonia are not 40 USD in the US (or in Sweden, for that matter). The GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity of Estonia is less than half of that of the US. A Big Mac is about 2.70 USD in Estonia, compared to 3.70 USD in the US.
Still, your point stands.
40USD is 40USD no matter where you are. What things are priced at is a totally different situation, but the value of the currency doesn't change. If I am in the Middle East, I can purchase gas a lot cheaper than in the US, using US currency. That doesn't mean that a dollar is worth more in the Middle East. It means gas costs less.
If I am in Missouri and a gallon of milk costs $2.65 and then I go to Alaska and the gallon of milk is $4.85, the value of my dollar hasn't changed. The price of milk has.
Likewise, the price of a Big Mac in Estonia is 2.70 and 3.70 in the US (although it is only $2.95 here in the heartland). McDonalds will sell a Big Mac for whatever people will pay for it. In Estonia, evidently it isn't more than $2.70.
But again, 40USD is 40USD no matter where you are. Supply and demand determine local prices.
According to the submitted letter in article (and I haven't got a Verizon phone, so I cannot check) they say they have location services turned off *by default* on all their phones. Also according to the submitted letter if you turn on location services (all three types) you get warnings regarding "the application will know where you are and share with, etc.".
So you have:
1) Sticker on the front saying what location services does.
2) Location services turned off by default.
3) Warning when you turn location services on.
After all that people complain about "Verizon isn't taking my privacy seriously!"? I don't know about the rest of the services, but come on, that's a lot of warnings a user needs to go through. I'd say they've done their due diligence.
Note I'm just talking about location services here, if Verizon is ignoring your privacy elsewhere, that is another thread.
Of course you cannot use most of the features of your phone with location services turned off. No gps, no weather services, etc. You also are still being tracked, as an individual, by the cell towers and if you use messaging, by their gateway. Now obviously, the towers need to track you because they need to know things for billing purposes or even routing calls to and from your phone. That is reasonable.
However, Verizion and AT&T (and Apple, even) also track where you are as in what stores you are in or other places of interest. Then they offer this information to vendors (they sell it). Ever wonder why the pop up adds on your phone tend to be about things you are interested in (other than the porn ones, of course)?
Just as there is the capability to hide your identity when surfing the web from your home computer, there is the capability to do so from your phone. Yes the cell company needs to know where your phone is to route calls and billing. They don't need to know where you are or track you for using a GPS. I'm pretty sure Garmin isn't doing that. And they definitely do not need to know that you tend to surf such and such web sites or play such and such games while at starbucks every morning at 7:45. They don't need to know that, nor should they be allowed to sell that information without your consent.
Until they take steps to rectify the real privacy issues, they are not taking privacy seriously.
There is a very strong slippery slope here - indeed, you point it out yourself when you mention fed-enforced school desegregation as one example of this approach. Powers thus taken are rarely if ever given back. So you end up just slowly dismantling the federation, and replacing it with a single unitarian "what's best for all" state.
I think it hinges on whether you consider the right to healthcare to be a fundamental human right, on par with e.g. freedom of speech. As for myself, I don't - I think that it's a grant that, while perfectly reasonable and necessary for a stable modern society, does not rise to the level where it absolutely must be protected at all costs. Given the strong controversy on the issue - which you yourself point out - I think it's a reasonable approach. Perhaps things will change in the future, and enough people consider it a basic right that there can be a constitutional amendment granting the Feds power to properly implement it. As it is, it feels like a very slim majority is forcing their will on that matter over a big and unhappy minority; in fact, the margin is thin enough that we may well see it all thrown out in a few electoral cycles, once the pendulum swings away from Dems again.
This is an interesting topic. I agree with the slippery slope. I would go so far as to say that it is quite a steep slope and therefore things slide quickly down it. However, the problem is not that the federal government steps in, but what they do when the do step in. Most people now agree that segregation was wrong and it just wasn't getting rectified by the local electorate. To protect and defend the rights of those where being denied equal access, the federal government stepped in. If they had not, who would have? Now, one can argue with whether they went too far or the solution was correct or whatever, but that is a different discussion from whether the government should step in or not.
With regards to access to healthcare, that is a moral argument and one that people can debate for ever. Again, it wasn't too long ago that private doctors and hospitals could pick and choose who they would treat. That is why there are now so many public/county/state hospitals. So, somewhere along the way, it was determined that it was for the common good of society to provide access to healthcare for everybody.
Access to healthcare is not the same thing as free healthcare. As a right (whether it is one or not) it simply means that regardless of race, creed, gender, economic status, etc. one should not be denied health care, at least for life threatening situations.
The federal healthcare plan is an attempt to secure this. But, just like with desegregation, how it is secured is very much open for debate. Prior to the legislation, both major parties, Republicans and Democrats agreed that the current system was broken and something should be done (people tend to forget that the roots of Obama's plan actually started with the Bush Administration). Both parties agree that the system is broken, but disagree on how to fix it.
Ultimately, I think the federal plan or any other one, other than a single payer system will fail. Why? Because they all overlook the profit motive of not just insurers but health care providers. We actually have a lot of experience with single payer plans. We have Medicare, we have the military insurance that veterans and their families receive. We even have congress's own health care plan. All single payer plans. If it is good enough for the elderly and our soldiers to be on single payer plans, why not the rest of America? Or put differently, if single payer plans are so bad as many would want us to beleive, then why do we force them on the elderaly and military?
A big part of this is the failed HMO/PPO experiment. They were supposed to hold down health care costs, which they did, but those savings were never passed on to consumers. Instead they were paid out as bonuses and dividends. In otherwords, it created a
Sorry about the snark, but this is the internet after all. And no amount of tortured logic can overcome the fact that both in reality and by legal requirement you cannot buy or sell health insurance across state lines. Buying and selling shares in a company or reinsurance of liabilities are not the same thing as buying and selling health insurance.
When you get a mortgage from the local bank and it is sold to Citigroup in New York, you are only making payments locally, but your loan is now through another state (unless you live in New York). When Aetna or AIG or some other insurance company underwrites your local insurance is that not selling insurance across state lines? Blue Cross, Healthlink, or whomever only cover a portion of your insurance. The rest is underwritten to cover the majority of it. In short the insurance companies buy insurance to hedge their bet on your health.
That is not how it always occurred. In the past, insurance companies were wholly contained in the state they operated in. In today's global economy, that is not the case. Yes, they are local corporations, but they could not exist in many parts of the country without being able to cross state lines to get their own reinsurance.
The ban on selling insurance across state lines is only to the end consumer. There are also numerous banking regulations about crossing state lines. However, these don't apply to banks working with each other, again, only the consumer.
This is far different than buying shares in a company, which entitle you to a share in profits/losses/assets etc. This is germane as to how the entire industry works. Health insurance is sold across state lines all of the time. It is just not sold to the end consumer that way. What most consumers think of as their insurance company is not. It is simply the network of health care providers they can use. The insurance is on the back end of that.
Since you bring up the the internet, think of it as ordering a part from your local Sears. It is filled, however from a warehouse in LA, which actually gets the part from China. Is there no interstate commerce going on there? Of course there is. Then why is it not interstate commerce for you to order insurance from your local company but it is filled by someone else who is not local?
why not do something that disables the ability to track the individual customer. A stupid sticker doesn't seem that their concern is that great.
Well, the reality is that your phone has to register with various cell sites. Otherwise, how does the system know what tower to use when you receive a call? And, dare I say it, some people actually like the convenience of being able to use a Navigation system and be able to say, "I want to go to this address" and not have to put in their present address.
The problem is that most people don't actually understand this. "The phone knows where I am." It's not the phone, necessarily, it's the whole phone network. You've undoubtedly heard of the various criminals who said, "I was nowhere near the murder scene" when, in fact, cell tower records show them making a call from there. So I think a warning label is reasonable--the nature of the system is such that it can figure out where you are.
If you don't like it, here's a crazy idea: TURN OFF YOUR CELLPHONE. Only turn it on when you need to make a call. When you are done with the call, turn it off.
I know. That's crazy talk.
The issue is not about tracking your phone to receive calls or using a GPS. The problem is tracking what you are doing on your phone, where you are doing it and selling the information to marketing firms and others.
For some reason, using a Garmin as a GPS does not transmit any data about me or what I am doing to Garmin. Why does AT&T or Verizion need to know when I am at Starbucks and how many times a day that may be? Worse yet, why should they be able to sell that information? Same thing for all of those apps on the phone.
Other than billing purposes, why would the cell phone company need to know where I am or what I am doing? Other than billing purposes, why would the cell phone company need to know how I was using my phone (voice or data). And even for billing purposes, why would they need to know anything more than whether it was voice or data and for how long (but not who or what)?
As or turning off the phone to keep the cell phone from tracking you and what your are doing, that is fine, unless you actually use your cell phone to receive calls.
Put it this way, before smart phones, when phones were "dumb," this kind of tracking data wasn't available, and yet, the cell phone companies functioned quite well. Of course, contracts were more expensive then. Probably because they weren't profiting by selling your personal information. What would happen if your bank started selling information on where you wrote checks or used your debit card? Would your response be to not write checks or use the debit card?
It is a federal matter because with regards to healthcare, all people should have the same access, regardless of which state you live in.
Why?
Note that you're veering close to saying that people in some states, effectively, cannot be trusted to set standards for themselves (using their own democratic process), and therefore should be forced to conform to some baseline from above, for their own good.
I have no problem stating that people in some states cannot be trusted to set standards for themselves. School segregation is a prime example of how well that process works. If access to health care is a basic human right, is it best to leave it up to the will of the people without any checks and balances? Right now, we live in a time where the public is very frustrated over public funding of things like medicare and medicaid, programs which are used mainly by the poor and elderly. The same groups that garner very little political support on the state and local level.
Do I think that leaving it all on the state level could work, yes. Do I think it would work, no (look at the whole creationism vs evolution stuff going on in the education system in some states).
Do I think starting on the federal level with basic human rights is ideal, no. I do, however, think it is a necessary evil. If this was the 1940s or 50s when people tended to care for those in the community, I might answer differently. But today, when the general attitude is "what's in it for me," the less fortunate lose every time.
The shit we get ourselves riled up about is downright depressing.
I'll note that prior to cell phones, every time you used your phone, the telco already had location info on you - the service address!
They could not, however, tie it to you. Yes, if you used the phone at home. But what about the pay phone at the local 7-Eleven? How did the telco have location info on "you" from there?
The linked to letter states that "Protecting our customers privacy is our primary concern" or something to that effect. If that were true, then why not do something that disables the ability to track the individual customer. A stupid sticker doesn't seem that their concern is that great.
Verizon is the second largest cell phone company in the US. They should be able to have some clout with what the phones do and don't do and what the applications do and don't do.
I'd switch in a minute if Verizon started offering phones that actually protected my privacy. I imagine millions of others would, too.
. But if you use the service provided (roads) with that car, you must have the insurance. Likewise, nobody has to use healthcare (many undocumented workers in the US do not use healthcare as do many in the Appalachians). But most people, at some point, do use the healthcare system.
Are you saying that it's okay if I don't get insurance, and then never set my foot into a hospital?
That is what the people fighting the mandatory health care are saying. However, even if that is your intention, to never use medical care, by law that hospital is required to treat you. So unless the law is changed and those who can't pay don't get treated, which nobody wants to happen, the likelihood that at some point in your adult life, you will use healthcare is such a high probability that it is almost 100% going to occur (if nothing else when you are dying).
it is the federal government that mandates that hospitals must treat everyone, whether they can pay or not.
Well, maybe that's the problem.
Again, to clarify: I don't have anything against the idea itself (in fact, I would be horrified at the thought that health care could be denied). But why is it a federal matter? Let the states enact such laws, and create healthcare systems to support them. "Liberal" states can perfectly well mandate that for themselves, and the rest, well - in a democracy, what you get is what you asked for.
It is a federal matter because with regards to healthcare, all people should have the same access, regardless of which state you live in. There is nothing keeping a state from providing more care, like MA did when they pushed through their own health care bill. The federal law is the minimum standard. This is similar to the federal government setting standards for automobiles, like the steering is on the left, it has to survive an impact of x mph, etc. These are minimum standards, too. Some states, mainly CA, have expanded on those standards for cars sold in their state. But it doesn't change the fact that the federal government set the minimal standard.
Even without Raich, healthcare falls under interstate commerce, unless you are paying your bills out of pocket without insurance or subsidy. Since nobody does that, they either use insurance, for which the underwriters cross state lines or government subsidy, which being a government service falls under the commerce clause.
Buying and selling insurance across state lines is illegal. There is no interstate market for health insurance - by law.
That is only true for sales directly to consumers. The reinsurers sell across state lines all the time, just not directly to the end consumer. If that were not the case, then people in sparsely populated states would not be able to get insurance at all. Very often, what people call the insurance company (say Healthlink) are really just the healthcare network. Somebody else is actually doing the insuring.
On top of that, there is a very good chance that if you are insured in say, New York and you travel to California and get sick, your insurance company is going to pay, even though it is across state lines.
So, yes, Blue Cross of New York cannot sell directly to people in Maryland. However, Blue Cross of Maryland can sell to those people. And since Blue Cross of New York and Maryland and all the other states are owned by the same Blue Cross parent company, they effectively sell across state lines while abiding by the restriction.
So instead of subsidizing the uninsured via your premiums, you subsidize them via your taxes - and remove any incentive to actually get health insurance, cause if they don't the government will get it for them?
Obviously, the current system in the US, has no incentive to have people actually get health insurance, because somebody else will pay the bill for you if you don't. It's not the government who pays the bill, it is all the people who do have health insurance that pay the bill. Making people get private health insurance doesn't remove any incentive, because there isn't one now. Making people get private health insurance doesn't cause the government to spend money on them either. Making people get private health insurance only makes them be responsible for their own health care expenditures. If they were already responsible, they would have the insurance.
So in short, instead of subsidizing the uninsured via my premiums, they pay for their care directly. Those who are truly poor and cannot afford insurance are the same ones who can't afford to pay for medical care and, yes the government will cover them, just like it does now. Is that not the way it should be with health care? Those who can pay, do pay. Those who can pay and don't are required to pay. Those who truly cannot pay, the rest of us take care of. That way, nobody goes without, but only those who truly are in financial need get the free ride.
Yes!
Class action lawsuits aren't supposed to compensate customers for companies' wrongdoings, that's impossible to begin with. They are supposed to discourage companies from continuing the practice they were sued for.
But the class action suits in question don't accomplish what you are wanting. The case that brought this was about AT&T charging sales tax on a free phone. Since the consumer had to pay the sales tax, the phone wasn't free. Of course, the suit ignores the fact that it was the State of California that required AT&T to charge the tax and remit it on to the state. Most class action suits fall into categories like this. They are nuisance suits that only the attorneys benefit from.
The ruling does not prohibit class action suits. If a drug company makes a drug that is bad or a product is manufactured that is dangerous, etc. Those types of class action suits can and should still go forward. What it does do, however, is recognize that companies can specify terms of how disputes will be settled in their contracts. Those terms, still have to be lawful (for instance, an employment contract cannot specify that employees cannot sue for discrimination or unsafe work conditions as those rights are under other federal laws).
If AT&T knowingly sold phones that blew up and killed people, they are not protected from a class action suit. On the other hand, if they sell a phone and the battery gives talk time of 3.5 hours instead of 3.6 hours, they are protected (since their contract states how disputes are resolved).
...
I find it odd that people don't complain about the government saying you must have auto insurance if you want to drive a car, but they do complain if the government says you must have health insurance if you want medical treatment. In either case, if you are uninsured, your actions have an impact on the rest of those who are insured.
You miss the point. You do NOT have to drive. You can take the bus, etc. If you decided you must drive, you are required to get insurance, in case of any accidents. That is a good thing.
With medical stuff, we didn't get a choice to live, we were born. We should be entitle to health care no matter what our financial situation is. Saying you get get health care because you don't have insurance is bullshit. Everyone should be entitled to health care no matter what.
Are you saying that you really have a choice in not choosing health care? If you are hit buy the bus and you don't have insurance who will pay your medical bills if you can't? The rest of us with insurance will. It is pretty much a certainty at some point in your life, you will need medical care.
Everyone is entitle to health care. I am not saying to change that. However, hospitals also have the right to be paid for their services, even if they are non-profit. The mandatory coverage is one way to ensure that everybody does have the right to health care and it is paid for. Other options would be a single payer system, a tax increase or expansion of medicare.
Not always, but close enough.
It's a stacked game -- the corporations know which arbitrators have ruled for and against them, but an individual has no such knowledge. Those arbitrators who tend to find in favor of consumers tend not to be rehired.
It wouldn't take much to document that and then sue the arbitrator's firm if it could be shown that they always or almost always side with the corporation. A good attorney general would take on a corrupt arbitration system under the guise of fighting for the little guy (but actually for re-election).
I think you will find, however, that even court proceedings often go in favor of the corporation. Even class action ones.
Dunno how it works in the US, but here in Australia, the only compulsory insurance is the third party one - that is, you are covered for the damage you deal to other people and their property if you crash into them. Comprehensive cover, which includes damage to yourself and your property, is completely optional.
Health insurance is like the optional comprehensive cover not third party; it covers you, not innocent third parties you harm.
In the US, auto insurance works the same way. The problem with health care is that many people don't have insurance and can't afford to pay their medical bills, so health care providers charge more to those with insurance to make up for the loss. So, mandating health insurance is like mandating auto insurance - it is to protect the other people (ie keeping them from paying extra).
because having a wrecked car and lhaving a degenerative heart disease are completly different.
Since you have this all worked out and have simplistically figured it out, maybe you can tell us why health costs in the US are twice that per capita compared to UK and Canada.
Can you tell me why company A and company B pay $6000 per year/employee to the same medical insurance provider and company A has a $1000 deductible company B has $300 . Company A pays 5 times as much for lab tests. Company B has dental and medical for the same price. Company A doesn't reach full coverage until $125,000 whereas company B employee reaches it at $75,000? I can tell you why, Company B has 8 times as many employees..
The above is a real world example. So where do you think a person working for neither company A or company B, will be? Self employed, what do you think they get? I have never heard of one that paid $6000 per year.
So if they pass a national law that mandates health insurance, How many people do you think will find that there job just became a contract postion?
So which companies are more likely to deny you a procedure?
It's one thing if state farm says they aren't going to replace your alternator with a new one. You can stop and argue with them about that. But what if (Aetna, United Health, Blue Cross....) denies you a bone marrow transplant or a heart transplant. Which companies are doing this and how often? What if it's for your spouse or child? Do you know the insurance providers track record before you go to work for someone? Its so transparent, don't you think you should be able to find that answer. During a congressional hearing a CEO of an insurance company couldn't provide that information.
Auto insurance is not the same as Health Insurance.
Your auto insurance covers a lot more than your wreck car. Basic insurance doesn't even cover your own car. Auto insurance is about protecting the other driver.
However, the fact that the US has the most expensive health care system in the world is not the issue and the health care plan doesn't attempt to fix that. It does attempt to remove from the equation the 20% hidden cost of healthcare that is due to uninsured people who don't can't pay their bills. That cost is passed on to everyone with insurance.
To combat the total problem would require a single payer system like Canada and many companies have. While many on the left would like that, myself included, it was the right that proposed the mandatory health insurance requirement under the Bush adminstration. Obama picked it up as a compromise.
Now, if you have away for hospitals to not pass those unpaid costs on to the rest of us, I'm all ears.
I find it odd that people don't complain about the government saying you must have auto insurance if you want to drive a car, but they do complain if the government says you must have health insurance if you want medical treatment.
While I'm generally in favor of a public health system, this comparison is not really fair. For one thing, you can avoid paying auto insurance by not buying a car, but there's no way to opt out from health insurance under the new system. For another, auto insurance is mandated by the states, not the feds, and they are free to set limits and provide for other arrangements as they see fit (e.g. in Virginia, you can have a security deposit instead).
From that perspective, the argument is perfectly valid: the problem isn't health insurance, or public option. It's that feds think they have the power to force it on the states, specifically via the commerce clause.
It is true that you can opt out of auto insurance by not driving a car (buying one has nothing to do with it). But if you use the service provided (roads) with that car, you must have the insurance. Likewise, nobody has to use healthcare (many undocumented workers in the US do not use healthcare as do many in the Appalachians). But most people, at some point, do use the healthcare system.
The purpose of insurance for autos is to protect the other guy, not yourself (you can buy additional insurance for that, ie collision). The purpose under the new federal plan for everyone to have health insurance is also to protect the other guy. If you are uninsured and can't pay your medical bills, the cost is passed on to those with insurance. Everyone having insurance keeps that from happening.
While it is true that the state mandates auto insurance, it is the federal government that mandates that hospitals must treat everyone, whether they can pay or not. Therefore, why is it a problem that the federal government says that you must be insured to receive that coverage and since you will receive that coverage at some point, you must have insurance.
Of course, the alternative to no mandate or single payer would be just to increase everybody's taxes so that the fed has money to reimburse the hospitals for unpaid medical bills. But nobody wants that solution either. The insurance mandate is more of a pay as you go system, that ensures that you will pay.
Do we even have any real Liberals left anywhere? Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, and their ilk are basically so centrist they're "Republican Lite". Surely I'm not the only left-leaning person who feels unrepresented. As far as that goes, the Republicans don't do a particularly good job at representing conservatives, either.
Actually, since the right has moved so far to the right, today's liberal is yesterday's conservative. A lot of Reagan's proposals would be shot down as liberal sh*t today.
Um, are you aware that Clarence Thomas took office exactly ten years before Bush's inauguration? How exactly can he be blamed for Thomas' behavior? Furthermore, Bush nominated just two of the nine current justices. I understand that the balance of power in the court is always tenuous and that he nominated very conservative people, but 2 of 9 is hardly stacking the place.
You're also missing the point with your avowed hope that Obama'll "man up" and appoint some liberals. He won't appoint liberals, he'll appoint Democrats. Democrats are slightly better than Republicans, but they both suck. I'd much rather have nine generally conservative independents (and I mean true independents, not guys who are independent because they think George Will and the Constiution party are too gosh durned liberal) than any number of Democrats.
Now you really shouldn't taunt those who can't think for themselves with facts. It only makes them angry and yell louder.
The only reason those suits are ridiculous are because the corporations have come to expect that they can get away with screwing all their customers by a little bit. This just makes it so they will always get away with it. Basically, we're fucked.
Let's say that your phone carrier charges you a little extra one time, and pay it not knowing the bill was willfully misrepresented. You call the company and ask for a credit of the $2 you lost, and they say there was no overcharge, or they just say no. What are you going to do? Take them to court? Who will represent you over a matter of $2? What if it comes to light that your phone company did this to every one of their customers, amounting to tens of millions of dollars stolen? Well, now, no one can do anything about it.
Oh wait, you can stop doing business with that company, only you will have to pull out of your contract and deal with a $350 termination fee and a credit hit if you refuse to pay. At least you'll be sticking it to them. Good thing the market will sort these things out.
Except it turns out that there are only a few phone carriers and every other one does the same thing on an occasional basis already, so much so that it's just an industry standard as a way to pad profits before those quarterly reports go out. Too bad, so sad, sucks to be you, you sorry loser.
So you are preferring the system where you as a consumer will receive a pittance in a class action suit and some attorneys will receive millions? That is fair how? You as a consumer have just as many rights as you did before this ruling. You can still sue. What it does do, is give the corporation to settle those suits before they turn into a class action suit in which most cases nobody but the attorneys win.
I'm slightly torn on this. On the one side, this means that there won't be ridiculous class action settlements where the class members get a $5 coupon towards future purchases while the lawyers get millions of dollars. On the other side, it effectively removes the only real consumer protection from wide spread practices.
I'd have to say, I'm leaning more towards it being a bad thing.
Uh, yeah. Class action suits suck, but in some cases they're all you have. This decision says you don't even have that.
Actually, that is not what the decision says. It does say that corporations do have the right to seek binding arbitration, nothing more, nothing less. Consumers can still file class action suits. It just means that corporations can opt for arbitration instead.
McDonalds requires every employee to sign away class action rights -- boom, they can nick a buck off each employee every day and it will never be worth an individual suit. They can just fire you as the total from you approaches the cost of filing your claim.
Add in Walmart and all the other chain stores and shady dealers. This ruling was NOT limited to consumer cases.
-GiH
(Yes, IAAL)
Since McDonalds, Walmart, etc, were already doing this prior to this ruling, then it probably has no impact on what they are doing.
That's great, but individually, consumers do not generally have the financial clout to take on a massive corporation. Bill Gates might be able to pull it off, but the average Joe who thinks dropping $30,000 on a car is a lot of money, will be outspent before the first day of trial prep is over.
I seem to remember some small guy named Raph Nader who did a real job against the auto companies in the 60s and 70s, anybody remember "Unsafe at Any Speed"?
With today's internet, the average Joe has more power than at any time in history. Look at how the average Joe in Egypt faired recently. All without lawyers or class action suits. The court of public opinion is a much stronger motivator than people give it credit for.