Comments on: CFPB anti-arbitration rule

By: Jimmy Z

Jimmy Z — Tue, 01 Aug 2017 04:25:21 +0000

Since I feel that mentions of the ACA are a nonsequitur, I propose that we can move the health insurance companies into litigation insurance and make health care single payer. The actuaries could evaluate business plans to underwrite.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:41:21 +0000

Only fair to ask how many products and services we now use, individually quite inexpensive, that never would have come to market without arbitration clauses – since the cost of defending even a small number of individual litigation claims would consume the profits generated from thousands of sales…

I guess we can live without all of them, “for our own good”, just in case a few should ever decide to sue over a bad experience with them, where arbitration was previously available…

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 16:52:21 +0000

“it forces on consumers an option they never chose, all in the
name of protecting their best interests.”

Where have we heard this before …… ?

Sounds like something else that passed about the same time,
this involving health insurance, something that also needs
to be FULLY repealed . . . oh, yeah, now I remember: the
404/Obamacare/the “Affordable Care Act”.

By: David C

David C — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:39:12 +0000

In reply to SPO. and the CFPB’s rule involuntarily forces consumers into relations with the class action lawyers. I'm not sure that's valid. Even if you sign a class-action waiver for every transaction you do for some reason (and no consumer goes around doing that), you could still be part of some class for some environmental hazard or something. But in any case, it was my understanding that you can opt out of a class action, so you still aren't really forced into relations with the lawyers.

By: SPO

SPO — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 19:26:44 +0000

In reply to Allan.

The in terrorem effect is a legitimate policy consideration. But it’s likely counterbalanced by the fact that class action lawyers are out for #1, and the CFPB’s rule involuntarily forces consumers into relations with the class action lawyers.

The other problem—how do you trust Cordray as an honest broker–he’s a partisan Democrat, and trial lawyers put millions into the coffers of the Dem party.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:57:59 +0000

In reply to gasman.

I wasn’t aware that anyone had to “bring [an industry] to its knees” in order to start a competing company.

And here I had a better mousetrap all set to market..

By: gasman

gasman — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:00:47 +0000

In reply to gitarcarver. well, yeah. It is within the power of any individual to do without a cell phone until their position in the marketplace ( an individual wields 0.0000005% of the American market) brings the telecom industry to its knees. You first.

By: MattS

MattS — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:47:52 +0000

In reply to gitarcarver. Score!

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:19:17 +0000

Allowing companies to force arbitration agreements is a moral hazard.

Damn those contracts and agreements that people willingly sign!

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:42:42 +0000

In reply to Allan. >A writer for Cato is being obtuse, no surprise. We love you too.