In my view, "binding arbitration" is a very lopsided concept by which a large entity can use an intimidation tactic against a smaller entity or individual at, e

In my view, "binding arbitration" is a very lopsided concept by which a large entity can use an intimidation tactic against a smaller entity or individual at, essentially, a lower cost than going through the US court system. This doesn't mean that the large entity is incapable or unwilling to spend capital in defense of a position, but it's akin to an "up front" legal investment to save money later. Why bother fighting in court, where an entity like the EFF or ACLU might be willing to provide financial means to support a fight in pursuit of justice, when there's an avenue to block such a process from even happening? Thus, I've been happy to have my own "Personal Terms and Conditions" on file (somewhere around here, it was written several years ago) that intends to help tilt the scale back to even. What do I mean? I mean that as a condition of taking my money in Good Faith, whatever business entity I'm working with will have to abide by my own parameters of negotiation - as in, if I'm dealing with a large conglomerate, their means are significantly disproportionate to those that I have. So, as a rule of doing business with me, should there be a dispute, the corporate entity agrees to only use the same budget that I have available. It's highly subjective whether such things could be defensible in court, but it's just one way that I believe it's a US Citizen's right to declare when there's a fight, it's going to be as fair as it can be. For example, a friend recently had a dispute with their major healthcare provider over a short vs. long-term prescription issue. The friend's Doctor wrote out a 90 day supply prescription for the incurable issue requiring maintenance medication. The insurance company refused to fulfill the 90 day supply, and said that they would only approve a 30 day supply. If you know about US health insurance programs, you'd know that a 90 day has a copay of $XX, and a 30 day has a copay of $YY. Thus, this person would have to pay nearly 2x in copay monies out of pocket simply because the insurance company didn't want to fund the actual, written prescription. Eventually the mail-order fulfillment service started calling up this friend, demanding $X,XXX in back co-pays. The friend pointed out that the fulfillment service had emptied out the Health Savings Account for several years, taking co-pays for each 30 day supply, which was unfair because the actual amount to be billed shouldn't exceed the 90 day cost. 5 phone calls later, and with the stubbornness of a ram, the friend finally got the company to give up on trying to extort him for money that wasn't owed. To this day, the insurance company refuses to fulfill the 90 day prescription, and he's simply waiting, fangs sharp, for if they try to come at him again. How would the above situation work out in arbitration paid-for by the insurance company? They broke the binding agreement of fulfillment, then wanted to make it the responsibility of the party with the least means. That's injustice, and it's important for individuals to understand, or be willing to stand up and argue, when a large entity decides to "change the rules" to benefit themselves, it's fair game to change the rules right back and punch hard. I'm not presenting this kind of stuff as some kind of quick-fix or blanket approach for each and every person, life is more complex than that. However, the erosion of rights and personal liberty is another complex subject, one that I'm glad to study for its nuances and application in small and large battles.