3 ms·

I think the real answer here is to have bad behavior cost rather than trying to legislate it. A company owes you something and doesn't promptly pay. If you pr

I think the real answer here is to have bad behavior cost rather than trying to legislate it. A company owes you something and doesn't promptly pay. If you prevail in the end and the original problem wasn't on your end what they owe gets a multiplier and then a high interest rate. Several years ago I got totaled. The woman came up with a few bits of nonsense that clearly didn't match up with reality but the woman from the insurance company saw right through that and knew there was no possible way I contributed to it. Then they ghosted me until I filed a complaint with the insurance regulator. Make that say 50% or 100% higher, then maybe a couple percent of interest from the date that they should have paid. This would make such tactics not in their interest because failure doesn't mean just doing what they should have anyway.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I've considered several times what a difference it would be if legal work by individuals was considered a billable expense in the event of the individuals winning. I think it would level the playing field at lease somewhat with regard to the inherent advantage any corporation has via having a legal division full of lawyers over a regular Joe trying to get justice. But yeah, if some farmer has to sue John Deere to be able to fix his tractor or whatever, that's going to take a ton of his valuable time to deal with. Why shouldn't he be compensated in the event he was correct?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
joe_the_user 2y ago
Uh, Fines are part of regulation. Fines are what makes regulations stick. Regulation is based on legislation. Of course, it's bad to have Legislation that tries to enforce things that regulators already have the tools to enforce (but aren't using). But broadly, if you want a hammer big enough that a profit-seeking corporation will avoid any tap with it, you want legislation. The usual schemes that imply companies will face costs without regulation being in effect (basically "let the market decide") won't work with individual consumers versus health providers or insurance companies.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  What I'm trying to do is remove the need for complex regulations about what is correct behavior and the complexities of proving it. Rather, remove the concept of fault--if in the end they pay it is assumed they are wrong and it costs them money.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

I've considered several times what a difference it would be if legal work by individuals was considered a billable expense in the event of the individuals winning. I think it would level the playing field at lease somewhat with regard to the inherent advantage any corporation has via having a legal division full of lawyers over a regular Joe trying to get justice. But yeah, if some farmer has to sue John Deere to be able to fix his tractor or whatever, that's going to take a ton of his valuable time to deal with. Why shouldn't he be compensated in the event he was correct?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

joe_the_user 2y ago

Uh, Fines are part of regulation. Fines are what makes regulations stick. Regulation is based on legislation. Of course, it's bad to have Legislation that tries to enforce things that regulators already have the tools to enforce (but aren't using). But broadly, if you want a hammer big enough that a profit-seeking corporation will avoid any tap with it, you want legislation. The usual schemes that imply companies will face costs without regulation being in effect (basically "let the market decide") won't work with individual consumers versus health providers or insurance companies.

LorenPechtel 2y ago
What I'm trying to do is remove the need for complex regulations about what is correct behavior and the complexities of proving it. Rather, remove the concept of fault--if in the end they pay it is assumed they are wrong and it costs them money.