Being Poor is NOT a Crime - Page 6

hsmith · 11-03-2006, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

How does that justify completely doing away with any and all regulation?

i don't believe in government regulation.

it is inadequate.

SICKGUY · 11-03-2006, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm so sick of libertarians and their "let the free market take care of it" bullshit. I could make an argument that financial planners don't necessarily need to be licensed, but doctors should be licensed and I can't wrap my head around how someone could think otherwise.

on a similar note… colorado has zero requirements or licensing regulations on who can become a home loan officer. Basically, anyone can set up shop and call themselves a loan officer. and as long as they seem to know what they are doing, nobody seems to question them.

it just so happens that colorado leads the nation in home foreclosures.

WickedLou9 · 11-03-2006, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

i don't believe in government regulation.

it is inadequate.

yeah. the air and water would have been much cleaner without the EPA.

WickedLou9 · 11-03-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm so sick of libertarians and their "let the free market take care of it" bullshit. I could make an argument that financial planners don't necessarily need to be licensed, but doctors should be licensed and I can't wrap my head around how someone could think otherwise.

Man, financial planners are dumb enough as it is. Most of them just take your money, drop it in some crap that will underperform the market and collect fees on your money. The licensing process for these people is so lax that they might as well just deregulate it.

7960 · 11-03-2006, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

yeah it is just some odd coincidence that the most regulated industry in the country has the highest prices

nothing to do with government regulation at all.

I'm sure regulation has something to do with it, but when a doctor does everything 100% right by the book and someone doesn't fully recover (or dies) and he STILL has to defend himself at ain inquiry and his insurance decides to pay out rather than fight it in court and his malpractice goes up because of it, I'm going out on a limb and saying the high costs have at least as much to do with liability and insurance as they do with how "regulated" the medical field is.

Where do I get my opinion? From my friend who *was* a doctor and quit because he didn't want to work 70hr/wk to afford the insurance and make it worth it. He's still involved in the field but he doesn't practice any more.

WickedLou9 · 11-03-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm sure regulation has something to do with it, but when a doctor does everything 100% right by the book and someone doesn't fully recover (or dies) and he STILL has to defend himself at ain inquiry and his insurance decides to pay out rather than fight it in court and his malpractice goes up because of it, I'm going out on a limb and saying the high costs have at least as much to do with liability and insurance as they do with how "regulated" the medical field is.

Where do I get my opinion? From my friend who *was* a doctor and quit because he didn't want to work 70hr/wk to afford the insurance and make it worth it. He's still involved in the field but he doesn't practice any more.

Yeah any searching I have done on the high cost of medical care seems to come back to malpractice insurance.

7960 · 11-03-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

i don't believe in government regulation.

my uncle didn't believe in chemotherapy... he died within 3 years.

my father did believe in chemotherapy... he's lived 22 years after his diagnosis.

hsmith · 11-03-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

yeah. the air and water would have been much cleaner without the EPA.

Actually, the government was responsible for pollution as they didn't protect peoples property rights.

See, in the early 1800's, they protected peoples rights to sue others if pollution ran off on to their property. say a train's soot spewed onto your land, you could sue and get restitution.

after the lincoln era, that changed. they sided with businesses, so individuals no longer could sue the person who polluted on to their property.

hsmith · 11-03-2006, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm sure regulation has something to do with it, but when a doctor does everything 100% right by the book and someone doesn't fully recover (or dies) and he STILL has to defend himself at ain inquiry and his insurance decides to pay out rather than fight it in court and his malpractice goes up because of it, I'm going out on a limb and saying the high costs have at least as much to do with liability and insurance as they do with how "regulated" the medical field is.

Where do I get my opinion? From my friend who *was* a doctor and quit because he didn't want to work 70hr/wk to afford the insurance and make it worth it. He's still involved in the field but he doesn't practice any more.

All regulation and red tape

You prove the point

hsmith · 11-03-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

my uncle didn't believe in chemotherapy... he died within 3 years.

my father did believe in chemotherapy... he's lived 22 years after his diagnosis.

Barriers of entry into the market is the same as chemical treatement for cancer?

WickedLou9 · 11-03-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Actually, the government was responsible for pollution as they didn't protect peoples property rights.

See, in the early 1800's, they protected peoples rights to sue others if pollution ran off on to their property. say a train's soot spewed onto your land, you could sue and get restitution.

after the lincoln era, that changed. they sided with businesses, so individuals no longer could sue the person who polluted on to their property.

Thats reactionary, and it requires that the person being harmed have the resources to persue long and costly litigation against a wealthy corporation. And we all know how that goes. That's a failed idea.
Proactive > Reactive. always and without exception.

7960 · 11-03-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

All regulation and red tape

You prove the point

no, it doesn't prove the point that regulation and barriers to the field raised the cost.

you really got that from what I wrote? really??

7960 · 11-03-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Actually, the government was responsible for pollution as they didn't protect peoples property rights.

See, in the early 1800's, they protected peoples rights to sue others if pollution ran off on to their property. say a train's soot spewed onto your land, you could sue and get restitution.

after the lincoln era, that changed. they sided with businesses, so individuals no longer could sue the person who polluted on to their property.

your posts are getting more and more strange......... there's no train near my house but there is a road. You're saying if a truck went down my road spraying something and it killed my grass and made me sick I could *not* sue them for it?

seriously, do you honestly believe that?

WickedLou9 · 11-03-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

your posts are getting more and more strange......... there's no train near my house but there is a road. You're saying if a truck went down my road spraying something and it killed my grass and made me sick I could *not* sue them for it?

seriously, do you honestly believe that?

Not to mention the fact that under his system everything would boil down to monetary cost.

Monetary cost of NOT polluting vs monetary cost of litigation.
If it would cost them more to clean up than it would to fight litigation, sorry billy, you get cancer and big corporation probably wins in court and saves money.

7960 · 11-03-2006, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Not to mention the fact that under his system everything would boil down to monetary cost.

Monetary cost of NOT polluting vs monetary cost of litigation.
If it would cost them more to clean up than it would to fight litigation, sorry billy, you get cancer and big corporation probably wins in court and saves money.

"Let the free market take care of it! If trucks spray medical waste as they drive down the street, people won't want to buy from them so they'll go out of business and will stop spraying medical waste!!"

.........some things require regulation.

hsmith · 11-03-2006, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

your posts are getting more and more strange......... there's no train near my house but there is a road. You're saying if a truck went down my road spraying something and it killed my grass and made me sick I could *not* sue them for it?

seriously, do you honestly believe that?

No, that is not what I said.

hsmith · 11-03-2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

no, it doesn't prove the point that regulation and barriers to the field raised the cost.

you really got that from what I wrote? really??

Uh, it is one of the factors which create barrier to entry. Are you going to enter the market when it is inefficent to do so?

hsmith · 11-03-2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Not to mention the fact that under his system everything would boil down to monetary cost.

Monetary cost of NOT polluting vs monetary cost of litigation.
If it would cost them more to clean up than it would to fight litigation, sorry billy, you get cancer and big corporation probably wins in court and saves money.

Grandfather laws have a lot to do with it.

You live there and some company moves in 10 years later and starts spewing toxic waste, you can bet your ass they'd lose big.

But if the company is in the middle of nowhere and you move next door, you have no case.

The way it was worked, the government went and fucked it all up. But I guess more government is the only solution!

7960 · 11-03-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

No, that is not what I said.

sorry, I believe it's exactly what you said (if you substitute train for truck)

hsmith · 11-03-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

"Let the free market take care of it! If trucks spray medical waste as they drive down the street, people won't want to buy from them so they'll go out of business and will stop spraying medical waste!!"

.........some things require regulation.

That has nothing to do with what I argued. Malice is not legal.