The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 38

Sorry if I misinterpreted your words to imply a failure in that area.



Whatever. Feel free to ignore me and don't reply to my posts.



Wrong.



True there is no perfectly free market. But then it isn't a binary thing.



You could, but you probably wouldn't. Most people don't go into business to kill people. It's governments that do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Government regulation is supposed to stop this sort of thing.

If there were no government regulation in America this sort of thing probably would have killed someone you love by now.

But you, like all conservatives, are blind to the notion that businesses will cut corners for the sake of profit. You are a conservative, so you believe that profit is far more important than the well-being of a nation's citizens.

(See? I can make inflammatory blanket statements designed to provoke people, too.)

Of course people don't go into business to kill people. What a typical conservative argument. People go into business to make profit. It's just that some unscrupulous people will cut corners for the sake of that profit, and then people die, and it is a good thing there are government agencies to try and prevent this from happening.

Again, this is a typical conservative arguing technique. You put words into his mouth to win an argument he never considered.

(See? It's just this annoying when you do it.)

That's one way to view it, yes.

I understand you think that.

We clearly disagree with one another and see the world in very different ways.

Yes.

Sorry for the blanket statements. They're really, really annoying aren't they.

Lack of government regulation really would have helped those coal miners. Right.

Sure... the "market forces" will adjust. The mining company will probably go out of business and be sold. Maybe to someone who is a little more careful.

But... isn't it too late? People died, not because of government regulation, but because of too little enforcement due to people who think exactly like certain "free market economists" on this board.

I don't know for sure if you are a Libertarian but this kind of simplistic reasoning is why I left the Libertarian party 32 years ago.

Hint: You not understanding != simplistic reasoning on the other person's part.

But unsupported claims of "regulation bad, free market good" repeated ad nauseum without qualification, supporting data or historical evidence of any sort does equal simplistic reasoning.

The fact is, wihout regulation, disasters like Bhopal would be happeneng weekly, just like they do in China, which is a good example of lack of regulatory control.

To expand on that idea, it suddenly makes perfect sense that libertarianism and Maoism have a lot in common, including the fatal folly that when given the opportunity to do what they want, humankind will choose to do good, for the greater good. History proves this assertion wrong again and again.

Bhopal is just one example of this. Businesses making massive job cuts during periods of massive profits is another. Working "off the clock" is another. Walmart cutting benefits to the bare minimum and pushing that minimum lower and lower is another. The fact that medicine in the US costs double what it does in Socialist Kanada is a perfect example in health care.

3-4% profits on average are too much? What, exactly, do you think will happen to rates when they are forced to insure everyone who wants coverage? You can't be naive enough to believe rates will go down.

Cancel your policy, if you hate the health insurance business. Use free clinics instead.

The fact is? Can you provide proof of this fact?

You cannot because it is merely your speculation of what might happen absent government regulation. But here's the dilemma, even with the existence of government regulation these things happen (witness the West Virginia mine explosion*). Why? Was there not enough? Di the regulators fail in some way? What happened there?

You might also try to argue that such things would happen even more often without the government regulation (in fact that exactly what you have claimed as a "fact".) You might even be right, but what evidence do you have of this. What evidence do you have the other forces and incentives would not exist or come into existence to provide and equal or even better job of preventing such things from happening.

Let's take some time, if you wish, to examine this premise. The basic premise seems to be that people in the private sector are so motivated by their own self-interest and/or greed they will readily put their own self-interest and profit ahead of the lives of others. Now is it all people in the private sector? Just some? Which ones? Is this extreme self-interest issue limited to people only working in the private sector? If not, what are the consequences of similarly inclined people working in government.

My point here is that things are actually not as simple as you make them out to be. While you accuse me of repeatedly claiming "regulation bad, free market good" ad nauseum, from where I sit I see a number of people, yourself included, making basically the exact opposite claim ("free market bad, regulation good") and repeating it ad nauseum with often nothing more than an occasional anecdotal story and hand wave of "this would be happening all the time if it weren't for the government."

*I don't know if we have enough information this soon after the event to know the entire story and I, personally, have learned to wait until the whole story (inasmuch as we ever truly get it) has come out before making my judgements.

And yet...you, and others, wish to imbue select members of humankind with the power of the state...the power of force and coercion...the power of the gun. This is the part that totally doesn't make sense to me. It is a tragedy that 25 people died this week in that mine in West Virginia. Iam truly saddened for their families. Having said that, 3 days after taking office the President of the United States, Barack Obama, with the stroke of a pen (if he even needed to sign an order rather than give a verbal command) ordered an attack in Pakistan that killed 15 people*. One single order. That, of course, doesn't even count any one of the 30,000 additional troops he ordered to Afghanistan who may have been killed, wounded, injured or maimed.

NOTE: Don't think my mention of Obama absolves Bush for his actions. Clearly those are just as bad or worse in this matter.

According to this more than 700 civilians have died in Obama-ordered drone attacks in Pakistan in one year alone. According to this the number of deaths in mines over the last 30 years (including this latest) has been 266.

I don't mean to belittle these deaths at all. But their seems to be a mindset which imbues the government with some kind of saintliness where it puts human life above everything else and yet the facts tell us a very different story.

Can I "prove" my assertions? No. But I can provide evidence and examples to back up my claim, which I have. You have made claims to the contrary again and again, wihout evidence. You can provide evidence where government regulation has failed, that is true. But I challenge you to find one single example where lack of regulation has made a system better. Banking system? Fail. Job safety? Fail. Jobs? Fail (see my example of businesses cutting staff during periods of massive profit).

China is one of the best examples to show what happens in a robust economy wihout effective regulation. In the worst and not at all uncommon cases, people die.

The problem you have here is that there are ample examples where when government gets out of the way the people proper, material well-being improves, wealth increases, health increases and so on. And plenty of examples of where as government increases so does injustice, poverty, oppression, etc. If you want to see these examples you will. It is doubtful you will. It is astonishing that you live in one of the most economically free "countries" in the world and cannot recognize the prosperity it has and how the prosperity has grown due to its freedom. It is absolutely free of government and regulation? No, of course not. That isn't even my claim. But compared to every other country in the world it is probably the most economically free and has great prosperity as a result. See also Singapore. See also countries like Mauritius and Estonia and how as they gave liberalized their countries and their economies they have grown and prospered. This is even the case with China (which you cite below)! China has grown and prospered because it is liberalized its economy. Slowly? Sure. Completely? No. But as it has moved in that direction more prosperity and well being has been created for its people. This is the same story throughout the world and throughout history. Look at Sweden. Look at Ireland. Read the stories about what has happened in the countries where they have expanded freedom and reduced government. Have any gone completely government-free? No. Of course not. The the correlations between less government/more freedom and prosperity (and the reverse) are quite compelling.

Freedom brings prosperity. Government, beyond a certain minimal level, is the opposite of freedom. Check out this list and look at what's happening in the countries that have more economic freedom and less government overall.

Your claim was:


Please provide evidence that a) "wihout regulation, disasters like Bhopal would be happeneng weekly" in the U.S. and, b) they are happening weekly in China.

We could take each one of these in turn and discuss them, but we've already derailed this thread enough. I will simply state that your "analysis" of these isn't very rigorous or in depth.

One quick example I can give is the banking systems in Canada and the U.S. during the Great Depression. In the U.S.'s heavily regulated (though not as much as now) banking system during that time there were many, many bank failures. Hundreds I believe. In Canada which was considerably less regulated and more liberalized in its banking system at that time (compared with the U.S.)...1 bank failure was recorded at that time.

On workplace safety, would you like to take a wild guess at the approximate percentage of deaths (that is deaths vs. number of employed) occur in the country each year in the private sector? And the same % for government employees?

According to the BLS, for data in the last several years, there are approximately 4,000 work-related fatalities in the private sector among wager earners (i.e., not self-employed people...but people who work for evil, greedy, profit hungry employers). This number represents about 0.003% of the total employed workforce. For government employees? The average number of work-related fatalities is about 500 per year. This number represents about 0.03% of the total government workforce. Both quite small numbers percentage-wise, but the government rate is 10 time higher! So this is the government which isn't an evil, greedy, profit hungry employer (...excuse me while I catch my breath from laughing so hard...) And yet fatality rates are higher! One would expect government, you know being the source of all that is safe and right in the workplace would be the safest place to work. No so it seems.

I don't have any breakdowns on how many deaths are related to actual employer negligence and safety issues (vs. employee negligence and stupidity.) which would be very interesting to know.


Finally, I'm not saying this mining company wasn't negligent. They may well have been. But the point is you assume that more regulation will make things better. I don't believe the evidence truly supports this at all.

I don't know if you're deliberately trying to distract from the topic, but foreign military policy has next to nothing to do with trade and industry regulation. Also, you seem to be missing the point that the vast majority of people who agree with our strong opinion on this matter are the very Liberals you vilify so much. I would love to see some statistics regarding Libertarians' views about foreign military policy. I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that they align far closer with Republican ideals than with Democratic (not Obama) ideals.

I was merely pointing out some interesting factoids. Barack Obama's actions have resulted in more civilian deaths in one year than the mining industry's has in 30 years. Stuff like that. But then as Barack says, the state has a monopoly on violence.



You're right. They are very different. In one case a single person's orders have lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. In another case, the people are largely quite safe and knowingly enter into risky occupations at their own will.



They do? Are they as up in arms about the 700 or civilian deaths produced under Barack Obama's orders in the last year or so? Or even mildly miffed that one of the very first orders he issued resulted in 15 civilian deaths? Hmmm. Maybe. But I'll bet they're all much more upset about workplace safety regulations particularly those in the private, for-profit sector.



Look them up yourself. I suspect most are quite anti-war. Not all I'm sure, but then many liberals have suddenly become rather muted in their anti-war stance since the newest war president is a liberal Democrat. Now it's okay I guess.

Oh, hey, I wonder what would happen if someone deregulated the streets? Surely it would be total chaos and a safety nightmare!

Private jails have low paid and high turnover and much higher staff attacks than public prisons. There's nothing like the profit motive. LOL!!!

MJ do the government figures include police, firefighters, prison staff etc because that would obviously skew the results.

Oh... and what about those falling to pieces massive trucks that Bush said didn't have to comply to US standads coming up from Mexico? Is that really a good idea for safety?

Don't know. Need to pull the numbers again and see if they have those breakdowns. But then, you know, those people go into those occupations knowing the risks as well.

*A quick scan looks like those occupations account for about 30-40% (depending on the year) of the government numbers. But this still doesn't bring the government % down to equal or less than private sector. Taking those out still leaves government rate about 5-6 times the private sector. The data is here.

To get a real picture it would be better to correct for any fatalities (or injuries if those were in these %'s) that were a result of the employee's own negligence or failure to follow safety procedures vs. company negligence.



Don't know what you're referring to.

Bush allowed the haulage firms from Mexico to drive their bangers in the US, even though their accident rates from faulty and bad maintenence is much higher than the much better maintained, by law, US trucks.

Ok. Unfamiliar with that. But good argument for private roads.

Back to the topic of the reality that we may be facing under ObamaCare:

FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan

Nah! Barack Obama wouldn't pass the biggest tax increase in history would he?

Yeah. ObamaCare is gonna be da best! Eliminating choice is what it's all about.

That's it. Change the subject. Our current line of discussion is your antiregulatory stance vs. the reality of the issue, which is pertinent to the healthcare debate.

Let me go back to some of your unaswered questions:


I did provide an example: China. China's mining industry operates (less so than 5 years ago due to -- you guessed it -- increased enforcement of government regulation) virtually unregulated, due to corruption. In fact the system in China, where there is at least some regulation, is better than your argued imaginary utopian unregulated system, where there is no regulation. Yet people die, yes, on a weekly basis (I notice you removed your challenge to this claim, as it is supported by the data). And that's just mining. There are deaths due to underregulated fake milk powder, underregulated fake liquor, underregulated construction, you name it. And it's all due to lack of enforceable regulation.


No, it is not mere speculation. I provided a clear example.


I assume you passed Logic 101. You know as well as I do that to prove regulation's imperfection does not prove free market's superiority.

What happened there? Poor enforcement of regulation. There is enough regulation. It was just not enforced effectively in this case. Do you honestly think that with lack of regulation, the situation would have been better? Seriously?


I've provided a perfect example.


Some. Which ones? Who knows. You can't guess, so you have to regulate them all. Otherwise you'll always have some people putting lives and livelihoods at risk.


I'm not claiming things are simple. I'm not supporting a totalitarian approach to government. Free market forces must be allowed to increase incentive and productivity. But in some cases, like safety and health, regulation should be strong, and the evidence from around the world and in the US supports this. In nearly every country that is more greatly regulated than the US, the health care system simply works better. In every country that is less regulated than the US, it is worse. You cannot deny these facts.


Yet you're not waiting on the whole story regarding health care. You're not giving increased access plans a chance to prove that it's better overall for the country's well-being. Why don't you give the plan a chance to work before you judge it based on your simplistic unsupported opposition to regulation?

You see, this is a perfect example of Jimmac's so-called "simplistic reasoning". You admit that you didn't think about the fact that police and firefighters and other dangerous professions often fall into the government sector. You have to think about this type of thing to avoid being "simplistic" in thought. Likewise, with the Canadian banking system during the Great Depression. You didn't stop to consider the extent to which banking and trade played in the overall economy in Canada at the time, compared with the US. You didn't consider the fact that Canada had a vastly smaller number of banks than the US, so it would make sense that they had a vastly smaller number of bank failures. The great depression, just like the Bush depression, was caused by under-regulation, and Canada, fortunately for them, had not yet joined the investment bandwagon to the extent that the US had. It is precisely "simplistic reasoning" that can allow you to say, "see! Only one bank failure in Canada" without observing the whole picture at the time.

Read the article. It is clear. The premiums you and I pay (well, not me, because I don't live in the US) would go down. The premiums businesses pay would go down. Meanwhile the premiums taken in by the insurance companies would go up, then level off. How is this a bad thing for anyone?

To say "the premiums would increase" is a lie when it doesn't represent the fact that the premiums you and I pay would go down.

First of all, Singapore is one of the most highly regulated economies in the world.

Secondly, Hong Kong is also highly regulated, and oh my God we have nearly free universal healthcare, social security, and public housing!!!! Yet here, like in the US, the rich are getting richer and the poor are being left poor.

Today's news:
And 65 percent said the wealth gap was "very serious" while 59.2 percent said harmony between ordinary people and tycoons has deteriorated badly.

"The grassroots and the middle class have not shared the fruits of a booming economy," former deputy secretary for health and welfare Laurence Ho Wing- him said.

"Their wages have stayed the same or even decreased although the GDP has risen steadily over the past five years."

I was trying to avoid being accused of further derailment. But we can continue, sure...





You said "China" but haven't provided any data to support the claim. It's been a vague hand wave.

Oh and, as I read your initial claim, is was actually about Bhopal-like incidents, but whatever. Note that I haven't claimed that no one would die in workplace-related accidents in an unregulated environment.



I know that. You know that in environment that is heavily regulated, and these accidents still happen, it weakens the case that regulation will make things better, right?



So the regulation existed. Everyone relied on it. It failed. How do we explain this? When it is the other way around it is called a "market failure." Sometimes people even call this a "market failure." What should we call it in this case? This is an older, but interesting article on this subject.

You know what's also interesting in this case, is that there are now reports of miners coming forward and claiming they knew the place was unsafe. I don't know if these are current workers there or former. But it suggests that even the people who worked there knew there were safety risks and yet, they seem to still be taking them of their own volition!



Without any supporting data.



You missed the point here. You seem to be claiming that self-serving motivations in the private sector will put people's lives at risk. I agree that sometimes it will, but also believe that in the long-run and in most cases it will not. But you fail to recognize the existence of these self-serving motives in those in government, with power, where those motives are likely to be far more dangerous to far more people.



First I didn't admit any such thing. I actually did, but didn't pull the detailed breakdowns at first. You'll notice that I did provide revised details which, incidentally, did not substantially change the point. It still appears, even taking those numbers out that government (which is the source of workplace safety regulation) would be a safer place to work because. This is sorta like the don't eat at a restaurant that has a skinny chef kind of thing.



You're free to provide data that disproves my point. Let's correct for the number and sizes by looking at percentages then. Go ahead.



You're simplistic reasoning does not sufficiently explain the events of that time. Sorry. I know that's what the common wisdom and grade school text books have been telling us. But they are found wanting when it comes to a more in depth analysis. Here and here are some quick reads for you. There's more, but this will get you started. (***waits for dismissal because of the source***)



Whatever.



This is one piece of information that's telling a different story.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. You have not provided anything compelling enough to cause me to reconsider my position, and clearly I've not done the same for you. Either we are both failing to make compelling arguments or are hopelessly stubborn, unwilling to listen, reason and learn.

Oh look! More reality:

Was Employee Laid Off for Voting for Obama?

I am with it. I do not do business with Republicans, and if I have to I will charge them twice as much. Since they are mostly gullible idiots they usually pay more than they have to thinking that they cool.

What is the name of your business? I am still interested to see if what you sell is even worth buying.

Which one do you mean?

I sell software, I license JAVA code, I sell farm fresh organic veggies and fruit, re usable shopping bags, I broker solar installations when the opportunity arises and license graphic design to the Chinese.

I was more interested in the hard goods, not the software or graphic design. I guess the 2 that are most interesting to me are the food stuffs and the solar power.

I get reusable shopping bags whenever I get a visit from a vendor or go to a tech conference... about 20 and counting now...

If you are worried about advertising in the forums or taking the thread off topic feel free to PM me...

I would totally overcharge you, dude.
Try Sea Bright Solar or somebody like that, they have great 230W panels now.