The debate "Regulations increase consumer confidence. the economy would be worse and more dangerous without them" was started by
April 14, 2017, 5:29 am.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, Ematio posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, thereal, wmd, The13yearoldconservative, khushboo, historybuff, MetalClaw99, dbrock and 5 visitors agree.
Ematio, TimRSA, SirIntegra, lachlan, chasediedrich1 and 6 visitors disagree.
the government should not own the means of production.
the government should not be a player in the market.
but the government must be the one who layouts out the rules of fair play and the referee to enforce them.
no game has no rules. no competition doesn't have a referee to enforce and arbitrate. this isn't communism or capitalism, this is common sense obviousness that should be applied to both.
I'll look for some references, but let me ask you.
would you feel just as confident walking into a restaurant in absence of health code rules? buying a house in absence of building code standards? buying food in absence of an honest ingredient list?
do these rules not increase your confidence as a consumer? would you feel better if these standards didn't exist?
heck we need more regulation on the government at this point! let's get all their income on the books and run some audits! nothing more than the private industries lol.
can you name me any year in which health care premiums went down in recent history? they always go up.
I'd like you to compare Obama care premiums to what was available before and how fast individual plans were skyrocketing back then, while also considering how many of the sickest weren't even being accepted by "health" insurance.
health care, like education, prisons, and tobacco, wall Street, and wages have demonstrated, a truly free markets are not always the best, at least not in the same way we want them to. they make the most money for their owners, but that's not helping society, the nation, or humanity. in fact it's setting us back. the end result of capitalism will be feudalism.
the government is inefficient because of the regulations and oversight we impose on it. things cost more, take longer, but the end result doesn't make money for itself, but enriches every corner of the nation with no direct profit to the government. we pay the government for this in taxes. without regulation and oversight, corruption breaks everything down and we have what we have today. dysfunction.
can we consider a few other aspects? such as the effects these laws, or lack of would have on the greater reality, and consider all the people, not just the small business owner, as laws ought to do.
I've never gone deep into the weeds of the used book selling world, but I can imagine there should be verification, or at least registration to make sure that store owner isn't make illegal copies of someone else's proprietary property? and any business should be monitored to prevent money laundering or illegal international/terrorist dealings. are you really telling me a mob would not set up 100 repairman guys around the city to start generating clean revenue from their ill gotten gains?
what if his lawn venture put a giant hole in someone's yard, or killed their prized rose bush. your friend may literally not have the funds to cover that. heck some people may just dissapear. thus mandated registration and insurances. things get complex when you start adding in the interests of the rest of the world. thus regulations. and often times, you are part of the rest of the world. even the small business man when he closes for the day and goes to care of his needs.
A quick argument against single payer, to sum up Ted Cruz as well, and refute a point made.
During the time the video was made, insurance premiums rose, and plans were cancelled on the individuals covered. We already have discussed the system punishing for what is required and unable to be paid. But insurance plans? Suppose someone who wears glasses or has a heart problem has certain coverage, anticipating some issues over others. When a plan is cancelled, coverage is denied despite being under a certain insurance. Like having house insurance, but being denied based on one issue or another.
The rationing point is misunderstood. Companies can have the rights to deny, as they are agencies based on covering risk/reward. Sick, but the system was created for that. This does mean that the businesses don't act as an amalgam denying, but individually in many cases. It detracts from the original point of rationing, wait times.
When the state takes control, it works on the money received to decide what gets done. As they aren't working to compete with other insurance companies and take little to no risks, they provide at a much slower wait. It doesn't mean that they won't see people in emergencies (in either circumstances it still wouldn't). But actual care for a broken leg in places like Canada can take months before starting, and simple pain medication issues for broken fingers are stuck in a near day wait. Unthinkable in America for one. The costs have demonstrated themselves by rising, and looking at how our veterans are taken care of.
But not to be too far away from the point. If it is a law that your insurance must be a certain way or one, as it was required, it is regulation. Competition is harmed.
Federal focus does invalidate the use of the video, but in the videos defense of some issues, they bring up points.
Yeah, we can argue that America is so big somehow somewhere a law will exist that is unfair. California and the book store for example, but likeliness shouldn't invalidate these exist. Political demographic shouldn't change that either.
I did mention the jungle in regards to food regulations in the first comment I made, I won't disagree with health regulations. But isn't the process as provided redundant expensive and so forth? Regulations make the state money no doubt, and isn't simply to the end of regulating, else the licenses would be cheaper/condensed.
And for small business regulations, I worked with a friend's lawn mowing business, and I can say that in my state he couldn't put a push lawnmower into a hatchback and drive it to the lawns outside his neighborhood. The business charged between 15 to 35 dollars a lawn, and in some cases 45, twice a week between him, me and my brother. Now I know his business wasn't highroller, but the regulations applied. (I won't comment on if he broke any laws to get his jobs done.)
yes, all laws are regulations. I define regulations in the broadest terms possible. regardless of how they are enforced. I hope that is OK with you.
employee insurance plans were dying, much like employee pensions. the costs have increasingly been shifting to the workers who finally started to feel the sting with automatic deductions from their checks. no shopping around. and even that was being elminiated.
I heard that debate, and I agree with bernie's suggestion. single payer is the answer. and I enjoyed his spin on how the free market insurance did its own, very real, very discriminatory "rationing" with a life or death product.
well I can't defend each of those individual highly local city laws especially with the minimal context, but I can point out many flaws in that video.
but first, your right. there are many local and state laws and regulations that are absolutely stupid and clearly curropt. another example is used car dealership where laws literally prevent new people from entering allowing them to be turned into dynasties using archaic practices like haggling to get the edge on the customers.
but we were primarily talking about the federal government, and not a single example of a federal regulations there. like I said I can't defend the states, but the states are primarily under Republican control... so did they just use state screw ups to blame by association the federal government while promoting states rights, to give more power to the screw ups!?
I get it, it was meant to be humorous, but it was definitely not meant to be informative. I'm sorry but that video is the exact type of media that is harming our nation. it is 100% true, but 75% incomplete.
they jumped around not only cities, but careers. they looked for the absolute worst examples in a nation as large and populous as the largest European nations combined. and came up with a handful of local examples. their restaurant example is food service related, and despite the silly graphic, music, and every other tool at your disposal to ridicule it, food isn't something you want to mess with, and don't act like food vendors didn't have the "diarrhea for 3 days" cliche back in the free market 80s. not pretty.
they also left out any other laws, like exceptions if your business makes chump change. I'm sure he can repair his neighbors computer in his garage on the side, but you don't exactly expect him to be getting commercial deliveries at that point do you? (one of their examples). do you want big trucks rolling down your residential streets?
they leave out so much to simplify the message to get their point across.
The issue persists in areas big and small. tell me if you agree with most of the provided link, it isn't comprehensive granted, but a short that might present some ridiculous, state specific problems. https://youtu.be/YQscE3Xed64
Then, of course ACA comes into the mix because once a person or business is required else they be penalized, does that not 'regulate'? I know that there's a serious divide in thinking on the subject, but theres a full debate between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders on this particular insurance, the tradeoff for more covered (less according premiums, much less with their health plans) and so on. https://youtu.be/lTVjCc-o6vw
Some companies require health insurance for their workers. Wouldn't it make more sense to have individuals either sign on to jobs with the provisions or choose their own healthcare, as businesses can profit with or without as their situation demands?
We can discuss other regulations.
I completely agree with you, even the best medicine, the healthiest food becomes harmful when used in blind excess. but when asking for specific examples of these bad regulations, everyone comes up short. the only example that was given was the clean water act, and it didn't seem too convincing.
To which degree, though? Regulations can hurt small businesses, create expensive and unnecessary complications, and overall benefit big business. More regulation eventually leads to less products, and elevated prices as well. When these bigger businesses aren't breaking the rules but are losing money, it is the politicians that modeled regulations around the concepts of having certain business and denying others (as regulations are reactionary, not created in a vacuum) that will bail them out.
But that is in the most extreme situations. Regulations that prevent monopolies and health inspections, for example, are good for sure. But many times a regulation can be tracked on then argue, "are you against x?" when that is clearly not the case. The Jungle is a fine reason for needing some regulations.