Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-20-2012, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
6,476 posts, read 7,322,951 times
Reputation: 7026

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
If that's what it takes to prevent Nabisco from selling us tainted Oreo's? Sure. Not saying that they do, but without regulations there is nothing to prevent them doing so.
Other than going out of business and being sued in to the poor house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2012, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
6,476 posts, read 7,322,951 times
Reputation: 7026
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
So, y'all are not against all regulations? Just some of them?

Ok. Which ones. Please be specific.
Gonna take a while.

According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.
The General Accountability Office (GAO) reports that in the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, a total of 15,286 new federal regulations went into effect. Of these, 222 were classified as "major" rules, each one having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 08:47 PM
 
23,654 posts, read 17,511,041 times
Reputation: 7472
Not only do women in this country have medical care but the illegals have it as well. What about women coming here to have their babies so they will get citizenship and be covered in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 08:50 PM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,498,031 times
Reputation: 22752
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
The Lysol is an old ad and was an example of a company providing something for a specific purpose that was untested and found to be unhealthy for women.

The premise of the thread is that companies need to be regulated and their claims need to be continuously checked in order to ensure the well being of the citizens of our country.

In regards to Medicaid, the "parents" cannot get Medicaid, I'm sure most dad's don't have it. Pregnant women get medicaid due to complications that arose in the past when women had babies without adequate prenatal coverage. My mom had this happen to her when she lost her job in 1989 and she found out she was pregnant with my younger brother. Due to her pregnancy being an "pre-existing condition" she could not get on her husband's insurance and went the whole pregnancy without prenatal care. Unbeknownst to her, she develop gestational diabetes, which made her gain a lot of weight and pre-eclampsia. My brother was 12lbs when he was born, huge, due to the disease and very sick. He had to spend 2 weeks in the NICU which bankrupted my mom and step dad at the time as the bills were over $250K for her c-section and his NICU stay as well as my mom's extended hospital stay. She never paid all that back because she filed for bankruptcy, medical bills are still the main cause of Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the country, so the hospital didn't get paid and go screwed too over this situation. Medicaid now will pay for the delivery and prenatal visits of pregnant women in order to ensure their health and it is a safety net for hospitals to at least get some small amount of money for the deliveries and care of these patients. Pregnant women getting medicaid is not a horrible thing. Also in most cases after her 6 week checkup after the birth, the woman is taken off of medicaid. The child can still receive it for a specified amount of time, usually 2 years to ensure that all well checks and vaccinations take place, which is something that is good for public health.
Although there is going to be some variance from state to state, anyone of any age in this country who qualifies on the basis of income can receive Medicaid.

Now, maybe the situation you shared involved folks who didn't otherwise qualify (based on income) for Medicaid. But anyone who is qualified (on the basis of income) for Medicaid can stay on Medicaid until such time that they are making too much money to qualify.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 09:03 PM
 
270 posts, read 522,607 times
Reputation: 62
My grandmother used to spray my aunt with lysol every day when she got home from school. Now my aunt is crazy, and this is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,530,289 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
Other than going out of business and being sued in to the poor house.

That would be small consolation for people harmed, wouldn't it?

I'm not picking on Nabisco and, for all I know, they wouldn't deliberately adulterate their cookies with cheaper, but dangerous, substances to increase profits. But, some companies would without some sort of oversight. Heck, so do WITH oversight and when they get caught, they just belly up and get away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2012, 07:18 AM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,698 posts, read 34,555,075 times
Reputation: 29286
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
That would be small consolation for people harmed, wouldn't it?

I'm not picking on Nabisco and, for all I know, they wouldn't deliberately adulterate their cookies with cheaper, but dangerous, substances to increase profits. But, some companies would without some sort of oversight. Heck, so do WITH oversight and when they get caught, they just belly up and get away.
why don't you address the question re: oreo cookies that i actually asked, instead of the one you came up with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2012, 07:23 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,530,289 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
why don't you address the question re: oreo cookies that i actually asked, instead of the one you came up with?
What question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2012, 07:27 AM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,698 posts, read 34,555,075 times
Reputation: 29286
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
What question?


Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
define 'continously.'

should government entities be responsible for daily/weekly/monthly testing of each batch of oreos [for example] that nabisco produces, to ensure that each cookie contains the 100 calories displayed on the label, and not 90 or 110?
..based on your agreement that "companies need to be regulated and their claims need to be continuously checked in order to ensure the well being of the citizens of our country"

was precisely the premise of this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2012, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
6,476 posts, read 7,322,951 times
Reputation: 7026
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
That would be small consolation for people harmed, wouldn't it?

I'm not picking on Nabisco and, for all I know, they wouldn't deliberately adulterate their cookies with cheaper, but dangerous, substances to increase profits. But, some companies would without some sort of oversight. Heck, so do WITH oversight and when they get caught, they just belly up and get away.
I sincerely doubt that the vast majority of companies want to deliberately poison their customers in the first place. Why do that when you can just sell'em tasty cookies and make an honest buck? My point is that people wouldn't be harmed in the first place since it's pretty easy to detect bad stuff in an Oreo, and besides getting sued there'd be criminal penalties, public shame, & c.
The Left seems to have a major woody for corporations as if the very business model just has to be corrupt. The plain truth is it's in the best interest of any seller of any good or service to keep their customers happy, healthy, and coming back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top