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.
I get mixed messages from both liberals and conservatives.
Many people are generally opposed to regulations, and are ONLY in favor of regulations that make life expensive for lower-income people, who might be happy to use lower-priced options if they were available. And then they complain that is the fault of the low-income people if they can't make ends meet. A few examples:
*Food regulations that prohibit the selling of food that does not meet rigid inspection minimums or outdated or leftover food.
*Medical regulations that prohibit non-doctors from treating simple ailments or prescribing common drugs like antibiotics.
*Transport regulations, that prohibit low-cost public transport in older busses with fewer frills.
Low income people would be willing to assume the small risk if they could save a huge amount of money, but the country club set forces them to buy products and services that meet their own standards of excellence.
Is it fair that society impose rich-people standards on their lifestlye, and then begrudge them the resources to pay for it?
I suggest you do a little reading on how recently in our history it's been that we greatly reduced the incidence of food borne and (unclean) water borne diseases.
While your at it study up a bit about "common" drugs like anti-biotics. The over prescription of anti biotics is bordering on an epidemice because people who dont' leave the Dr.'s office with a prescription don't feel like the Dr. "did anything". Of course they then quit half way through the regimen. This has caused a lot of diseases to build up immunity to those anti biotics, because there really is such a thing as EVOLUTION.
As far as "low cost" transportation using "older buses", IIRC the federal regs that allow local transit authorities to get federal money mandate that those buses stay in service for something like 14 years. I used to know the number because I used to sell to some transit authoriteis, not remember exact number any more.
As for other regulations, let's review the bidding. A lot of people will rant and rave that the "free market" is the best solution to keep prices low. Except it doesn't work where a monopoly (or near monopoly) exists. In some cases the government really is MORE EFFICIENT that private industry, as private industry will take (sometimes dangerous) shortcuts to increase profits, like (IIRC) Boeing is doing by overseeing VA benefits.
Deregulating electricity rates has led in some cases to massive cheating and fraud (see CA and Enron), and in (AFAIK) every case rates to rise much faster than regulated rates. Of course you could make the argument that the free market provided uninterrupted service, although it didn't, and the regulated market has.
Deregulating trucking has led to severe safety problems in the trucking industry, via lack of inspections, lack of monitoring of time behind the wheel. In fact 18 wheelers are often referred to as sweatshops on wheels!
Deregulation of the banking idnustry. Well you're living through the result of the most recent batch, and for the previous series of how well it went try googling phrases such as "housing collapse of the mid '80s" and "Resolution Trust Corporation".
Whether you realize it or not as a society we're all in this TOGETHER. So when some idiot mother decides not to vaccinate her kid because she saw some non evolution mother on Oprah say its' dangerous, she's right. EXCEPT IT'S DANGEROUS TO ALL OF US AND OUR KIDS. Any idea how many people worldwide die of something simple like MEASLES, which had just about been eliminated in the US.
So letting "poor" people get sick through eating unclean food, drinking impure water, or having their economic status decline through current credit card and other "business friendly" laws hurts ALL OF SOCIETY.
Heck, I'm suprised you didn't suggest just letting the poor's kids just get crappier schools, oh, wait they already do, and just have them drop out at 12 to go to work in the coal mines, slaughterhouses and textile factories. That's real DEREGULATION for you.
My main point is that you missed mine. I am not asking for no regulation. I am asking for a parallel system of providers, who offer less rigidly regulated goods and services for those who will knowingly take a risk by patronizing them but can, at least, afford to.
I'm perfectly aware of the danger of overuse of antibiotics. Even my parallel practitioner knows about that, and would be as capable as a high-end doctor of limiting the Rx of antibiotics to cases where they are genuinely useful and monitoring the patient to ensure compliance with effective medication. Much more so, because with parallel medicine, poor patients would see a practitioner often enough to learn such things.
I once had a Dr, who had a PA in his office, trained as a medic in the army. He could have gone down the street and put up a shingle, and charged ten bucks an office call. I'd have trusted him with just about anything.
Fourteen year old busses can be kept up to regulatory standards only with huge maintenance expenditures, which the passenger pays. Let the regs slide, to keep the prices down, on selected parallel services.
Most supermarkets cull the produce bins for items that have become unsightly with age, or frozen meat that thawed. They refuse to sell them at a discount, destroying perfectly safe and nutritious food instead, which is all some people can afford. Stupid laws like take a clean plate when you return to the line at the buffet. The sign says its a state law. I once phoned the Tips-Hotline and reported to the police that I saw a guy refill his plate at the Ponderosa. The operator was not amused. You report a crime, and they act like you're a wise guy.
I get mixed messages from both liberals and conservatives.
Many people are generally opposed to regulations, and are ONLY in favor of regulations that make life expensive for lower-income people, who might be happy to use lower-priced options if they were available. And then they complain that is the fault of the low-income people if they can't make ends meet. A few examples:
*Food regulations that prohibit the selling of food that does not meet rigid inspection minimums or outdated or leftover food.
*Medical regulations that prohibit non-doctors from treating simple ailments or prescribing common drugs like antibiotics.
*Transport regulations, that prohibit low-cost public transport in older busses with fewer frills.
Low income people would be willing to assume the small risk if they could save a huge amount of money, but the country club set forces them to buy products and services that meet their own standards of excellence.
Is it fair that society impose rich-people standards on their lifestlye, and then begrudge them the resources to pay for it?
If you want to get lax about food regulations, transportation regulations that allow for safety for its occupants and for other drivers on the road, not to mention polution that affects anybody regardless of their social status. If you want to be lax on medical regulations like they did in the 80s ( reusing seringes) and allowing more malpractice situations that would affect lower income people as well, then by all means if you think the laws and regualtions in this country just protect the rich then you are trippin' lol
oh and i need to add, everyone has a fair advantage in society to "make it" and if you can't figure that out than you abviously are going to live poor. People that do figure that out ( some it takes a tough long journey to get there) then they benafit from it. That is the fairness of life. That concept in itself is the very drive that makes young poor kids or anyone else to make it and do well. If you are poor and the govornment keeps giving to you and taking from the rich how are you going to want to be successful in life. Your not. Your going to want to take the easy way out and ride on the govornments coat tails. And when you see how the rich are being taken from unfairly because they worked hard to get there then what appeal is that going to be to you. Are you going to be looking forward to working extra hard to become richer just for it to be taken from you, no your not. So that is why it is tougher are poorer people to make it. Its called life and it sucks. Some people have the strenghth to make it and some don't but what is great in our country is no one can hold you back its up to you. Everyone is dealt with unfairly ( even the rich) at times and thats why no one should judge anybody unless you have been in their shoes. So if you want to make it easier for poorer people, then don't give things away to them that will harm them. things are expensive for a reason so let people work hard to get it.
i know there are typos here but i dont give a flying **** so there.
This is basically the description of a third-world country with massive income disparity, where nothing is a universal public service. Want water? Pay for it, or walk to the nearest charity pump. Want sewage service? Pay for it, or use your local stream as a toilet. Want police or fire protection? Pay for it, or join a gang or local fire team with buckets and dirt.
Want food that meets basic safety standards? Pay for it, or buy whatever the street sellers have. It might be diseased, or that bottle of medicine might actually be poison wood alcohol, but if that's all you can afford, so be it.
That would be a dismal direction for the country to go...
Regulate the things that everyone needs, and anything that causes harm to the envirnment or food supply. By needs I mean that which you cant do without. If its necessary to sustain life, it should be as inexpensive as possible, safe, and under a watchfull eye. By regulation I mean that which achieves the above, even to the extent of limiting proffits to prevent a drain on society, but without lowering the quality of that which is regulated.
This is basically the description of a third-world country with massive income disparity, where nothing is a universal public service. Want water? Pay for it, or walk to the nearest charity pump. Want sewage service? Pay for it, or use your local stream as a toilet. Want police or fire protection? Pay for it, or join a gang or local fire team with buckets and dirt.
Want food that meets basic safety standards? Pay for it, or buy whatever the street sellers have. It might be diseased, or that bottle of medicine might actually be poison wood alcohol, but if that's all you can afford, so be it.
That would be a dismal direction for the country to go...
I think you're confusing what is typically a local service for regulation. Municipal water isn't a regulation, it's a service. Fire and police departments are local services as well, not regulations.
Building codes are regulations, zoning laws are regulations, motor vehicle inspection laws are regulations.
I get mixed messages from both liberals and conservatives.
Why not compare a state that's heavily regulated to one that isn't on things people value most?
Oh wait a minute, we don't all agree on what we value most.
Can I ask a follow-up question, who (individual or business) has moved from a condo, community, town, city, state, country because of too many rules/regulations?
You know, some people don't care if they weigh your dog/kid, tell you what plants you can plant on your property, make you fill out an extra 5 pages of paperwork or tax you to death to monitor and enforce the rules/regulations, for example. Other people move.
IMO most people agree that without regulation our standards would be compromised in a variety of ways. Enforcement of rules and regulation is key, however.
What has always annoyed me is the political hay a particular party has espoused by expanding the idea that deregulation is good, small Gov't. is desirable and we should read their lips.
However, when the people realize what the Politicos actually cause the rhetoric isn't so impressive. Taxes and regulation is necessary. For one, a common gripe of lobbyists is that to succeed less regulation is needed. We are familiar with the various loopholes (ENRON) and deregulation that have allowed the haves to exploit the have nots. White-collar criminals and opportunists have run amuck in the US for more than a decade--does this make us a better country as a whole? I don't think so.
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.
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.
Isn't Dereg. Wonderful?
