View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very funny:
Quote: | Come on Pueno, it wouldn't have been all bad. Look at all the late night material that came out of Toronto mayor Rob Ford, and Palin is a whole lot easier to look at too.
|
The piece that is missing in all this bellyaching about regulations is an understanding of their value. Every single regulation comes about as a rule promulgated under a law passed by some level of government, to address what they saw as a significant problem. If you have ever worked on legislation, you know that for a law to pass, at any level, there must be a general consensus that there is a problem, and the law is a reasonable solution. Some work better than others.
For land use and other regulations, the great flaw in the Tea's is thinking that they can invalidate laws by just having temper tantrums. We live in a brokered interest Republic in the United States. It requires some level of consensus to move most things forward politically. I guarantee you that the Tea's don't have the power to amend the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, or the National Environmental Policy Act. Same case with labor laws--and the ACA.
The great advantage of credible regulation, run through administrative agencies, is that it is more efficient than the courts. If business interests work with other stakeholders to get a permit, and some of the stakeholders turn out to be unreasonable, approval by the permitting agency is usually recognized by the courts. There are sometimes temporary wins for unreasonable business interests--like Cheney intervening for farmers on the Klamath River (read Angler), but eventually unreasonable actions, even by Cheney, get overruled. I saw this during the Reagan administration, when, despite efforts by developers who had backed Reagan, and his Secretary for the Interior, James Watt, protection for wetlands was increased. Bad decisions by Watt, that were not credible, were overturned in such sweeping decisions that the law became stronger.
One of the down sides of putting your faith on amateurs with poor study habits. Nerds will outmaneuver them every time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
reinerehlers, maybe my last post was one that I should have deleted. Yet, in the end, I didn't. It was late.
To be frank, I didn't like being used in your earlier tiff with pueno, particularly since my post had nothing to do with it in my mind. Moreover, you already made your point in an earlier post that I responding to. Add in the capital letter thing, and you were really on your pedestal. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856
|
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
swchandler,
Sorry I don't think I was using your comment in my "tiff" with Pueno. I thought I was explaining why it "is their" business. Also I don't see this as a "tiff" I see it as an exchange of opinion, experience, and reasoning. My experience is what I was sharing while on my "pedestal", which I don't see as a pedestal because I am not looking for anyone's approval to be honest. I am simply sharing what I have experienced much as if we were all sitting around having a conversation.
Pueno,
I can see the need for many of these regulations, but in the case of the small independent I don't see the need for them to carry WSIB on themselves if they only work for themselves. I can see them registering with WSIB and being required to carry personal disability though.
Perhaps the majority of the problem lies in the manner in which the service (if you could call it that) is being rendered. I wish my experience was an isolated incident but it is not the exception by any means. An example of that is recently my tile / flooring contractor's account on the E clearance showed "uneligible for clearance" though he had paid only 3 weeks prior (he showed me the payment receipt) he called and they had no record despite a cleared cheque at the bank. He ends up paying via Visa over the phone to get the clearance. Last week I go to print off his clearance certificate and once again showing "uneligible" . I'm like, "how?" and he has to call them againt to clear this up. Hours wasted due to incompetance! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
reinerehlers wrote: | swchandler,
Sorry I don't think I was using your comment in my "tiff" with Pueno. I thought I was explaining why it "is their" business. Also I don't see this as a "tiff" I see it as an exchange of opinion, experience, and reasoning. My experience is what I was sharing while on my "pedestal", which I don't see as a pedestal because I am not looking for anyone's approval to be honest. I am simply sharing what I have experienced much as if we were all sitting around having a conversation.
Pueno,
I can see the need for many of these regulations, but in the case of the small independent I don't see the need for them to carry WSIB on themselves if they only work for themselves. I can see them registering with WSIB and being required to carry personal disability though.
Perhaps the majority of the problem lies in the manner in which the service (if you could call it that) is being rendered. I wish my experience was an isolated incident but it is not the exception by any means. An example of that is recently my tile / flooring contractor's account on the E clearance showed "uneligible for clearance" though he had paid only 3 weeks prior (he showed me the payment receipt) he called and they had no record despite a cleared cheque at the bank. He ends up paying via Visa over the phone to get the clearance. Last week I go to print off his clearance certificate and once again showing "uneligible" . I'm like, "how?" and he has to call them againt to clear this up. Hours wasted due to incompetance! |
No tiff. You're just not thinking straight.
So you have one example of a regulation that you find oppressive. Because of this, you want to condemn the existence of all regulations because of that one -- which might not be as onerous as you'd like to think?
We need a government regulation against unstraight thinking.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856
|
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, so nice.
Did you take a look at that link regarding the $19 billion deficit.
Maybe one might also conclude that they're doing such a poor job at providing insurance that they are making others pick up the tab for their inability to provide insurance effectively. Do you hear of any other insurance companies losing money? I see that most insurance usually turn huge profits. If they were capable of that then maybe it could actually cover the educational and monitoring aspect of regulating worker's safety.
Maybe there should be a regulation for who is capable of running these programs profitably and effectively. Maybe they shouldn't implement such programs until they can do so in an accountable and cost efficient manner and act as if they are providing a service and not doing us a favour.
And please don't put words in my mouth about wanting to scrap all regulation. That's not what I said or implied at all. It is interesting that you can admit that some of the regulations are in fact oppressive.
Last edited by KGB-NP on Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:37 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | ... something like 400,000 people have registered nationwide |
Oops. I may have been wrong. The WSJ polled the insurance industry and found that only about 1 in 4 of the "enrollees" Sebelius claims have actually paid. Than means that for the billions already poured into Obamacare, they've persuaded under 100,000 to actually buy a policy. The industry also claims, according to this reporter, that HHS has directed the industry to withhold these data from the congress and the media. Can you say "obstruction of justice"?
The administration's latest solution, according to many news sources including the WSJ? COMMAND the insurance industry to falsify the dates of doctor visits, and threaten the industry by telling insurers they must let patients use their old doctors or those insurers will be excluded from Obamacare.
The King of the U.S.A. hath spake.
5 ... 4 ... 3 ... and here comes the left with nothing but fart jokes and ad hominem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011 Posts: 14879 Location: on earth
|
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | isobars wrote: | ... something like 400,000 people have registered nationwide |
Oops. I may have been wrong. The WSJ polled the insurance industry and found that only about 1 in 4 of the "enrollees" Sebelius claims have actually paid. Than means that for the billions already poured into Obamacare, they've persuaded under 100,000 to actually buy a policy. The industry also claims, according to this reporter, that HHS has directed the industry to withhold these data from the congress and the media. Can you say "obstruction of justice"?
The administration's latest solution, according to many news sources including the WSJ? COMMAND the insurance industry to falsify the dates of doctor visits, and threaten the industry by telling insurers they must let patients use their old doctors or those insurers will be excluded from Obamacare.
The King of the U.S.A. hath spake.
5 ... 4 ... 3 ... and here comes the left with nothing but fart jokes and ad hominem. |
wsj owned by right wing trust fund kid austrailan ruppy murdoch who made his money in trash journalism like the enquirers.
His company was how many people indicted or under investigations for illegal activities all the way to the top levels.
One of his cronies ever attempted to do the same here to the dead victims of 9-11 and yet this criminal enterprise is a hero to the right wing. anyway ruppys first paper he started when expanding his empire to the USA was the Star a trash journalism enquirer. Yet I believe it does matter how you got your money when dealing with freedom of the press and integrity that you can believe.
Then polling by a right winger, is that an oxymoron. Or just right wing moron. remember the last election and right wing polling..... you really need to find a reputable source.
would you ever believe anything Putin says when looking in his eyes like Bush said? No difference when Ruppy has a pathetic hate past of enquirers and illegal activities to just run a media empire. _________________ when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This could be posted in any number of places. The current Smithsonian has an article on Michael Skinner http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ideas-innovations/The-Toxins-That-Affected-Your-Great-Grandparents-Could-Be-In-Your-Genes-231152741.html#Skinner-ingenuity-birds-main-473.jpg that discusses epigenetics. Seems that he was testing the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin, an agricultural fungicide, and found that it did not affect sexual differentiation, which was the study thesis. But they did find that it affected the fourth generation--the grandchildren of those exposed. Turns out a number of such substances have that affect--including DDT, which leads to obesity in later generations.
I had been a pretty large skeptic of the precautionary principal in environmental regulation until I read this. Of course, since it suggests that genetic changes are possible, and might affect the fitness of individuals in the long run--that is, since it supports the idea of evolution, we can rest assured that many on the right will never hear of it. Those who get their news from Fox, a Murdoch paper, or an evangelical web-site, that is.
I thought that I had been assured, by a petroleum engineer with expertise in environmental chemistry, that DDT was perfectly safe and regulation was a plot against the third world. Imagine my surprise. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856
|
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FDA doing a good job at regulations? Aspartame anyone? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
reinerehlers wrote: | FDA doing a good job at regulations? Aspartame anyone? |
This is confusing.
You obviously prefer fewer and less regulation. Is your point with this comment that we should have more or better regulations? Is your point that because something is under-regulated or poorly-regulated that we should have no regulations?
Or is your point that somebody stole your sugar donut this morning?
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|