2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The owner gets to control access to their property.
They could. But I doubt they would do that because it is silly. As long as the hospital gets paid they would treat a patient. And costs would be low enough that for most things it could be dont out of pocket. And catastrophic coverage is only maybe a hundred bucks a month which is cheap and easy to afford. and for those who cant you do what we used to do. Even before insurance was the way things were dont doctors did not turn away patients for inability to pay.

A hundred bucks can be the difference between having to chose if you get food or electricity this month for some people. Again, you're promising low costs, out of pocket, for treatments that might require days or even weeks where the patient takes up a bed as well as the labor of several trained professionals. I want to find out what low costs mean for you in those cases. If we take Lasic as an example as you did before, I could get that where the cheapest one is 3000 dollars but it's not as good as the 4000 dollar one. I presume the costs for longer and more intensive care would be quite a bit higher. That's a pretty steep cost just for the surgery, there is of course the option of getting an installment plan where I pay it off on a monthly basis at around 40 dollars a month. Not something that would ruin me, but then again I'm single, live quite cheaply and have a steady employment. Not everyone has such a situation in their life.

Anyway, the things you're talking about right there now isn't a free market situation where it's unregulated. If it's unregulated then there would be nothing stopping insurance companies from trying to force their customers to use their preferred hospitals and putting added expanses on people trying to use the ones of their choice. There would be nothing stopping hospital staff from forbidding their doctors to use hospital time and resources to help people with the wrong insurance or people who can't pay. There would be no incentive for the companies to not squeeze every little bit out of their resources to make a profit for the only people that matter to them, the shareholders.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Making them liable to damages they cause fixes much of that.

There will always be bad apples. Regulations don't make that not happen. they mostly slow things down needlessly. Using Liability accomplishes what regulations do with out the need for anything else.

Who makes them liable for the damages they cause? What force holds them accountable and can leverage pressure on them? Why would they accept being liable for their actions?

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Making them liable to damages they cause fixes much of that.

That's...literally the basis of law and order and regulations...making people bear the consequences of their errors and wrong doing...you're literally contradicting yourself here...

I don't know in what rose colored glasses planet you are living, but saying that regulations are useless and don't dissuade people to do whatever is highly unrealistic

1 minute ago, Darth Revenant said:

A hundred bucks can be the difference between having to chose if you get food or electricity this month for some people. Again, you're promising low costs, out of pocket, for treatments that might require days or even weeks where the patient takes up a bed as well as the labor of several trained professionals. I want to find out what low costs mean for you in those cases. If we take Lasic as an example as you did before, I could get that where the cheapest one is 3000 dollars but it's not as good as the 4000 dollar one. I presume the costs for longer and more intensive care would be quite a bit higher. That's a pretty steep cost just for the surgery, there is of course the option of getting an installment plan where I pay it off on a monthly basis at around 40 dollars a month. Not something that would ruin me, but then again I'm single, live quite cheaply and have a steady employment. Not everyone has such a situation in their life.

Anyway, the things you're talking about right there now isn't a free market situation where it's unregulated. If it's unregulated then there would be nothing stopping insurance companies from trying to force their customers to use their preferred hospitals and putting added expanses on people trying to use the ones of their choice. There would be nothing stopping hospital staff from forbidding their doctors to use hospital time and resources to help people with the wrong insurance or people who can't pay. There would be no incentive for the companies to not squeeze every little bit out of their resources to make a profit for the only people that matter to them, the shareholders.

And charity can take care of that. Unless you lack the compassion to voluntarily give to charity. Or do you lack so much Empathy you require the government to steal from you to help others?

5 minutes ago, MB -Fr- said:

That's...literally the basis of law and order and regulations...making people bear the consequences of their errors and wrong doing...you're literally contradicting yourself here...

I don't know in what rose colored glasses planet you are living, but saying that regulations are useless and don't dissuade people to do whatever is highly unrealistic

The problem is regulations tend to involve a bunch of paperwork that doesnt accomplish anything. When just making people liable for their actions accomplishes what regulations accomplish with out the need for a bunch of paperwork. FOr example Dodd-Frank requires a bunch of paper work be filled out for the purpose of keeping people safe from fraud. Problem is a person looking to defraud people wont fill out that paperwork honestly. So what did all this paperwork accomplish? It created a bunch of billable hours for accountants. What it didnt do was protect anyone from people who would commit fraud. And that is the way most regulation work. They require a bunch of paperwork. None of them actually prevent those intent on cheating others from cheating others.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

The problem is regulations tend to involve a bunch of paperwork that doesnt accomplish anything. When just making people liable for their actions accomplishes what regulations accomplish with out the need for a bunch of paperwork. FOr example Dodd-Frank requires a bunch of paper work be filled out for the purpose of keeping people safe from fraud. Problem is a person looking to defraud people wont fill out that paperwork honestly. So what did all this paperwork accomplish? It created a bunch of billable hours for accountants. What it didnt do was protect anyone from people who would commit fraud. And that is the way most regulation work. They require a bunch of paperwork. None of them actually prevent those intent on cheating others from cheating others.

the people that handle this "unnecessary paperwork" are trained to spot inconsitencies in it, & when people lie on this paper, there are almost always inconsistencies. so yes, despite what you say, this paperwork does protect from fraud

while no paperwork at all as you suggest removes all these protections and goes free-for-all

you might want to gamble with people's or even your health with it, I certainly don't

I work in chemical industry, I shudder to think what the equivalent of what you suggest would be. regulations are there to ensure safety. without regulations or when they are incorrectly applied, the death toll is enormous

@Daeglan I’m the rep for the company I work for on the safety committee at the Zoo I work at. When we make decisions concerning guest and worker safety at the zoo there is less paperwork than action, but the paperwork helps keep people focused, mindful and on task.

There’s always been an amount of necessary bureaucracy in the world, to help coordinate groups of people.

24 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And charity can take care of that. Unless you lack the compassion to voluntarily give to charity. Or do you lack so much Empathy you require the government to steal from you to help others?

Take care of which of those things? What percentage of my earnings or fixed sum is a reasonable level of charity? Am I expected to give only to those closest to me or do I give freely to all? Who do I trust to distribute charity towards others? What sort of incentives would there be for my donations? Charity is not an answer to the question, or not any more than the free market magical fairy is. Can I trust on you to help me pay off my medical expanses if I break a bone carrying packages to your porch?

20 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The problem is regulations tend to involve a bunch of paperwork that doesnt accomplish anything. When just making people liable for their actions accomplishes what regulations accomplish with out the need for a bunch of paperwork. FOr example Dodd-Frank requires a bunch of paper work be filled out for the purpose of keeping people safe from fraud. Problem is a person looking to defraud people wont fill out that paperwork honestly. So what did all this paperwork accomplish? It created a bunch of billable hours for accountants. What it didnt do was protect anyone from people who would commit fraud. And that is the way most regulation work. They require a bunch of paperwork. None of them actually prevent those intent on cheating others from cheating others.

How will they be liable? Who holds them accountable? How would liability and accountability be established without evidence?

3 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

Take care of which of those things? What percentage of my earnings or fixed sum is a reasonable level of charity? Am I expected to give only to those closest to me or do I give freely to all? Who do I trust to distribute charity towards others? What sort of incentives would there be for my donations? Charity is not an answer to the question, or not any more than the free market magical fairy is. Can I trust on you to help me pay off my medical expanses if I break a bone carrying packages to your porch?

You arent required to do anything. That is kind of the point of voluntary. But In my experience people voluntarily give a lot to charity. and if the money isnt taken fromt hem for taxes they would give more and need less. support.

7 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

How will they be liable? Who holds them accountable? How would liability and accountability be established without evidence?

7 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

How will they be liable? Who holds them accountable? How would liability and accountability be established without evidence?

Just because the FDA could be done away with doesnt mean the legal system went away. And remember when I said that fraudulant people wouldnt fill out the paperwork correctly so you already have evidencial problems.

23 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

Take care of which of those things? What percentage of my earnings or fixed sum is a reasonable level of charity? Am I expected to give only to those closest to me or do I give freely to all? Who do I trust to distribute charity towards others? What sort of incentives would there be for my donations? Charity is not an answer to the question, or not any more than the free market magical fairy is. Can I trust on you to help me pay off my medical expanses if I break a bone carrying packages to your porch?

And what happens when I don't qualify for charity on 'religious' grounds?

2 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

And what happens when I don't qualify for charity on 'religious' grounds?

2 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

And what happens when I don't qualify for charity on 'religious' grounds?

Are you claiming there are only religious charities? last I checked there are a bunch of non religious charities. Are only religious people charitable?

22 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You arent required to do anything. That is kind of the point of voluntary. But In my experience people voluntarily give a lot to charity. and if the money isnt taken fromt hem for taxes they would give more and need less. support.

Why would they give more? What is their incentive? What is a lot ,that people in your experience, give? Is what they give based on what's needed, what they earn or what makes them feel good? Also what is the framework for distribution here? There is a big difference between just giving to those in the immediate vicinity who are needy and saying charity would take care of all problems.

15 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Just because the FDA could be done away with doesnt mean the legal system went away. And remember when I said that fraudulant people wouldnt fill out the paperwork correctly so you already have evidencial problems.

Badly filled in paperwork that doesn't match the reality of the situation is evidence, which means they can be held accountable. What level of legal intervention in the free market is acceptable? I thought the idea here was an unregulated free market.

8 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

Why would they give more? What is their incentive? What is a lot ,that people in your experience, give? Is what they give based on what's needed, what they earn or what makes them feel good? Also what is the framework for distribution here? There is a big difference between just giving to those in the immediate vicinity who are needy and saying charity would take care of all problems.

Badly filled in paperwork that doesn't match the reality of the situation is evidence, which means they can be held accountable. What level of legal intervention in the free market is acceptable? I thought the idea here was an unregulated free market.

Unregulated does not mean no legal system. Product liability law already pretty much covers most of this. Most regulations amount to putting barriers to entry for new start ups.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Unregulated does not mean no legal system. Product liability law already pretty much covers most of this. Most regulations amount to putting barriers to entry for new start ups.

Pointing out correctly that the regulators are corrupt does not negate the need to regulation of certain industries. There are to many con artists, mafias, and bad apple out their for their not to be regulation in industries that can effect all of the rest of us and nature through their negligence and criminal behavior.

The legal system is also inadequate to police these people they have the resources to fight in court for years, while the small guy usually doesn’t have the money or time.

5 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Pointing out correctly that the regulators are corrupt does not negate the need to regulation of certain industries. There are to many con artists, mafias, and bad apple out their for their not to be regulation in industries that can effect all of the rest of us and nature through their negligence and criminal behavior.

The legal system is also inadequate to police these people they have the resources to fight in court for years, while the small guy usually doesn’t have the money or time.

Yes it does. Regulation is not what protects you. Trade assotiations could accomplish the same thing with out all the overhead. Since what we actually want are standards.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Yes it does. Regulation is not what protects you. Trade assotiations could accomplish the same thing with out all the overhead. Since what we actually want are standards.

Trade associations are made up by the businesses themselves. Self-regulation only leads to the terrible mess we are in right now - they will always but profit before person.

12 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Yes it does. Regulation is not what protects you. Trade assotiations could accomplish the same thing with out all the overhead. Since what we actually want are standards.

Since when does belonging to a train association stop criminal behavior like illegal chemical dumping? Have you heard of the problems Flint Michigan has had with its water?

5 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Trade associations are made up by the businesses themselves. Self-regulation only leads to the terrible mess we are in right now - they will always but profit before person.

You mean the terrible mess where we have government intervention...I'm confused...Also to get the most profit you need to provide good product. Cutting corners will have you going out of business pretty quick.

1 minute ago, Eoen said:

Since when does belonging to a train association stop criminal behavior like illegal chemical dumping? Have you heard of the problems Flint Michigan has had with its water?

1 minute ago, Eoen said:

Since when does belonging to a train association stop criminal behavior like illegal chemical dumping? Have you heard of the problems Flint Michigan has had with its water?

yes I have. Flint was caused by government. Notice how bottled water doesnt have this problem.

As to illegal dumping that can easily be handled with property rights. As generally they dont have rights to where they dump.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

yes I have. Flint was caused by government. Notice how bottled water doesnt have this problem.

As to illegal dumping that can easily be handled with property rights. As generally they dont have rights to where they dump.

Factories usually dump on their property, and it leaks into the local water table or rivers.

I wonder if any of you espousing more government regulation have ever heard of the term Enlightened Self- Interest.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I wonder if any of you espousing more government regulation have ever heard of the term Enlightened Self- Interest.

Yeah, it’s the bull philosophy Reaganomics is based on, enlightenment is rare in the human species, it’s a white rhino like benevolent dictators.