Corporations wont let us have Medicare for All - why? Why do they ALL lobby so hard against it? It would make their costs cheaper, right? They wouldn’t have to pay for our health insurance. Plus we could get medicines so we can be at work more instead of home sick or spreading sickness at work. So it must not be cheaper in some way for them to have Medicare for All - right? Why do they think it would be more expensive for THEM if we all had public health care?
Because that would detect cancer (and toxins) and allow us to class action sue companies for them. Can’t sue if it was never detected. Thats why they find carcinogens and lead in kids’ products so much - their products dont have more lead in them, but kids all can be on Medicaid and that catches it. Flint, MI, water poisoning was detected by a kid on Medicaid.
They don’t want us to all have healthcare because that is public science and it will absolutely detect what theyve been lying and poisoning us with. It would probably destroy all the big companies like Nestle, Johnson&Johnson, Colgate, etc…
Public healthcare also removes one of the few leashes they have on workers to keep them in line. My Father in law used to work at a local retail chain in my area, and the pay was straight dogshit, but the health insurance was phenomenal. It kept many workers from leaving for better paying jobs.
Rivers full of industrial waste used to catch on fire, bosses used to lock workers in and let them die in fires(triangle shirtwaist fire),school was only for the wealthy, kids used to work, companies used to poison people en masse and deny it with no consequences(radium girls) work was 12 hours a day 7 days a week(people literally died to change this and trump people voted for this to happen again
And if we’re all killed, who will the big companies get money from?
They will market safe food as a new product and charge you more for food that wont kill you.
Corporations wont let us have Medicare for All - why? Why do they ALL lobby so hard against it? It would make their costs cheaper, right? They wouldn’t have to pay for our health insurance. Plus we could get medicines so we can be at work more instead of home sick or spreading sickness at work. So it must not be cheaper in some way for them to have Medicare for All - right? Why do they think it would be more expensive for THEM if we all had public health care?
Because that would detect cancer (and toxins) and allow us to class action sue companies for them. Can’t sue if it was never detected. Thats why they find carcinogens and lead in kids’ products so much - their products dont have more lead in them, but kids all can be on Medicaid and that catches it. Flint, MI, water poisoning was detected by a kid on Medicaid.
They don’t want us to all have healthcare because that is public science and it will absolutely detect what theyve been lying and poisoning us with. It would probably destroy all the big companies like Nestle, Johnson&Johnson, Colgate, etc…
Regulations, and safety laws, and labor laws are WRITTEN IN BLOOD. People have literally died for every regulation we have on the books, it’s WHY the laws were written
And lawsuits
I’m all for safety regulations and laws, but I also understand why people are frustrated with them.
People writing the laws or corporate policies are incredibly lazy and just copy paste a bunch of stuff to where it’s not really required imo.
Like workcrews must always have a hardhat on. Then there are landscapers working in a garden pulling weeds even if there are no trees for miles. What’s going to happen? A tornado throws a rake at your head?
Also the more exceptions you have to rules, the more confusing it is and the more likely people are going to fuck it up.
“Always wear a hardhat on site” - easy. simple. minimal room for interpretation.
“Always wear a hardhat on site when any of the following conditions are true: [a, b, c, d] unless [e, f]” is going to lead to errors, and then people will get hurt.
People aren’t that smart. Especially when they’re not motivated, or distracted.
Then there are landscapers working in a garden pulling weeds even if there are no trees for miles. What’s going to happen?
As someone who used to be an operations manager for several work-crews, I fully understand why you would just make a fucking blanket-rule. Because the more people you put on a work crew, the more obvious and stupid risks they will take. It was a daily struggle to get people to wear glove and eye protection using hammers, and the times that I didn’t enforce it as a “do it or get sent home” rule, can you guess what happened?
No really, we were on first-name basis with people at the urgent-care center my company worked out a deal with.
Sure the day that they’re raking the yard there’s no chance of someone suffering a head-injury. Until one of them is loading the wheelbarrow back on the truck and didn’t bother lowering the lift-gate because they chose to load their buckets and tools first and didn’t want shit to fall out of the back of the truck, then the goddamn wheelbarrow falls and lands on Martinez’s head and now he needs stitches and X-rays and is off the team for a week and we have another worker’s comp claim and everyone’s paycheck suffers for it.
We wouldn’t need PPE rules and a thousand other safety regulations if people were always smart, alert and watching for hazards. They’re not. They’re incredibly dumb. Everyone is. So we need blanket-rules.
And you just know the second someone got hurt they’d turn around and sue you because you didn’t tell them not to do that. Even people who know better will cut corners “Ehhhh, I don’t need to find my safety glasses. I’m just grinding this part for a second…”
Then there are the situations where you think “Why the hell do I need a hard hat? I’m jut walking around with a clip board.” That is the day Steve loses his hammer off of the roof and it makes a 1 in a million bounce directly onto your skull and now you are in the hospital getting a hematoma drained off of your brain.
100%, all of that.
I once owned and raised exotic reptiles, I remember being told “Take precautions in your terrariums, if there’s a way they can harm themselves, no matter how remote, they WILL find a way to maim or kill themselves with anything you put in there.”
I realized over time that this rule applies to all of us.
I am just astonished the concept of blanket safety rules is getting pushback on the same website where people routinely show gifs and clips of people suffering freak accidents at worksites.
They also need to be reviewed on a regular basis. If the reason for the regulation is gone it should be dropped. I think every law and regulation should have a nonbinding statement describing the motivation behind it.
I would agree with this. Regulations need to keep up with the times. I’ve often challenged my libertarian/“small” government friends to point out which regulation they want to see removed. Book, chapter, and verse; bonus if they can elaborate on why the context under which it was approved no longer applies. Perhaps I do agree that a regulation needs to be updated or removed. None ever take me up on it. I just let them know that “because I want to” is not a valid starting point for deregulation.
Like the joke goes, Libertarians are like house cats. Completely dependent on a system they neither understand nor appreciate and fiercely confident of their own independence.
That is a great example.
What happens when that crew is called to work next week where there are trees? Without that rule some businesses would skip buying PPE all together and say “screw it, it’s just one day what could happen?” Or they might have PPE that no one takes care of. Someone forgets theirs and no one stops them from working. If you have ever watched an OSHA safety video you know most work place deaths are due to being lazy or stupid.
Most businesses only cares about how much money you make and how much money you cost. That is why we need regulations even when you think they are a pointless waste.
You still need a rule, but just don’t be lazy and have a blanket rule. Instead of always have a hard hat, just say hard hats required if there are any objects on site withing 30 feet that are above 6’ or something.
If a business doesn’t buy hard hats because it only applies some of the time, then fine then when people aren’t wearing hard hats when there are objects within 30 feet of working that’s are higher than 6’.
My business works In one area for 30 minutes every 2 weeks that requires a hard hat. The rest of the time it isn’t required. We still provide the hard hats. But expecting employees to wear them everywhere else is ridiculous.
Your response is exactly why blanket rules are needed. You’re objecting about wearing safety equipment because you don’t feel like you need it. Maybe sometimes you don’t but allowing it to be a choice means that some moron is going to say they never need it. What is worse is that the one moron not being safe puts the rest of the team in danger. I used to work in the Oil and Gas industry and there were so many situations where someone getting injured meant someone else would have to extract them from the dangerous situation which then put the rescue team in danger. Personal choice isn’t cool when you’re then making everyone else’s lives worse.
For 30 minutes every 2 weeks, how often do you inspect your hard hats? Do you know how long they are supposed to be in circulation before being removed? Do they have the appropriate documentation for inspection and replacement? I’m willing to bet that with such a small amount of use none of that is a thing for you and your team. Hard hats wear out due to sun and temperature exposure long before they actually “look worn out”. I’d see all of the guys on the pipelines and wells have hard hats and flame retardant clothes replaced on a regular bases and then we’d have the guys who came in the service the water tanks that were run by a 3rd party contractor who had all old equipment because we were their only client for the type of situation that actually needed PPE.
The more judgement based exceptions you put in the regulations, the less compliance you have, and the more “rules lawyers” on your crew wasting time and energy trying to talk their way around some edge case loophole.
And the more often people will take the lazy option, rather then the safe one.
One of the weirdest aspects of America is that we think people whose job is making money for shareholders should have more power than the public servants we, the public, hire to work for us.
I think thats just a subset of the whole “Government should be run like a business” mindset.
There’s a hardline belief that any business is automatically more efficient than government because if it weren’t it would die from competition, period, end of story. The real equation is that companies are as inefficient as they can afford to be, and the bigger ones can afford plenty. In one of my jobs my manager gave me maybe 2 or 3 weeks of actual work to do in 6 months. In another my team was told to hold off starting a project because there was a change of plan and they didn’t know exactly what they wanted. So we just screwed around for a couple months. I won’t say what company but in both cases it rhymed with Bicrosoft.
Business and government do different things. The government is like the brain of the body, it receives info and dispatches messages to various areas to have the body respond.
The economy is our blood, it literally transfers resources like food to various areas of the body.
They do different functions. They do different things. How can you run a brain/nervous system like a circulatory/blood system? They are different and for different things. They mean they want to run the country BY businesses, as if businesses had control, not as if it was its own separate business.
Further with this analogy, the peripheral nerves are like our communications systems, the lymph is like the military combined with 501cs (mix of attacking and helpful resources, eg vitamins in chylomicrons). And the people are all the individual cells, do their best in their specialized roles and communicating with the brain what needs they have so the brain can dispatch or change things to keep everything running well in homeostasis.
A group of cells (like a business) who demands too many resources/blood supply will kill other cells. It can be hard for the brain to figure out why cells are dying and may attack the wrong cells to correct it, and give resources to the wrong cells. This is how the US has started to die.
most regulations exist because corporations suck.
Some exist simply to screw people over or charge them money for something they shouldn’t have in the first place.
See: Regulations around building structures on private property.
Maybe I’m alone in this one but I don’t think I should need to get the cities approval or pay them a licensing fee to build a shed or a tree house in private property. They can lick my sweaty taint for all I care.
Except when that shed catches a fire and that spreads to your neighbour. Or a part of your tree house breaks off and by freak accident hits neighbour on the other side of fence.
Laws are not written for perfect scenario. Laws are written to prevent the bad scenarios.
Yes… Because telling my mom she has to pay the county thousands for a new garden shed, wood shed and chicken coop in her backyard (15 acres btw) is really preventing catastrophe for the neighbors that are literally miles away.
If the regulations can’t be written or upheld in a way that allows for property owners to do their own things on their land then they need to be written in a different way or given exception clauses which they currently do not have.
Not everyone lives in a suburb where they can see what their neighbors are cooking for dinner every night. If your property is booty cheek to booty cheek with the neighbors house then sure I can see where you’re coming from, but a lot of people have a lot of land far away from others and they are told they can’t do x in the middle of nowhere without paying the government some bullshit fee or they are outright denied.
You don’t own your land like that, you basically rent it from the government for the price of property taxes, and because you do it that way, you get better protections and deals and things you can do for your “ownership” than a typical tenant/landlord. You also get the money you pay into the mortgage/land when you resell it, another huge advatange over real rentals.
Whatever you put in the ground, including mercury for gold mining, has broad impacts and we should indeed regulate that for everyone. No one wants mercury in their well water.
Idk what’s going on with your mom/her county, but usually structures like that just mean the property isn’t able to get financing. What specifically is their issue with her sheds? I’ve never heard of such a thing, even for partially collapsed barns, unless they live in a HOA. And further, why would she pay the COUNTY anything? Are they building it?
It depends on the state and what you built, but there are people who have entire houses they live in built illegally. Property just can’t be insured and can only be sold for cash. They dont get fines though.
On one hand, grass still burns and idiots are still idiots. But I also see your point and honestly, it is kinda weird these are not relaxed country side…
Most people that live a ways from any city just do it without asking and nobody from the county ever drives by to see it since it’s in the middle of fuckin nowhere.
My mom was trying to do things by the book and got fucked for it. THAT is bullshit.
See: Regulations around building structures on private property.
Even those are based on people doing it wrong in the past and endangering themselves and others.
If it’s on private property who gives a shit. If your idiot son wants to build a structurally questionable tree house and the parents don’t do anything about it and he dies that’s on them.
I totally understand if they are building shit on a property line and it could fall into the neighbors house or something but most of the time I’ve seen regulations used against private property owners they are building simple structures hundreds of feet away from neighbors or the edge of property and the government should have absolutely zero say over those types of things.
At that point it’s just government overreach and I don’t care for it one bit.
If it’s on private property who gives a shit. If your idiot son wants to build a structurally questionable tree house and the parents don’t do anything about it and he dies that’s on them.
it’s on all of us, because all the money and effort that went into educating and raising that kid is wasted. Plus the rippling effects outward from everyone who knew the kid grieving.
But if we change from the way we do things now, the opportunity to learn the same lessons all over again, every few decades, might be lost.
Most US foods produced under their ‘regulations’ are forbidden in EU.
And for good reason.Now it’ll be 10x worse. Just don’t eat here and don’t buy food from USA. I say this as an American. We are fucked.
Bleach, actually. A small amount of bleach added to spoiled milk makes it taste brand new. The government actually suggested this in a few countries for a while.
Plaster in flour was common enough that after the miller, the middle men, and then the baker all added a cut, there were loaves being sold with less than 20% flour in them. The result was mass malnutrition.
Also, and this is a spicy one but backed by basic economics, regulations are a required element to capitalism. The notion that deregulation is pro capitalism is a misinterpretation of the idea that markets are self regulating. A free market is one that is free of corruption and unfair business practices. Which cannot exist without regulations and the enforcement of those regulations. All our current economic woes are the result of straying away from proven economic theory (mostly deregulation) to the right allowing the corruption of the marketplace and emergence of a strong oligarchy.
Also, and this is a spicy one but backed by basic economics, regulations are a required element to capitalism
Indeed the free market itself has demanded regulations, hence why they exist. And the regulations don’t actually per se stop crime, they simply give a quick mechanistic action afterwards to getting retribution when the regulations are violated - they bankrupt corrupt businesses over time.
A free market is one that is free of corruption and unfair business practices. Which cannot exist without regulations and the enforcement of those regulations.
And the truth is that the oligarchs, the established players in the game of capitalism, do not want a free market. They want a market with the illusion of freedom. A free market like the one you describe is, in fact, a true free market. Because then they have to actually compete with new players. Players who don’t come from the same backgrounds as the established players. Who may have different beliefs, who might not have the same skin color. Who may have a superior product or service to one or more of the established players. Who are free to sit at the same tables as oligarchs and take up space because their government gives them the power to do so. De regulation gives the illusion of a market being free, by making it so that if you want to be a new player in the game, you can, but unless you pay obeisance to the top players, you’re not getting very far. Plus the top players will buy you out, which is essentially them bribing you to walk away from the table.
That second paragraph is a pretty concise explanation on why ancaps and their ideas are stupid.
A free market is one that is free of corruption and unfair business practices. Which cannot exist without regulations and the enforcement of those regulations.
We’ve had numerous laws precisely because companies couldn’t play fair, and made things worse for all involved. The government didn’t pass laws against company towns, scrip, and predatory pricing because they decided to ban things for fun.
Saw dust was also added to flour. Various heavy metals would be added to food to enhance their color.
Also added to grated Parmesan.
That’s cellulose, not sawdust, and it’s added to this day in all sprinkle cheeses so they dont stick together. Cellulose isn’t a problem to eat. Sawdust is.
is plaster bread low calorie
Technically. The constipation would probably balance out the weight loss though
Shitting bricks.
Old saying “Fire and flight regulations are written in blood.” Food regulations are likely written in various excretions?
There have absolutely been deaths due to unsafe, mass produced foods.
Insane! 178 others were left with permanent injury including kidney and brain damage!
And this was entirely preventable
However, the Jack in the Box fast-food restaurant chain had knowledge of but disregarded Washington state laws which required burgers to be cooked to 155 °F (68 °C), the temperature necessary to completely kill E. coli. Instead, it adhered to the federal standard of 140 °F (60 °C). If Jack in the Box followed the state cooking standard, the outbreak would have been prevented, according to court documents and experts from the Washington State Health Department.
New safety laws/rules are always in reaction to bad behavior or to shift liability
I worked in industrial food plants in the central valley of California
Jack n the Box killing children, changed the food industry
All the big retailers & fast food chains started requiring SAP, ISO type material resource planning systems to limit their liability. We had regular drills where we had to find a specific package wherever it might be within the hour as if there was a problem that had come to light
While OSHA & CalOSHA exist, our biggest driver of safety improvements was the workmans comp insurance companies. They would do inspections a couple of times a year & we would implement their “suggestions”
In 20+ years the only time I heard about an OSHA inspection was after an outside contractor got crushed by a loading dock he was working on & failed to block it up, they were in & out in an hourCalifornia and Washington States ahead of the game again, especially in 2025+
Excretions with blood?
They’re the best excretions…
Puss is an option too
What is so incredible is that we are living st a time with such massive food surplus that it would blow the mind of anyone living in the past… but they will let all of it go to waste and just add bullshit to the food just because they can…
No, we aren’t- the current solar maximum while we have record heat and while the ozone is diminishing means we have mass death speeding up.
This is actually worse than you realize, because normally the solar maximum in the past DID mean peak crop yields and more food for animals and people. So much so a farmer in the 1800s predicted much of the stock market peak and troughs based on the solar cycle. The PEAKS were at solar maxiumums.
https://www.therationalinvestor.com/blog/how-the-benner-cycle-predicts-100-years-of-market-movement
So we should actually be at a food surplus/peak but climate change etc is so bad (we are past 6 maybe 7 of 9 boundaries to live on earth) that we are dying and animals are dying. Mass, MASS deaths of insects and birds and sea life. We probably don’t have enough food worldwide any more, not this year at least. In the past, yes, sure. But presently, I’m not so sure. Maybe. But a lot of animals have died including from bird flu.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
https://www.livescience.com/heatwave-cooks-sealife-to-death.html
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/nearly-billion-monarch-butterflies-vanished-since-1990
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GLOBAL-ENVIRONMENT/INSECT-APOCALYPSE/egpbykdxjvq/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/16/climate-change-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanoes
The absolute surplus afforded to us by modern farming and then the waste of so much of it will never cease to piss me off and will likely piss me off more in the future when we lose it to climate change.
You don’t know half of it. The sheer amount of overwork farmland is going through world wide is causing soil depletion like no tomorrow. We may even end up seeing a full blown worldwide famine in some years time when it gets to the point that we simply cannot revitalize farm land.
We produce such an incredible glut of food it isn’t funny. If we took all the surplus that we make we could feed the whole of China for an entire year. That is how much is being thrown to waste.
And make it unaffordable, because fuck it why not
Two for one deal of fucking everyone over.
That’s just the free market working as intended. Collateral damage.
Maybe people should do research on the available milk brands before giving it to their children if they didn’t want them to drink bleach.
Edit: I tried to resist adding the “/s,” but we live in crazy (stupid) times, so…
The Free Market (holy be thy name) gives you the choice between $1/bottle for milk with chalk and bleach, or $10/bottle for one with less chalk and bleach. If you want one without chalk and bleach, you’ll need to find your own cow.
Also, the cows all have birth defects and need uranium-powered antibiotics to stay alive.
Now, let us open our song books to number 34: “Praise Hayek and His Perfect Mustache”.
Blasphemer! In our house we praise Wittgenstein, not that Austrian hack
Excellent idea! I’m sure that information will be readily available from independent trustworthy sources that are not the government! Failing that, I always have my trusty mass spectrometer in my kitchen and I run all my foods through it just in case!
With no regulation there will be no other milk brands.
Maybe people should do research on the available milk brands before giving it to their children if they didn’t want them to drink bleach.
Without regulation, the company could also just lie. Nothing would dictate that they would have to tell the truth about their product.
Well that’s why you need to do your own research. As in looking at products under microscopes, doing physics equations, etc.
If you’re not an expert on every product you purchase (and the science behind them), well then that’s on you and your kid deserves getting lead poisoning from his band-aids.
Poe’s law and all that
We didn’t regulate the housing market after 2008 cause the people with money were already getting in the driver seat and wouldn’t have it.
To continue with the argument of “the market will self-regulate and people wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again”
Okay but how many people died, how many people are suffering long-term effects, and what’s stopping them from adding a different deadly thing to our food?
To continue with the argument of “the market will self-regulate and people wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again”
Turns out the parent company owns every other brand of that product, so going to another brand is meaningless
And also they’re already basically Monopolies. You don’t have real options. Most food products come from like 3 mega corps who own hundreds of brands.
wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again
Assuming there is perfect information in the market. In reality there is heavy information asymmetry.
It also assumes free competition while we have every market dominated by a few players buying up everyone else, often with cartel like behavior.
It also assumes it is immediately deadly poison, and doesn’t do something like cause early dementia 25 years later.
It also assumes the masses behave rationally, which they won’t ever.
We’ll just get the cheapest shit with the limited information we are given, unless it is life-or-death, where we will pay any price out of fear.
Market self regulation assumes informed consumers that are smart enough to know what things mean. Also it assumes healthy competition and companies that are competing to make the best product at the chrapest price. It ALSO assumes brand lotalty isn’t a thing, and consumers are judging things purely objectively.
Like, i understand the idea, but in practice there are a ton of caveats.
Market self regulation assumes informed consumers that are smart enough to know what things mean
Not just smart enough, but informed enough. That means every person spending literally hundreds/thousands of hours per week researching every single aspect of every purchase they make. Investigating supply chains, performing chemical analysis on their foods and clothing, etc. It’s not even remotely realistic.
So instead, we outsource and consolidate that research and testing, by paying taxes to a central authority who verifies all manufacturers keep things safe so we don’t have to worry about accidentally buying Cheerios that are laced with lead. AKA: The government and regulations.
Also, if you want inspections to make sure there isn’t bird shit in the milk, then you need regulation. Otherwise people are just drinking bird shit and they don’t know.
Also the evidence shows this isn’t really true, anyway.
Regulations are written in blood
But I’m an alpha man child and I need to make people bleed to prove it!
Don’t worry I’m sure we’ll find some place that lets you feel the bleeding edge of unregulated capitalism in an alpha release.
