TONIGHT'S DEBATE AS IT UNFOLDS ...

[Zeus]

Both place restrictions on behavior and both institute penalties for violating prescribed behaviors. The only difference really is that the government can put you in prison for violating a law and it can put a company out of business for violating a regulation.

Now lets really complicate the issue. What is the difference between laws, regulations and rules? In ice hockey I can violate a rule by smacking another player with a hockey stick. If I do this outside of a game then I go to jail for assault, but if I do this in a game I might get tossed in the penalty box for 5 minutes. I have technically violated a law but because I did what I did in the context of a sporting event the defenders of the law don't acknowledge my crime. Sports are generally considered self regulating so their enforcement of their regulations/rules are acknowledged by the legal system as being adequate punishment for some crimes that happen in the course of game play.

In general society there is the expectation of an Individuals right to being secure in their being and if someone violates that security they are subject to prosecution and penalty. In a sporting event you are voluntarily putting yourself in a situation of high probability that someone is going to violate the rules in fact you can pretty much expect it to happen. Certainly you can't play football or hockey or enter a boxing match with an expectation of not getting hit.

[Novaheart]

And you conveniently leave out the fact that with the Ryan plan you are attempting to disparage...someone Ann Romney's age won't see one change in their current healthcare.

Anyone 54 and younger will have the chance to go out and find the best coverage tailored to what they want.

Anyone 54 and younger who has Ann Romney's condition will not be able to find comprehensive health insurance with a private carrier. Why would the claim that Romney or any other near-65 gets to get standard Medicare be a defense of the damage done to the younger?

BTW, I am 54 years old. If I lose my insurance through a corporation, then I am fucked. I have kidney damage, but not kidney failure. If I were on dialysis, then I would be Medicare eligible automatically. There are a lot of people like me out there. Cut off our medical insurance, and we'll end up on dialysis. Trust me when I tell you that the cost of keeping me off dialysis is nothing compared to what the cost of keeping me on it would be.

You talk like a fool, or someone with guaranteed government healthcare. Which is it?

[m00]

Anyone 54 and younger who has Ann Romney's condition will not be able to find comprehensive health insurance with a private carrier. Why would the claim that Romney or any other near-65 gets to get standard Medicare be a defense of the damage done to the younger?

Well, if I had MS my work's insurance would cover it. If my partner had MS, my work's insurance would cover it. I suppose if it got to the point where I couldn't work due to the MS, I would be on disability and then either disability would cover it, or I could do COBRA (which was passed by Reagan.)

I suppose you'd only be screwed if you got your MS diagnosis while you didn't have health insurance. But I'm positive there are options here.

BTW, I am 54 years old. If I lose my insurance through a corporation, then I am fucked.

COBRA

[FlaGator]

In general society there is the expectation of an Individuals right to being secure in their being and if someone violates that security they are subject to prosecution and penalty. In a sporting event you are voluntarily putting yourself in a situation of high probability that someone is going to violate the rules in fact you can pretty much expect it to happen. Certainly you can't play football or hockey or enter a boxing match with an expectation of not getting hit.

I mentioned hockey specifically because a player who hit another player in the head with his stick and charges were considered. I don't recall if the player was charged. I suspect that getting whacked in the head with a stick is not a aspect aspect of the sport.

[Novaheart]

Well, if I had MS my work's insurance would cover it. If my partner had MS, my work's insurance would cover it. I suppose if it got to the point where I couldn't work due to the MS, I would be on disability and then either disability would cover it, or I could do COBRA (which was passed by Reagan.)

I suppose you'd only be screwed if you got your MS diagnosis while you didn't have health insurance. But I'm positive there are options here.



COBRA

COBRA


How long must COBRA continuation coverage be available to a qualified beneficiary?

Up to 18 months for covered employees, as well as their spouses and their dependents, when workers otherwise would lose coverage because of a termination or reduction of hours.
Up to 29 months is available to employees who are determined to have been disabled at any time during the first 60 days of COBRA coverage and applies as well to the disabled employee's nondisabled qualified beneficiaries.
Up to 36 months for spouses and dependents facing a loss of employer-provided coverage due to an employee's death, a divorce or legal separation, or certain other "qualifying events".

Not to mention the cost.

[m00]

COBRA


How long must COBRA continuation coverage be available to a qualified beneficiary?

Up to 18 months for covered employees, as well as their spouses and their dependents, when workers otherwise would lose coverage because of a termination or reduction of hours.
Up to 29 months is available to employees who are determined to have been disabled at any time during the first 60 days of COBRA coverage and applies as well to the disabled employee's nondisabled qualified beneficiaries.
Up to 36 months for spouses and dependents facing a loss of employer-provided coverage due to an employee's death, a divorce or legal separation, or certain other "qualifying events".

Not to mention the cost.

Why not just buy a new iPad, and go to china and trade it to some kid for one of his kidneys?

[Molon Labe]

Those laws are also regulations. Molon Labe stated that he is against regulations in a free market.

Then we clearly have two different definitions of what we mean by regulation. Laws preventing theft, murder, and loss of liberty are not the same as private business and private persons operating their private property as they see fit.

Clearly, if you truly believe that what I mean by a business being unregulated meaning I wish for the absence of law, then I don't know how to discuss this.

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that.

[Rockntractor]

Why not just buy a new iPad, and go to china and trade it to some kid for one of his kidneys?

Chinese kidneys are only effective for a short period each day and leave you feeling unsatisfied soon after you wake up.

[Molon Labe]

We could have a long, convoluted discussion about regulation and the marketplace. Generally speaking, I am on board with a very unregulated market.

However, it cannot be applied to our current banking industry. If you understand how our banking system works, it needs regulation. More than others do incidentally.

I disagree. If our banking system was less regulated, there would have been no safety net in place to have protected BOA and others from making poor investment choices on the back of the public, which led to their bad business practices. They knew fully well they could be reckless and be bailed out.

Had Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac not been backed by government protection, then they all would have gone the way of the Do Do bird. Someone made it possible for the bad loans to go somewhere. It was the Government. The government created these institutons under the guise of "regulation" in order to control things and made it much worse.

When people actually have to take great risk that could lead to thier demise they are usually much more careful. These regs did just the opposite.

[FlaGator]

Then we clearly have two different definitions of what we mean by regulation. Laws preventing theft, murder, and loss of liberty are not the same as private business and private persons operating their private property as they see fit.

Clearly, if you truly believe that what I mean by a business being unregulated meaning I wish for the absence of law, then I don't know how to discuss this.

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that.

Private persons who hire others must be held to certain standards on how they treat those people. I'm not going so far as to support the current incarnation of labor unions but the initial purpose of labor unions was to facilitate proper treatment of those it hired.

Also there are potential issues where new technology creates new opportunities for illicit behavior. Shouldn't those who oversee these industries put regulations in to place to govern or restrict these behavior or should be just let them go on until the government passes a law to make them illegal?

Don't get me wrong, I totally accept the fact that businesses are over regulated. However, without some regulation you open a door to industrial anarchy.