Republican Nirvana: No government regulations

[Stephanie]

The GOP is always going about how government regulations hurt business, suggesting that modern-day businesses can be trusted with the public's health and safety, that no business would knowingly sell a tainted product.

Well...you know what? There's a REASON for those regulations and the current outbreak of fungal meningitis demonstrates it perfectly!

The outbreak, which has killed 5 people and sickened 30 so far, is traced back to a compounding pharmacy in Framingham, MA which sold the fungus contaminated product to doctors and hospitals for injecting into people's spinal cords. Compounding pharmacies do not fall under FDA supervision. Instead, that's left to the states and the FDA only becomes involved when something awful happens. Well..it's happened. It seems that leaving such oversight to the states might not be that good a deal after all.

Worse, Massachusetts is a tort reform state, where the amount of punitive damages is limited. A victim, or the victim's survivors, may collect actual damages plus $500,000 for punitive damages and no more. And, good luck to them collecting even that as the business is now shuttered and their website is down. In other words, they'll now file for bankruptcy and escape any punishment for their lax safety standards at all, which were so bad that regulators once found a batch of product with VISIBLE contamination!

This is the GOP's dream for America. No, or weak, regulations. Lax government oversight. Tort reform, so the businesses won't have to suffer too badly for their profit-motivated endangerment of the public.

That's government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Mitt Romney supports it all.


Meningitis Outbreak Highlights Hazards of Drug Compounding - ABC News

omg, WE HAVE Government on this and we STILL HAD THE OUTBREAK, now see how damn great they are

 

[Oldguy]

Trying to talk rationally with true ideologues is like trying to explain nuclear physics to a two year old. It just doesn't penetrate.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The problem I consistently see from the Democrats is that they so often seem to confuse more regulation with better regulation. Just keep piling it on, a few more layers, I'm sure that'll fix it.

I can tell you first hand about Dodd-Frank: That thing added so much redundant paperwork that all we can do is laugh at this point. Ask anyone who is regulated by it what they think, you'll just get a roll of the eyes and a resigned shake of the head.

That's what happens when a bunch of professional politicians, lawyers and theoreticians try to "fix" something. Kinda like Obamacare.

.

 

[Oldguy]

.

The problem I consistently see from the Democrats is that they so often seem to confuse more regulation with better regulation. Just keep piling it on, a few more layers, I'm sure that'll fix it.

I can tell you first hand about Dodd-Frank: That thing added so much redundant paperwork that all we can do is laugh at this point. Ask anyone who is regulated by it what they think, you'll just get a roll of the eyes and a resigned shake of the head.

That's what happens when a bunch of professional politicians, lawyers and theoreticians try to "fix" something. Kinda like Obamacare.

.

Yet, when the right is offered a chance to name some specific changes they'd like to make, they're usually unable to do so or express a coherent plan to do it all differently.

It sort of reminds me of a guy I talked to at Glenn Beck's rally in Washington DC a couple of years ago. He was holding forth about putting God back into the schools on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial before the show started. He was holding a sign which said something and his clothes were festooned with quips and Bible verses. Naturally, I wanted to hear more so I engaged him in conversation.

After listening to him awhile, I said, "You know, there's a Constitutional prohibition against doing that. To get what you want would require a new Constitutional amendment."

He just literally gave me a blank look, so I went on, "How would you accomplish that? How would you get it through Congress? Who would support that idea?"

The blank look got deeper. Finally, he blinked....and started his spiel all over again. I walked away.

The point of this little story is this: For far too many on the right, and on a variety of subjects, they know what they want, but don't have a clue how to achieve it. Whether it's excess government regulations, taxes, health care, putting God back into the schools, "welfare" payments or whatever, they KNOW they don't like what's going on, but don't have the foggiest idea about how their government works, or why, and consequently no clue how to change things. When you try to bring them down to the nuts and bolts actions which must be taken to do what they want, they're lost.

"Ok, fine," you say. "They're concerned citizens voicing their opinions."

Yes, but they are concerned citizens who are easily malleable by charlatan's and demagogues who can keep their emotions stirred up, but who don't have to offer a solution beyond platitudes and vague promises. People like Beck and Romney and Ryan can easily mine their support by playing to their outrage, but they never offer a plan to get there because they don't have to. The suckers never see how they're being played and follow the leader who says the right buzz words right off the cliff, blindly expecting something positive to happen.

It never does, but the next time one comes around, they'll follow him right off the cliff again.

It's just mind-boggling.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The problem I consistently see from the Democrats is that they so often seem to confuse more regulation with better regulation. Just keep piling it on, a few more layers, I'm sure that'll fix it.

I can tell you first hand about Dodd-Frank: That thing added so much redundant paperwork that all we can do is laugh at this point. Ask anyone who is regulated by it what they think, you'll just get a roll of the eyes and a resigned shake of the head.

That's what happens when a bunch of professional politicians, lawyers and theoreticians try to "fix" something. Kinda like Obamacare.

.

...

The point of this little story is this: For far too many on the right, and on a variety of subjects, they know what they want, but don't have a clue how to achieve it. Whether it's excess government regulations, taxes, health care, putting God back into the schools, "welfare" payments or whatever, they KNOW they don't like what's going on, but don't have the foggiest idea about how their government works, or why, and consequently no clue how to change things. When you try to bring them down to the nuts and bolts actions which must be taken to do what they want, they're lost.

I agree. The Right will toss out platitudes at the drop of a hat, and that habit has grown exponentially with the advent of the Tea Party. It's essentially like clockwork now, and all you can do is roll your eyes when they start spouting simplistic slogans like "freedom" and "liberty" with zero specifics. I get it.

But that doesn't excuse the consistent simplistic, over-burdensome regulation the Left specializes in. And again I point to Dodd-Frank. So when one party essentially writes an entire bill (Dodd-Frank, Obamacare), you're going to get one big nasty piece of crap in one direction or the other. And the bigger it is, the worse it is.

Regulation is not either/or. At the government level, the goal has to be effectiveness and efficiency. Not just "more".

.

 

[dblack]

Republican Nirvana: The Foo Fighters.

 

[Oldguy]

.

The problem I consistently see from the Democrats is that they so often seem to confuse more regulation with better regulation. Just keep piling it on, a few more layers, I'm sure that'll fix it.

I can tell you first hand about Dodd-Frank: That thing added so much redundant paperwork that all we can do is laugh at this point. Ask anyone who is regulated by it what they think, you'll just get a roll of the eyes and a resigned shake of the head.

That's what happens when a bunch of professional politicians, lawyers and theoreticians try to "fix" something. Kinda like Obamacare.

.

...

The point of this little story is this: For far too many on the right, and on a variety of subjects, they know what they want, but don't have a clue how to achieve it. Whether it's excess government regulations, taxes, health care, putting God back into the schools, "welfare" payments or whatever, they KNOW they don't like what's going on, but don't have the foggiest idea about how their government works, or why, and consequently no clue how to change things. When you try to bring them down to the nuts and bolts actions which must be taken to do what they want, they're lost.

I agree. The Right will toss out platitudes at the drop of a hat, and that habit has grown exponentially with the advent of the Tea Party. It's essentially like clockwork now, and all you can do is roll your eyes when they start spouting simplistic slogans like "freedom" and "liberty" with zero specifics. I get it.

But that doesn't excuse the consistent simplistic, over-burdensome regulation the Left specializes in. And again I point to Dodd-Frank. So when one party essentially writes an entire bill (Dodd-Frank, Obamacare), you're going to get one big nasty piece of crap in one direction or the other. And the bigger it is, the worse it is.

Regulation is not either/or. At the government level, the goal has to be effectiveness and efficiency. Not just "more".

.

The majority party has to write legislation when the minority party refuses to participate or nothing gets done. Very often, that refusal to help is based upon a desire to protect their donors from government regulation and Dodd-Frank is a good example of that.

It seems we are saddled not only with a GOP which thrives on platitudes and generalities, rather than specific policy proposals, but also with a party base who WANTS them to do nothing which might help the Democrats or Obama, even if it would also help the country.

Extreme partisanship and party/ideological purity will destroy this nation if it's allowed to continue. And, worse, if we reward that party for their intransigence and partisanship by returning them to office next month, the Democrats will see that it worked and adopt the same damn strategy for the NEXT four years!

 

[editec]

Republican Nirvana: No government regulations

That's a terible overstatement.

The GOP supports every law that limits human freedom.

It's only corporations they own they want deregulated.

 

[California Girl]

The GOP is always going about how government regulations hurt business, suggesting that modern-day businesses can be trusted with the public's health and safety, that no business would knowingly sell a tainted product.

Well...you know what? There's a REASON for those regulations and the current outbreak of fungal meningitis demonstrates it perfectly!

The outbreak, which has killed 5 people and sickened 30 so far, is traced back to a compounding pharmacy in Framingham, MA which sold the fungus contaminated product to doctors and hospitals for injecting into people's spinal cords. Compounding pharmacies do not fall under FDA supervision. Instead, that's left to the states and the FDA only becomes involved when something awful happens. Well..it's happened. It seems that leaving such oversight to the states might not be that good a deal after all.

Worse, Massachusetts is a tort reform state, where the amount of punitive damages is limited. A victim, or the victim's survivors, may collect actual damages plus $500,000 for punitive damages and no more. And, good luck to them collecting even that as the business is now shuttered and their website is down. In other words, they'll now file for bankruptcy and escape any punishment for their lax safety standards at all, which were so bad that regulators once found a batch of product with VISIBLE contamination!

This is the GOP's dream for America. No, or weak, regulations. Lax government oversight. Tort reform, so the businesses won't have to suffer too badly for their profit-motivated endangerment of the public.

That's government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Mitt Romney supports it all.


Meningitis Outbreak Highlights Hazards of Drug Compounding - ABC News

This is the problem when you accept bullshit from the media as truth.... it makes you look like an unthinking idiot.

 

[Oddball]

The GOP is always going about how government regulations hurt business, suggesting that modern-day businesses can be trusted with the public's health and safety, that no business would knowingly sell a tainted product.

Well...you know what? There's a REASON for those regulations and the current outbreak of fungal meningitis demonstrates it perfectly!

The outbreak, which has killed 5 people and sickened 30 so far, is traced back to a compounding pharmacy in Framingham, MA which sold the fungus contaminated product to doctors and hospitals for injecting into people's spinal cords. Compounding pharmacies do not fall under FDA supervision. Instead, that's left to the states and the FDA only becomes involved when something awful happens. Well..it's happened. It seems that leaving such oversight to the states might not be that good a deal after all.

Worse, Massachusetts is a tort reform state, where the amount of punitive damages is limited. A victim, or the victim's survivors, may collect actual damages plus $500,000 for punitive damages and no more. And, good luck to them collecting even that as the business is now shuttered and their website is down. In other words, they'll now file for bankruptcy and escape any punishment for their lax safety standards at all, which were so bad that regulators once found a batch of product with VISIBLE contamination!

This is the GOP's dream for America. No, or weak, regulations. Lax government oversight. Tort reform, so the businesses won't have to suffer too badly for their profit-motivated endangerment of the public.

That's government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Mitt Romney supports it all.


Meningitis Outbreak Highlights Hazards of Drug Compounding - ABC News

Wow...Wonder where ABC snooz got all that straw?

 

[kaz]

Trying to talk rationally with true ideologues is like trying to explain nuclear physics to a two year old. It just doesn't penetrate.

You chose the FDA as the regulation discussion topic. Which means I'd presume you feel it's one of the clearest and easiest to defend. I made it easy, I said none of the regulations I would leave in place include anything the FDA does. Zero. The FDA is completely unnecessary. Everything they do could be covered by consumer choice and existing law.

So do you want some cheese with your whine or do you want to try to back something up for once?

 

[Oddball]

Trying to talk rationally with true ideologues is like trying to explain nuclear physics to a two year old. It just doesn't penetrate.

Introspection: Get some.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Republican Nirvana: No government regulations

You obviously don't know many Republicans because they are all about regulations and personal intrusion as long as they get to write them and be in charge.

 

[Oldguy]

The GOP is always going about how government regulations hurt business, suggesting that modern-day businesses can be trusted with the public's health and safety, that no business would knowingly sell a tainted product.

Well...you know what? There's a REASON for those regulations and the current outbreak of fungal meningitis demonstrates it perfectly!

The outbreak, which has killed 5 people and sickened 30 so far, is traced back to a compounding pharmacy in Framingham, MA which sold the fungus contaminated product to doctors and hospitals for injecting into people's spinal cords. Compounding pharmacies do not fall under FDA supervision. Instead, that's left to the states and the FDA only becomes involved when something awful happens. Well..it's happened. It seems that leaving such oversight to the states might not be that good a deal after all.

Worse, Massachusetts is a tort reform state, where the amount of punitive damages is limited. A victim, or the victim's survivors, may collect actual damages plus $500,000 for punitive damages and no more. And, good luck to them collecting even that as the business is now shuttered and their website is down. In other words, they'll now file for bankruptcy and escape any punishment for their lax safety standards at all, which were so bad that regulators once found a batch of product with VISIBLE contamination!

This is the GOP's dream for America. No, or weak, regulations. Lax government oversight. Tort reform, so the businesses won't have to suffer too badly for their profit-motivated endangerment of the public.

That's government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Mitt Romney supports it all.


Meningitis Outbreak Highlights Hazards of Drug Compounding - ABC News

This is the problem when you accept bullshit from the media as truth.... it makes you look like an unthinking idiot.

So, the story isn't true? Prove it.

(ps: I checked several sources, but used the one I linked to because it was better overall.)

 

[Oddball]

This is the problem when you accept bullshit from the media as truth.... it makes you look like an unthinking idiot.

So, the story isn't true? Prove it.

(ps: I checked several sources, but used the one I linked to because it was better overall.)

The proof is that it's a giant straw man argument.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

You mentioned something about thinking a few posts back...Try doing some of it yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republican Nirvana: No government regulations

That's a terible overstatement.

The GOP supports every law that limits human freedom.

It's only corporations they own they want deregulated.

LOL

Obamacare: the ultimate in freedom

 

[Dot Com]

Romney was pretty clear that he understood the need for regulations. Just regulations that help. Most of our regulations are designed to destroy, not help.

Uh, huh. So you and he say.

Thats pretty much all she ever does is "say". Links are a rarity w/ > a few rw's.

Hey motherfucker who is writing the regulations at present? Did it prevent these deaths? And Secondly Massachussetts is a democrat bastion of liberalism it isn't the Republicans fucking fault that they have fucking tort reform.

Republicans have consistently been for reducing the amount of damages/pay-outs one can seek to recuperate in cases of medical malpractice/negligence. Don't play coy pussy.

 

[kaz]

Republican Nirvana: No government regulations

You obviously don't know many Republicans because they are all about regulations and personal intrusion as long as they get to write them and be in charge.

Yes, Republicans and Democrats are driving down the same road and just fighting over who gets to be behind the same steering wheel.

Republican W added a prescription drug "benefit" to the Medicare welfare program, signed the $250 billion "transportation" bill which was a Christmas tree of spending unrelated to transportation and what was related to transportation included the bridge to nowhere, he started the TARP giveaway of trillions. He never once vetoed a spending bill and proposed no cuts in anything in his budgets, the Democrats just screamed because he reduced the rate of increases in spending.

He was replaced by Peacenik Obama who continued his middle east policy in Iraq, extended it in Afghanistan and started new ones like Libya.

They're as different as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

 

[Oldguy]

You chose the FDA as the regulation discussion topic. Which means I'd presume you feel it's one of the clearest and easiest to defend. I made it easy, I said none of the regulations I would leave in place include anything the FDA does. Zero. The FDA is completely unnecessary. Everything they do could be covered by consumer choice and existing law.

So do you want some cheese with your whine or do you want to try to back something up for once?

Ok.

I'm in the hospital, about to undergo surgery. As a consumer, what do I do? How do I determine that stuff they're about to inject me with is safe and effective?

I'm in the drug store and see a weight loss product which assures me it's clinically tested and contains only pure ingredients, but it doesn't LIST those ingredients or give me any information on those "studies." As a consumer, how do I know whether or not the manufacturer is telling the truth?

I'm in the store and pick up a package of frozen meat. The label says, "Pure, 100% beef. No additives or steroids." But, it doesn't list the ingredients or even where it was produced. As a consumer, how do I know?

I reach for a can of energy drink or a can of peas. As a consumer, what assurance do I have that it's canned in a clean, sanitary facility?

 

[Oldguy]

This is the problem when you accept bullshit from the media as truth.... it makes you look like an unthinking idiot.

So, the story isn't true? Prove it.

(ps: I checked several sources, but used the one I linked to because it was better overall.)

The proof is that it's a giant straw man argument.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

You mentioned something about thinking a few posts back...Try doing some of it yourself.

I'm not asking for definitions, I'm asking for proof that the story is a lie.

You can't do it...can you?