# Conservative Dopers convince me with your best-case plans **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157 "2011-12-14T13:14:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/61 "2011-12-15T17:20:03Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Who sues you if I and my whole family succumb to your pollution? How much of your money do I get to cure my son’s cancer? > > I don’t mean to pick on you, but there’s a problem with this line of thought - some consequences cannot be undone through litigation. Subjecting everything to the control of the ‘free market’ - wherein business calculate the costs of pollution and safety hazards by their expected outlays in court costs - means that the market will assign a price to human life. > > And if that business determines that each fatality will costs them 50,000 dollars, and that there will be ten fatalities, but they’ll make 5 million dollars, means they’ve just economically justified actions that are tantamount to premeditated murder. > > And before you say they would never do such a thing, allow me to point out that it’s actually happened. Look up asbestos litigation. > > Some things should be subjected to laws with harsh penalties to shift that cost-benefit analysis enough that the company would never consider doing them in the first place. It’s the threat of litigation and big damages that would do the most to control abuse. You’re right, that money can’t at present cure cancer; but a) it can help mitigate it and get the best treatment; and b) the precendent set against the polluter will help persuade them and other polluters that it is in their best interest to behave better. No lobbying, no whining to the press, is going to help them with this. So this approach does directly help the victims, at least to some degree (and which the current system does not do at all), and is much more effective at ensuring that there are fewer other victims in the future. Using class-action suits covers cases where individual victims have no one left to sue in their interest. Roddy ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/62 "2011-12-15T19:30:31Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > It’s the threat of litigation and big damages that would do the most to control abuse. You’re right, that money can’t at present cure cancer; but a) it can help mitigate it and get the best treatment; and b) the precendent set against the polluter will help persuade them and other polluters that it is in their best interest to behave better. No lobbying, no whining to the press, is going to help them with this. So this approach does directly help the victims, at least to some degree (and which the current system does not do at all), and is much more effective at ensuring that there are fewer other victims in the future. > > Using class-action suits covers cases where individual victims have no one left to sue in their interest. > Roddy If your pollution is short-range - water-based, for instance, rather than air emissions - and you kill everyone in that range, no class could be certified with standing. I’d rather have a system of laws that prevents them from pumping out the carcinogens in the first place rather than slapping them on the wrist for the cancer after the fact. An ounce of prevention, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/63 "2011-12-15T19:34:09Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But look at the type of home that a family would have purchased in 1945 versus 2005. Chances are there was no central heat and certainly no A/C. You had one tiny bathroom that served only it’s core function. Tiny kitchens that were merely functional. Small closets, and uninsulated walls and windows that would make the entire house drafty. No matter, because your gas furnace could blast all winter for pennies. If you were lucky you had a small detached one car garage. > > Compare that to today’s McMansions that everyone simply MUST have to survive with spacious kitchens and bathrooms, three stall garages, a pool, and all of the amenities. > > The first instance of home does not equal the second. Actually, given the advances in technology and manufacturing, it’s not quite as apples and oranges as you seem to think. In fact : [http://utahrealestate.housingstorm.com/2010/03/us-home-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-less-than-they-were-50-years-ago/](http://utahrealestate.housingstorm.com/2010/03/us-home-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-less-than-they-were-50-years-ago/) Have a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/64 "2011-12-15T21:37:14Z")
> [@aux203](#): > > Eh? Does step 4 make no sense to anyone else? Why is anyone going to pay a dime if premiums are optional? Because the amount you get out is based on the amount you pay in. If surgery costs $10k and all your free plan will give you is $9999, then welcome to death. > [@](#): > > And what do you mean by “get back”? If you’re hit by a truck while crossing the street and get sent to the ICU, have multiple surgeries, and extensive rehab, all costing a million dollars, who pays and how much? The insurance agency insures you up to X amount, based on what plan you’re signed up under. If you’re on a free plan, then as stated, they might refuse to pay and you just don’t get your surgeries and you die. The actual cap amount would presumably be based on actuarial data and how often you have submitted a claim. > [@](#): > > Health care costs are a huge topic but I wonder if people get wrapped up in insurance too much. Insurance is a risk management tool. Having it doesn’t directly make health care cost less overall. That’s true, but we do know that the US pays double the amount for health care as every other modern nation in the world, with no equivalent match in prolonged life or general health. It’s a proven fact that we can cut health care costs, private or public, by 50% across the nation, without any impact on national health. As best I can tell, the reason for us paying double is because there isn’t a market for health to drive prices down. People don’t analyze insurance companies based on what they get out of it so far as their own health goes. Rather, companies look at insurance companies based on what sounds like it will attract the most employees to come work for them. With the majority of health coverage, in the US, being private, it drives up the price for health care overall (i.e. it rises the price for Medicare and Medicaid by an equal amount). You could say, “Well let’s just make all health care public.” But the problem with that is that it would be a major shock to the economy. You’d be shutting down hundreds of companies and laying off a million people. Overall, private insurance isn’t any cheaper or more expensive than public intrinsically - Switzerland and Israel have private insurance as the main source of health coverage - but there, it’s the individual looking over companies and making choices. If you set things back to that standard - buying health care as an individual - then it might take decades for health care costs to reduce down to match the rest of the world. But that’s good, because it achieves the end goal without shocking the market. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/65 "2011-12-15T22:02:22Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > If your pollution is short-range - water-based, for instance, rather than air emissions - and you kill everyone in that range, no class could be certified with standing. I’d rather have a system of laws that prevents them from pumping out the carcinogens in the first place rather than slapping them on the wrist for the cancer after the fact. An ounce of prevention, and all that. There are three things wrong with what you said here: 1. There is a difference between laws preventing someone from causing wholesale death, and regulations designed to limit pollution by specifying specific pollution remedies. The former would still be there, and anyone doing so would be subject to criminal charges, jail terms and large government fines against their personal money. CEOs tend to hate that outcome. 2. Civil suits are not slaps on the wrist. Look at judgments against big tobacco and against companies who perpetrate oil spills. The point is to make it cheaper and less hassle for companies to go green than to risk more of those suits. 3. You seem to think that civil litigation is a game of whack-a-mole - company pollutes, company is sued and pays a judgment, another company pollutes, that company is sued and pays a judgment, etc., and companies just regard this as a cost of doing business. As if every company is completely unaware of previous judgments against others who have done the same or similar pollution. I think this ignores the way companies react to legal trends. Here’s an example: I and all my fellow employees have to sit through sexual harassment training every year, just on the off chance that one of us might perpetrate behavior that could result in a suit and a fairly small judgment. They just don’t want the hassle, so they will go out of their way to avoid it. Same with ADA compliance - most businesses pay a lot of attention to this because of the risk of litigation. Here’s my other argument against government regulations: they are not efficient, because too much effort goes into the bureaucracy and the building of fiefdoms and personal power. If that were the only way, then I would say we live with it. But I don’t think that’s the case. Roddy ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/66 "2011-12-15T22:11:35Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Look at judgments against big tobacco The cases against big tobacco took something like a half a century after the problem was identified before they saw any success. Is that a desirable model? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/67 "2011-12-15T22:13:37Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The cases against big tobacco took something like a half a century after the problem was identified before they saw any success. Is that a desirable model? Depends on who’s doing de desiring, don’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/68 "2011-12-15T22:14:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The rest are rather complicated, as you say, but one can be dealt with rather easily.I wouldn’t address it. > > No one is doing anyone else an injustice by out-earning them. > > Regards, > Shodan Er, we don’t take kindly in these parts to folk who hide assumptions (in this case, the assumption that the income was “earned” rather than acquired by gaming the system) inside the conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/69 "2011-12-15T22:18:31Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The cases against big tobacco took something like a half a century after the problem was identified before they saw any success. Is that a desirable model? Not the timing, no, but also this is not a pollution case but a medical one, and one that to some degree involved the voluntary action of the victim (at least in starting up, if not in failing to quit). My example was only to illustrate the potential magnititude of civil judgment amounts. As I did in an earlier post, I also refer to the numbers of barriers to lawsuits in public policy areas that currently exist; if litigation were the primary method of enforcement instead of the last resort, this should be much easier. Also, bear in mind that this is somewhat “blue sky” in that I am proposing a general method or approach that probably does not exist as such anywhere in the world. Roddy ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/70 "2011-12-15T22:40:52Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Er, we don’t take kindly in these parts to folk who hide assumptions (in this case, the assumption that the income was “earned” rather than acquired by gaming the system) inside the conclusions. It doesn’t seem to bother anybody when you try to hide the opposite assumption in yours. So, er, it’s a little hard for me to give much of a rat’s patootie. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/71 "2011-12-15T23:22:14Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This board is littered with misunderstanding of economic terms, and this is one of the most common flavors these days, though perhaps a bit more nuanced (though no less idiotic). It typically takes the form of someone reading about how much worker productivity has increased, and interpreting that as the sweat and smarts of the noble worker, the benefit of which (after all those workers’ hard work to increase productivity!) is not shared with the very people who produced the effect! Evil corporations grow more profitable, and cheat the workers out of the productivity gains they’ve provided (that their slacker grandparents apparently were too dumb or lazy to produce). In summary: worker productivity increases, and the worker is cheated out of any share of this favorable effect, as CEOs and evil corporations slash jobs and reduce pay and offshore work, all in the interest of lining their own pockets further. So these claims are all over this board, a lot in income inequality threads and CEO pay threads, if you’re really interested. > > In reality, worker productivity is the ratio of output produced relative to worker hours worked, period. Automation has been an enormous influence in this regard in the last 50 years. It has permitted companies to “slash jobs” and reduce required workers’ hours–and increase worker productivity. So, one tribe describes an action as despicable job slashing, cruel abuse of the workers, etc. The other tribe describes that same action (this example) as automation, the natural and inexorable progression toward greater efficiency (and profit). But only the second tribe is getting its pockets lined further. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/72 "2011-12-15T23:26:46Z")
If automation works as an excuse as to why you shouldn’t increase worker pay, why is it an excuse to increase CEO pay? I mean, what’s the justification that increased producitivity should only see benefits at the very top? ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/73 "2011-12-15T23:30:44Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > That’s true, but we do know that the US pays double the amount for health care as every other modern nation in the world, with no equivalent match in prolonged life or general health. It’s a proven fact that we can cut health care costs, private or public, by 50% across the nation, without any impact on national health. How is this a proven fact? Come on. Let’s see the step-by-step plan to get there from here. Otherwise you’re just spouting nonsense, worse than the guys who just scream “socialism!”. Let’s see how we can get from a doctors’ visit in the US costing many times what it does in France. How do you get the American doctor/nurse/building etc. to just accept half or one-third of what they are getting now? Yes, the current system is a freaking mess. How we get out of it is not obvious. All the paths have risks. Pretending that this is easy, because in Japan you only pay $13 to see the doctor is totally disingenuous. That Japanese doctor ain’t moving to Chicago to offer those prices. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/74 "2011-12-15T23:55:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But only the second tribe is getting its pockets lined further. Who should be getting the profit resulting from automation? The workers who remain, or the ones whose jobs were slashed, or somebody else? And how should that work? Automation is installed, profits increase–and then what? Some wise group determines how to divvy it up beyond the ownership of the company? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/75 "2011-12-16T00:24:34Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > If automation works as an excuse as to why you shouldn’t increase worker pay, why is it an excuse to increase CEO pay? I mean, what’s the justification that increased productivity should only see benefits at the very top? It’s not an excuse for anything. It increases profitability. Period. The owners can do with the profits what they wish, including giving it away to all the oppressed workers. In the absence of that outcome, workers can decide if they want to work for the wages offered, same as the CEO. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/76 "2011-12-16T04:03:03Z")
> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#): > > How is this a proven fact? Every other modern nation has accomplished it. That includes Japan, yes, but also the UK, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, Spain, Germany, etc. All of them. > [@](#): > > Come on. Let’s see the step-by-step plan to get there from here. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14566500&postcount=44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14566500&postcount=44) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/77 "2011-12-16T04:17:32Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > In the absence of that outcome, workers can decide if they want to work for the wages offered, same as the CEO. I’m sure that, if offered, the vast majority of the laid-off workers would be happy to come back to work for the same wages as the CEO is making. Somehow, I doubt that’s ever been offered to a laid-off worker tho. cue the whoosh machine, please ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/78 "2011-12-16T04:23:25Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Every other modern nation has accomplished it. No country has cut their health care costs in half and seen no reduction in care. It’s too late to go back to 1946 so we all have a similar starting point. The starting point for the US is 2011, where we spend 80% to 150% more per capita than other developed economies. We can’t pretend that the current system of health care delivery and finance does not exist. Most people get health insurance through their work. Its a sub-optimal system macroeconomically, but it’s where you start. Doctors make a lot more compared with the median earner than in most other countries. May not be fair, but that’s where you have to start. There is no easy way to make the oncologist earn $140k, and not $280k, but you cannot get the 50% reduction without it. We don’t have a magic way of saying, we want to be like Australia, so let it be. You have to go from where we are to where Australia is, step by step. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14566500&postcount=44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14566500&postcount=44) How are those steps supposed to cut costs by 50%? Let’s see the math. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/79 "2011-12-16T05:58:20Z")
> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#): > > No country has cut their health care costs in half and seen no reduction in care. No country has had their health care costs double without benefit, except the US. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157/80 "2011-12-16T06:50:25Z")
> [@Buchanan](#): > > As long as opportunities are equal, income disparities are not a problem rising to a level where a government should legislate remedies, particularly while technology is progressing at the rates observed in the developed world in the last 200 years and assuming the society in question follows the rule of law. > > If one does not like his station, buckle down and avail oneself to the equal opportunity ready for the taking. We’re talking UK and US here, not Burundi and Bangladesh. If the individual in question does not have the ambition, creativity, interpersonal skills, IQ (or good luck) which affords fully leveraging said silver platter, so be it. A couple of things: - Opportunities are not equal, and are becoming increasingly unequal (at the same time that income disparity is going up). It is becoming harder and harder for the poor to “make it” into the middle class. Indeed, while a few in the middle class are moving up, more are falling back into poverty. - You did not really answer my question. I asked where the increasing gap between rich and poor become a problem? I ask because it is increasing over time, and the only answer from some seems to be “so what, big deal”. Is it ever a big deal? To go to a foolish extreme, if one person holds 99.999% of all the wealth of a country, and the rest are surviving by eating his garbage, is this a good thing? Where, I ask, is the ideal point of income disparity? And are we in danger of moving past this ideal? We are not Burundi and Bangladesh NOW, you are correct. I ask, where is the tipping point of inequality (and unequal opportunity, which follows that), so that we essentially have BECOME these countries? I realize there is no bright line, but I believe that there is range beyond which it becomes dangerous. Your answer merely said that **individuals** should work hard to better their lot in life (assuming opportunities are equal, which they are decidedly **not** ) I ask what is best for society as a whole. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-convince-me-with-your-best-case-plans/606157.md?page=5)