4 ms·

> Safety standards could be addressed by insurability, and this is really a very separate concept from wage. Sorry, but no. And I'm going to judge you for hav

> Safety standards could be addressed by insurability, and this is really a very separate concept from wage. Sorry, but no. And I'm going to judge you for having that opinion. The idea that it's acceptable for a human being to lose their sight (or legs or arms or ...) and suffer the quality of life problems that result from it as long as they're covered by insurance is horrendous and I judge you for it. I don't even care if you come back and tell me you've changed your mind based upon this post. The fact that you needed your mind changed makes you a monster.

whiddershins 6y ago
You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces. Again, my example is UL ratings of building materials. Your response is over the top, and I am quite worried about you talking to me this way, it feels like a threat.
- jacobush 6y ago
  I don’t know. Too me it seems flimsy to rely on insurance alone. It feels like the economic incentives could fluctuate such that there would be opportunity to skimp or exploit insurance. It feels like you might want to add criminal liability if you distort insurance, in which case you may as well make it illegal outright to jeopardise people’s health.
- callmeal 6y ago
  >You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces. That is just not true. I think it's convenient how everyone forgets the kinds of calculations US corporations make: breaking the law/killing people/not having insurance is cheaper and more profitable than the alternative. Remember the Ford Pinto? Ok, that was probably too long ago. How about Firestone? Firestone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro...
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    Well, that’s a good point. But what if the government merely said ‘without insurance, you can’t operate.’ This would be a modest intervention, but would allow a market of insurers to determine what is safe, so as to reduce cruft. Maybe it’s flawed, but it works for UL rating and building materials ... no UL certification no insurance, therefore no materials are sold without the certification, even though it is technically legal to sell them. This results in a private market for, say, awesome cherry wood coffee table tops that aren’t regulated, but Sheetrock and structural steel clearly is. Maybe it wouldn’t work, I’m just saying OSHA and state regulations aren’t the only conceivable way to imagine workplace safety being enforced.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  > it feels like a threat. I'm glad you feel attacked, that was my intent. The next step is to be a better human being. Not all opinion's are morally equivalent, this is easy to see because someone's preference for pizza is not equivalent to someone believing that slavery is acceptable. Your problem is being on the wrong side of history.
  - dang 6y ago
    We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. You can't behave like this on HN.
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24459650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24459650 and banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.

whiddershins 6y ago

You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces. Again, my example is UL ratings of building materials. Your response is over the top, and I am quite worried about you talking to me this way, it feels like a threat.

jacobush 6y ago
I don’t know. Too me it seems flimsy to rely on insurance alone. It feels like the economic incentives could fluctuate such that there would be opportunity to skimp or exploit insurance. It feels like you might want to add criminal liability if you distort insurance, in which case you may as well make it illegal outright to jeopardise people’s health.
callmeal 6y ago
>You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces. That is just not true. I think it's convenient how everyone forgets the kinds of calculations US corporations make: breaking the law/killing people/not having insurance is cheaper and more profitable than the alternative. Remember the Ford Pinto? Ok, that was probably too long ago. How about Firestone? Firestone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro...
- whiddershins 6y ago
  Well, that’s a good point. But what if the government merely said ‘without insurance, you can’t operate.’ This would be a modest intervention, but would allow a market of insurers to determine what is safe, so as to reduce cruft. Maybe it’s flawed, but it works for UL rating and building materials ... no UL certification no insurance, therefore no materials are sold without the certification, even though it is technically legal to sell them. This results in a private market for, say, awesome cherry wood coffee table tops that aren’t regulated, but Sheetrock and structural steel clearly is. Maybe it wouldn’t work, I’m just saying OSHA and state regulations aren’t the only conceivable way to imagine workplace safety being enforced.
RandoHolmes 6y ago
> it feels like a threat. I'm glad you feel attacked, that was my intent. The next step is to be a better human being. Not all opinion's are morally equivalent, this is easy to see because someone's preference for pizza is not equivalent to someone believing that slavery is acceptable. Your problem is being on the wrong side of history.
- dang 6y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. You can't behave like this on HN.

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24459650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24459650 and banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.