3 ms·

Walmart was recently involved in a Mexican bribery scandal, and I'm going to use that fact to conclude that we shouldn't allow profit seeking enterprise anywher

Walmart was recently involved in a Mexican bribery scandal, and I'm going to use that fact to conclude that we shouldn't allow profit seeking enterprise anywhere near healthcare. Rigorous safety standards for consumer goods are one of the things we have the government for. Sure, it can be draconian sometimes. Raw milk, for instance, would have been a much better example for you to bring up then defective baby cribs. Nevertheless, rigorous safety standards are much better than the alternative. Now please excuse me while I go drink a glass of tap water.

Daniel_Newby 14y ago
It has nothing to do with rigorous safety standards. It was a blanket ban without regard to crib performance, the cribs were conclusively proven to be safer than cars, and the ban has resulted in shorter women who cannot use fixed-side cribs switching to other baby sleeping arrangements that are less safe. This is what the US federal government does to almost everything it touches. It operates at too large a scale to make sensible decisions. It kills babies "for the children", it imprisons drug users to keep them from being trapped in an unpleasant situation, it makes education loans non-bankruptable to ensure a good life for students, and so forth. It would do exactly the same to medicine if given total, absolute control.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- chris_wot 14y ago
  This seems like the slippery slope fallacy. You'll have to excuse me if I find your argument particularly unconvicing! You are saying that those who have placed a blanket ban on cribs will make terrible decisions on health care, yet you haven't proven that this one thing will lead to the other.
  - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
    The crib ban is a health policy decision. So is the entire TSA, the entire war on drugs, and so forth. The U.S. federal government rarely gets health issues right, and often gets them spectacularly wrong.
    - ontoillogical 14y ago
      I don't think that the TSA is about health policy...
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        Not to mention the assertion that the U.S. government rarely gets health right!

Daniel_Newby 14y ago

It has nothing to do with rigorous safety standards. It was a blanket ban without regard to crib performance, the cribs were conclusively proven to be safer than cars, and the ban has resulted in shorter women who cannot use fixed-side cribs switching to other baby sleeping arrangements that are less safe. This is what the US federal government does to almost everything it touches. It operates at too large a scale to make sensible decisions. It kills babies "for the children", it imprisons drug users to keep them from being trapped in an unpleasant situation, it makes education loans non-bankruptable to ensure a good life for students, and so forth. It would do exactly the same to medicine if given total, absolute control.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
chris_wot 14y ago
This seems like the slippery slope fallacy. You'll have to excuse me if I find your argument particularly unconvicing! You are saying that those who have placed a blanket ban on cribs will make terrible decisions on health care, yet you haven't proven that this one thing will lead to the other.
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  The crib ban is a health policy decision. So is the entire TSA, the entire war on drugs, and so forth. The U.S. federal government rarely gets health issues right, and often gets them spectacularly wrong.
  - ontoillogical 14y ago
    I don't think that the TSA is about health policy...
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Not to mention the assertion that the U.S. government rarely gets health right!