tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4640470443420164863.post4359539733089656791..comments2024-03-26T10:26:51.288-04:00Comments on Jim Leff's Slog: The Moral Peril of Over-RegulationJim Leffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007232702717055047noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4640470443420164863.post-61659037440575594542016-10-28T15:34:53.076-04:002016-10-28T15:34:53.076-04:00Well, that's a lot of points, some of which I ...Well, that's a lot of points, some of which I agree with, but none of which are related to the point I was making: regulation always paints with a comically broad brush. That's the problem with regulation. I'm not against regulation - not a right wing crazy. Don't want to remove all regulation or dismantle all safety nets (here's how I outgrew that: http://jimleff.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-i-outgrew-libertarianism.html). But the inefficiency and waste and insanity of piling on more and more regulation on top of kludgey previous regulation is a huge problem.<br /><br />If he slips and falls on the ice and breaks his arm, and he wasn't insured, he'd be treated free by the emergency room. But he happens to be self-insured (as am I), so no sweat. And, in any case, I favor single payer (http://jimleff.blogspot.com/2016/10/my-presidential-platform.html). Since this is not 1955 and I'm not a mogul offering old-school cradle-to-grave employment to phalanxes of employees, I feel little paternal responsibility, and this employee feels likewise. I was a freelance musician/writer for 35 years, and it never would possibly have occurred to me to hold an employer responsible for my slipping on ice en route to a gig. Times have changed. But to repeat again (since tempers flair on this stuff), I do favor universal health insurance to remove the issue utterly from a "who's responsible" debate. The COUNTRY is responsible, and I'm okay with that - and with any resulting tax hike.<br /><br />Jim Leffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00007232702717055047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4640470443420164863.post-76261612336401409832016-10-28T07:39:46.871-04:002016-10-28T07:39:46.871-04:00It's only over-regulation in the eye of the be...It's only over-regulation in the eye of the beholder.<br /><br />I'm glad you agree that SOME jobs need worker's comp. Now, of course, the question is who should decide which jobs shouldn't contribute to lower the cost for everyone. What if you ask him to run an errand and he slips on the ice and breaks his arm?<br /><br />This of course, is the best argument for national health insurance, since the costs of administering specialized systems fall on folks like you disproportionately.<br /><br />Fortunately for free-market fans, companies like Tri-net have arisen. They will happily trade money for time, handle all the paperwork, all the hassle and you can get back to work.<br /><br />Free-rider problems are as real as special-case complaints about the difficulties of bureaucracy. The answer, though, isn't to let bureaucratic hassle persuade us that we should be free-riders and that the safety net is a bad idea (don't know what you've got till it's gone).<br /><br />What we ought to do is agree that the richest nation in the history of the world can probably afford a safety net that's well administered, universally. And then use our smarts to do it quickly, easily and well.<br /><br />Hard to do that when we're spending a lot of time arguing about whether or not it should even exist.Seth Godinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618554622444925936noreply@blogger.com