This woman apparently thinks she (or someone) can get the FDA to stop behaving like it has been behaving SINCE INCEPTION.
Not likely.
EVERY federal agency protects those with the Big Bucks to buy protection, and those people aren't you and me. This began in the 1800s with the very FIRST federal regulatory agency (for the railroads).
If you want an industry to be properly regulated -- i.e., in a manner that benefits the public, the industry itself, the insurance companies (without which you really can't DO business), and every other player, and WITHOUT raising prices into the stratosphere, you need to use competitive market regulation, as with (also from the 1800s) Underwriter Labs (now just named UL) or the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association. UL is no longer a non-profit; the NFPA still is.
Insurance companies want products to be safe so they don't have to pay out so much in claims; they've been instrumental in getting safety features added to cars, for example.
When monopoly and coercion (i.e., government) are removed from regulation, corruption is minimized. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
...getting safety features added to cars...is one of the ways inflation is hidden by all the add ons.
The Ins. racket only cares about the ratio of premiums to costs. So do you think all (majority) the older cars without the new "safety features " had their insurance go down ?
When people get hurt or killed in car accidents, it costs the insurance company's money. Do you think they WANT high costs? Effective safety gear lowers insurance costs. It also protects the lives and well-being of customers. It does raise the price of cars, so there's a balance needed, and a market-based regulation is both better able to strike a balance that works for all parties AND would allow at least the possibility of cheaper, non-compliant vehicles to be sold, perhaps with higher insurance premiums.
This woman apparently thinks she (or someone) can get the FDA to stop behaving like it has been behaving SINCE INCEPTION.
Not likely.
EVERY federal agency protects those with the Big Bucks to buy protection, and those people aren't you and me. This began in the 1800s with the very FIRST federal regulatory agency (for the railroads).
If you want an industry to be properly regulated -- i.e., in a manner that benefits the public, the industry itself, the insurance companies (without which you really can't DO business), and every other player, and WITHOUT raising prices into the stratosphere, you need to use competitive market regulation, as with (also from the 1800s) Underwriter Labs (now just named UL) or the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association. UL is no longer a non-profit; the NFPA still is.
Spoken like a true Lawya. Insurance against having a brick thrown thru your window is called something else.
Not a lawyer.
Insurance companies want products to be safe so they don't have to pay out so much in claims; they've been instrumental in getting safety features added to cars, for example.
When monopoly and coercion (i.e., government) are removed from regulation, corruption is minimized. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The Ins. racket only cares about the ratio of premiums to costs. So do you think all (majority) the older cars without the new "safety features " had their insurance go down ?
What the Hell are you talking about?
When people get hurt or killed in car accidents, it costs the insurance company's money. Do you think they WANT high costs? Effective safety gear lowers insurance costs. It also protects the lives and well-being of customers. It does raise the price of cars, so there's a balance needed, and a market-based regulation is both better able to strike a balance that works for all parties AND would allow at least the possibility of cheaper, non-compliant vehicles to be sold, perhaps with higher insurance premiums.