The coming lockdown extension.

LakevilleBro

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
662
Reaction score
441
Points
63
As of yesterday, 80.6% of the MN Covid-19 deaths have occurred in nursing/assisted living homes. That seems to be the hotspot, that we need to focus on. Not sure the extension will benefit that group.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,201
Reaction score
874
Points
113
What would America really look like, without SS and Medicare? I suppose the libertarian would say that, without the crushing tax burden, we'd easily be able to pay for 100% of our retirement and could easily afford excellent health insurance, with a little frugality and some prudent investing in the free market..
Well, since no advanced western civilization listens to the libertarians and has that sort of system, I think we can conclude that they have done the calculus and rejected that theory. Perhaps one also could argue that we would be better off rejecting modern medications and going back to herbs, bleeding, and leeches but no one seems to have much faith in those anymore.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,201
Reaction score
874
Points
113
As of yesterday, 80.6% of the MN Covid-19 deaths have occurred in nursing/assisted living homes. That seems to be the hotspot, that we need to focus on. Not sure the extension will benefit that group.
Perhaps that is true for deaths but only 17% of cases comes from that group. I don't think we should focus just on deaths. This disease can do substantial damage to lungs, heart, and kidneys as well so one could avoid death but still be impaired significantly afterward.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,891
Reaction score
1,940
Points
113
It does remind me of children not accepting that it's best for them to brush their teeth. The whole thing is childish--a reckless childishness considering the damage you can do to other people (i.e. kill them) through your recklessness, not unlike driving drunk. How dare the Man tell me I can't drive drunk. The bars will go bankrupt if we can't go there and then drive home!
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,555
Reaction score
782
Points
113
The Jungle was literally made up. It's literally fantasyland.
It is a novel.

The book was devastatingly accurate in describing the conditions in the meat industry in Chicago at the turn of the last century.

Federal response[edit]
President Theodore Roosevelt had described Sinclair as a "crackpot" because of the writer's socialist positions.[15] He wrote privately to journalist William Allen White, expressing doubts about the accuracy of Sinclair's claims: "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."[16] After reading The Jungle, Roosevelt agreed with some of Sinclair's conclusions. The president wrote "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist."[17] He assigned the Labor Commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds to go to Chicago to investigate some meat packing facilities.

Learning about the visit, owners had their workers thoroughly clean the factories prior to the inspection, but Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions. Their oral report to Roosevelt supported much of what Sinclair portrayed in the novel, excepting the claim of workers falling into rendering vats.[18] Neill testified before Congress that the men had reported only "such things as showed the necessity for legislation."[19] That year, the Bureau of Animal Industry issued a report rejecting Sinclair's most severe allegations, characterizing them as "intentionally misleading and false", "willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact", and "utter absurdity".[20]

Roosevelt did not release the Neill–Reynolds Report for publication. His administration submitted it directly to Congress on June 4, 1906.[21] Public pressure led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act; the latter established the Bureau of Chemistry (in 1930 renamed as the Food and Drug Administration).

Sinclair rejected the legislation, which he considered an unjustified boon to large meat packers. The government (and taxpayers) would bear the costs of inspection, estimated at $30,000,000 annually.[22][23] He complained about the public's misunderstanding of the point of his book in Cosmopolitan Magazine in October 1906 by saying, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."[24]

 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,167
Reaction score
977
Points
113
As of yesterday, 80.6% of the MN Covid-19 deaths have occurred in nursing/assisted living homes. That seems to be the hotspot, that we need to focus on. Not sure the extension will benefit that group.
Nonsense. We need to continue to quarantine the healthy folks. It's critical
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,201
Reaction score
874
Points
113
Murray should read another fictional book that is far more predictive of what the left would eventually do....1984
I read it when I was an undergrad. The most overrated novel I ever read. Of course, I never bothered to read Atlas Shrugged. Orwell never seemed to contemplate that features of what he was describing could emanate from plutocracy as well as authoritarian mass movements.
 

balds

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
2,452
Reaction score
148
Points
63
That's a huge concern: a grand reopening at considerable cost to businesses...and then nobody shows up. It's gotta be something that enough people are going to be comfortable with. I think I'd do outdoor/patio seating if there were enough safety precautions.
Businesses are free to remain closed if they feel the "considerable cost to re-open" isn't worth it.

Customers are also free to choose for themselves. In this case it appears that consumers have chosen to be careful (although an axe throwing place as your pulse for the GA consumer??).

The point is, no shutdowns, no protests and nobody getting sick in an Axe throwing joint. If businesses are going to fail, at least let them try.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,049
Reaction score
1,711
Points
113
It would be interesting to see what would happen if SS were eliminated.

The stuff I've read about Americans and their retirement savings is not too encouraging. Pretty bleak. Most people apparently struggle to save much of anything.

Then, if we follow the libertarian thinking to it's inevitable end, we'd also eliminate that other Big Government program, Medicare.

I wonder how much the average American senior would pay for health insurance on the libertarian open market? How about a senior who was diabetic, or a cancer survivor, or had a heart condition?

What would America really look like, without SS and Medicare? I suppose the libertarian would say that, without the crushing tax burden, we'd easily be able to pay for 100% of our retirement and could easily afford excellent health insurance, with a little frugality and some prudent investing in the free market..

I wonder if that would be the case. How much would a person have to save to afford a decent retirement without SS, and how much would health insurance on the open market cost for the average senior, without Medicare?
This is getting too close to a political debate for me. My fault for starting it. I appreciate your response and will only comment that the above bold part doesn't make me feel any better about having to "chip in" to help those that struggled to save.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,555
Reaction score
782
Points
113
This is getting too close to a political debate for me. My fault for starting it. I appreciate your response and will only comment that the above bold part doesn't make me feel any better about having to "chip in" to help those that struggled to save.
While I doubt that I agree with you on these matters, I definitely do appreciate your honest and respectful response. It's refreshing. Makes me examine my own approach as to tone. Thanks.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
It is a novel.

The book was devastatingly accurate in describing the conditions in the meat industry in Chicago at the turn of the last century.

Federal response[edit]
President Theodore Roosevelt had described Sinclair as a "crackpot" because of the writer's socialist positions.[15] He wrote privately to journalist William Allen White, expressing doubts about the accuracy of Sinclair's claims: "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."[16] After reading The Jungle, Roosevelt agreed with some of Sinclair's conclusions. The president wrote "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist."[17] He assigned the Labor Commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds to go to Chicago to investigate some meat packing facilities.

Learning about the visit, owners had their workers thoroughly clean the factories prior to the inspection, but Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions. Their oral report to Roosevelt supported much of what Sinclair portrayed in the novel, excepting the claim of workers falling into rendering vats.[18] Neill testified before Congress that the men had reported only "such things as showed the necessity for legislation."[19] That year, the Bureau of Animal Industry issued a report rejecting Sinclair's most severe allegations, characterizing them as "intentionally misleading and false", "willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact", and "utter absurdity".[20]

Roosevelt did not release the Neill–Reynolds Report for publication. His administration submitted it directly to Congress on June 4, 1906.[21] Public pressure led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act; the latter established the Bureau of Chemistry (in 1930 renamed as the Food and Drug Administration).

Sinclair rejected the legislation, which he considered an unjustified boon to large meat packers. The government (and taxpayers) would bear the costs of inspection, estimated at $30,000,000 annually.[22][23] He complained about the public's misunderstanding of the point of his book in Cosmopolitan Magazine in October 1906 by saying, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."[24]

The truth of the matter is that the large corporate meat packers had been lobbying for federal inspection mandates decades prior to Sinclair’s novel. There were several reasons why the large producers, like Cudahy, Armour and Swift, wanted federally mandated inspections. The major reasons were:

1. Government inspections added a large fixed operating cost to producers due to the administrative overhead. While this may sound counter-intuitive, this effectively serves as a large barrier to entry into the meat packing business. The smaller packers do not have the economy of scale to be able to absorb this fixed cost so they end up being run out of business by the large producers because the small guys necessarily need to raise the price of their meat higher to account for the additional fixed compliance costs.

2. The Europeans at the time had begun barring meat imports to protect their own meat producers profits under the guise of preventing “diseased meat” from being imported. So the Europeans were requiring that imported meats undergo an inspection process. Thus, the US meat packers had to have their meat inspected anyways by private inspectors if they wanted to be able to export their meat. By lobbying the US government to inspect their meat, the US large meat packers could pass some of the cost of this inspection process, that had to happen anyways, on to the tax payers. This served to socialize some of the inspection costs for the large US meat exporters, while simultaneously driving up the fixed compliance costs for smaller producers.

Since the smaller producers did not generally engage in export, they didn’t bother to have their meat inspected – thus, the smaller producers were able to compete with large producers in local markets. By forcing all meat packers to undergo inspection, the government basically ran the small meat packing operations out of business.

3. The inspection seal effectively serves as a fantastic marketing gimmick. It provides a false sense of security to US consumers and legitimizes the meat processed as being approved by the US government. Jonathan Ogden Armour, President of Armour and Company, one of the largest meat packing corporations in America, wrote the following in a March 1906 Saturday Evening Post article:

“To attempt to evade government inspection with beef from a purely commercial viewpoint is suicidal. No packer can do an interstate or export business without government inspection. Self-interest forces him to make use of it. Self-interest likewise demands he shall not receive meats or byproducts from any small packer either for export or other use unless that small packer is also official (under government inspection.) This government inspection thus becomes an important adjunct of the packers business from two view points. It puts the stamp of legitimacy and honesty upon the packers product, and so is to him a necessity, and to the public as an assurance against diseased meats.”
It may surprise you, but Sinclair actually called the proposed regulation scheme a racket.[1] Sinclair was more concerned about the working conditions in the plants, not the quality of the food. Since Sinclair was a socialist, his goal was to nationalize the whole market, not regulate it. However, his fictional account of the meat packing industry was used by the meat packing industry itself to have the regulation scheme they had been lobbying for finally rammed through.

“The Jungle” is a pure work of fiction. It has absolutely no basis in reality. A 1906 report by the Bureau of Animal Industry refuted Sinclair’s severest allegations, characterizing them as “intentionally misleading and false,” “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,” and “utter absurdity.” Quoting Mr. Crumpacker on Sinclair’s allegations of diseased meats, “the chief inspector said there was not a single animal that went into the slaughterhouses that was not inspected before it went on foot; and if one was diseased, had a lumpy jaw, or appeared to be out of condition, he was separated, and then a skilled veterinarian made a thorough examination of that animal after the rest had been passed; and then they had inspection on the inside.”

A little bit of common sense also works to refute the notion that federally mandate inspections can somehow keep food safer. For starters, market forces will quickly drive meat packers out of business if they attempt to sell diseased meats! Would you buy meat from a company that had a reputation for making people sick? Of course not! Food producers have an extremely strong market based incentive to ensure they only sell high quality food.

Further, a quick look at current food poisoning statistics shows that even with mandated inspections, problem foods still end up making the public sick. This isn’t a problem that inspections can solve, it is something that the market has to come up with solutions for. In fact, it could be argued that mandated inspections may actually contribute to the problem, because inspections provide a legal defense against injury lawsuits. Private food producers may take more steps to solve the problem of food borne illnesses if they didn’t have the inspection defense to fall back on.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
That's a huge concern: a grand reopening at considerable cost to businesses...and then nobody shows up. It's gotta be something that enough people are going to be comfortable with. I think I'd do outdoor/patio seating if there were enough safety precautions.
Yep. If you had business interruption insurance that covered you, that's gone once you're "allowed" to be open. And you have to at least pay for the minimum staff and the lights to be on on top of that.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,049
Reaction score
1,711
Points
113
Yep. If you had business interruption insurance that covered you, that's gone once you're "allowed" to be open. And you have to at least pay for the minimum staff and the lights to be on on top of that.
What percent of business' have "Business Interruption Insurance"? What percent of small businesses? you make it sound so common. For those that don't, they can choose to open or not - their choice, they can change their mind at any time too. But hey, let's have the Gov't choose for them - they always know best.
 

Panthadad2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
2,649
Reaction score
719
Points
113
Yep. If you had business interruption insurance that covered you, that's gone once you're "allowed" to be open. And you have to at least pay for the minimum staff and the lights to be on on top of that.
Good luck getting a business interruption insurance claim approved for this pandemic. Those claims are getting denied. Insurance companies aren't going down without a big fight.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
Good luck getting a business interruption insurance claim approved for this pandemic. Those claims are getting denied. Insurance companies aren't going down without a big fight.
Most of them are, unfortunately. But if you are one of the ones who's getting paid out, being "allowed" to open before there are customers would leave you worse off, not better.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,598
Reaction score
513
Points
113
Good luck getting a business interruption insurance claim approved for this pandemic. Those claims are getting denied. Insurance companies aren't going down without a big fight.
Correct. Over 95% of business policies don't cover business interruption due to a pandemic. Most policies specifically have policy language denying coverage in the event of a pandemic; and require the interruption be caused by "property damage".
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,167
Reaction score
977
Points
113
Yep. If you had business interruption insurance that covered you, that's gone once you're "allowed" to be open. And you have to at least pay for the minimum staff and the lights to be on on top of that.
You'll forgive me if I would rather solicit business owner information from someone who has actually signed the front of a paycheck and not just the back, yes? I have my doubts about your knowledge in a number of areas, including this one
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,049
Reaction score
1,711
Points
113
Most of them are, unfortunately. But if you are one of the ones who's getting paid out, being "allowed" to open before there are customers would leave you worse off, not better.
So you acknowledge that not many Companies have it (BTW, the number is about 66% don't), and agree that as high as 95% of those that do won't be covered. So, about 1.65% of Companies out there fall under your "they will be worse off if allowed to open and customers don't come" theory. 1.65%. Why are we even having this silly conversation?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
7,947
Reaction score
451
Points
83
A perfect example of humans making economic decisions based upon what they decide, not what the government decides. If humans decide the risk (cost) is too high for the benefit, they choose something else. Free market at work.
If a business goes under because the choices of humans change, that is far different than government shutting down businesses because government dictates.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,603
Reaction score
871
Points
113
Believe it or not, not everyone thinks the Government is responsible for taking care of us - or others. We don’t all view Robin Hood as a hero.
Apparently the obvious sarcasm wasn't obvious enough.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,603
Reaction score
871
Points
113
Let’s dissect this one a little as your statement is at best ignorant.

Pop Quiz: where do you think the money for SS and Medicare comes from? I’ll assume you know the answer.

Do you think that someone who doesn’t agree with the SS program is still advocating to pay into the program their entire working life? Or is it more logical that maybe they are saying I don’t want to pay into it and then I won’t ask for anything at the back end?

Your comment is so incredibly dumb as it is trying to say someone should be OK paying into the program their entire life, but then because they don’t like Government programs like it they shouldn’t care if they get their money back at the end. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Of course someone who has paid into the program their whole life will want (some percentage of) their money back at the end.

A better representation would be if folks would rather not pay in and then not collect. Now, doesn’t seem so hypocritical does it? The problem is we don’t have that choice because the government has decided they need to look out for everyone because of the subset that can’t do it for themselves.
Cool argument. I never argued against any of that, and I damn well know how all of that works, but thanks.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,603
Reaction score
871
Points
113
What a foolish universal statement. Such an ignorant comment is hardly worth responding to, except to point out its foolishness.
Dude, don't type something as stupid as "You seem to want to suck at the teet of government. Look at Venezuela to see how great your system works. " and then not expect others to call out your stupidity.
 
Top Bottom