> It makes no sense to die from an unregulated medical procedure?

What? No. Your argument doesn't make any sense. I then went on to explain why.

> Let's say it's stitches, and there's no regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body doesn't do that sort of thing. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time.

> You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours.

> Now sue.

This is precisely the same argument as before, but with an example. My criticism still applies. I'll adopt your example so that my criticism is crystal clear:

> Let's say it's stitches, and since law makers didn't setup regulation against reusing a stitching needle because in your world the elected body is incompetent/ignorant/behind. The doctor just washes it off a bit so it's not so gross looking every time.

> You're one of the 1-2% that contracts something horrible from the doctor and you're dead within 24 hours.

> Now elect a different representative to change or add that regulation. Or lobby your existing one.

In either scenario, the end result is "you're dead, so ANY fix is moot."

But they're already elected and already regulating. The counter argument is an argument against regulation, period, let lawsuits and the free market sort it out.

The theory goes, people won't go to doctors that reuse stitching needles vs. the doctor down the street who does.

This is not a theory I subscribe to -- that's the politest thing I can say about it.

> But they're already elected and already regulating.

You missed my point. You can't protect against every kind of malicious behavior. Therefore, whether you have regulation or not, people are going to die from doctors doing stupid/evil things. And your retort still applies: "You're fucked. Oh well." (I'm not saying this justifies freed markets! I'm saying this makes your argument bunk.)

This is the third and last time I'm going to say it: your appeal to emotion applies equally in both state regulated markets and freed markets.

> The theory goes, people won't go to doctors that reuse stitching needles vs. the doctor down the street who does.

That's a red herring to this entire discussion. You were criticizing the idea of "suing" being a bad solution and yet, you've dismissed freed markets for a completely different reason here.

The whole point of suing in this case is restitution. Just because you're dead because of a gross needle doesn't mean someone can't sue the doctor on your behalf. This gives doctors the same kind of incentive to treat you well in a freed market as in a state regulated market. (e.g., They do bad things and they have to pay a price.)

You're trying to discuss two entirely separate issues: 1) pressures on consumers aren't good enough to keep them away from bad people and 2) pressures on doctors aren't good enough to keep them from doing bad things. I recommend refocusing your argument to clarify what exactly it is you're trying to say.

And if you can't manage a polite response, then g'day.

I'm just being impolite to the theory. We've been civil so far.

Let me take on your arguments point for point:

> You can't protect against every kind of malicious behavior. Therefore, whether you have regulation or not, people are going to die from doctors doing stupid/evil things.

So it's 100% or forgetaboutit? I'm going to presume that there's nothing particularly special about healthcare and we can apply this kind of binary logic to everything? Why regulate safe drinking water? Why regulate car safety standards? Why regulate food safety? Why regulate really anything at all since by your logic, we can't make it perfect so to hell with all that. The market will handle it.

> The whole point of suing in this case is restitution.

Good, so somebody can sue on my behalf and bring me back to life? Please point me to a legal doctrine so powerful, a Lazarus Law, so powerful that the dead can be brought back.

> This gives doctors the same kind of incentive to treat you well in a freed market as in a state regulated market.

I recognize that "not getting sued" is a powerful motivator, but that motivator already exists. Regardless of the kind of market environment the care is given in. But relying on that as the only motivator isn't advisable. Lawsuits and regulation seem to be working fairly well. Eliminating regulation seems like a rather rubbish idea from any angle.

Re: what is my argument

Here's the original comment

"I would rather have judges, in a court case where parties get to represent themselves, applying common law, with a jury of my peers deciding the verdict... than random idiots elected by a bunch of other random idiots I don't know make laws without my input."

My argument is that relying only on lengthy, expensive and often untenable (because I'm dead) lawsuits, that involve not just you, a couple of lawyers and a judge, but now involving a jury (let's take a dozen people away from their daily lives because I have problems recognizing the benefits of making rules before people get hurt), as the only means of providing safer case is not the smartest idea I've ever heard.

The lawsuits are for when everything fucks up and you end up in a bad situation after the fact. Regulations are to have a good go at keeping you from ending up in the bad situation to start with. I know, it sounds like madness. But hear me out.

Sometimes, you make rules before you do something to try and keep bad things from happening.

Clear?

> So it's 100% or forgetaboutit?

Sigh. You quoted me out of context. Right after that, I said: "(I'm not saying this justifies freed markets! I'm saying this makes your argument bunk.)"

Neither freed markets nor state regulations are perfect. Which is my point: your particular criticism applies to both equally.

> I recognize that "not getting sued" is a powerful motivator, but that motivator already exists. Regardless of the kind of market environment the care is given in. But relying on that as the only motivator isn't advisable.

You have not shown me how being sued for wrongdoing is any different than being punished by a state sanctioned regulatory body for wrongdoing.

> Lawsuits and regulation seem to be working fairly well.

Depends on what your measure is. In broad strokes, sure. Governments in first world countries tend to work quite well based on our standard of living. But how much juice do you really want to squeeze?

Hint: That this conversation is even occurring suggests there's enough going wrong for people to be unhappy about the status quo.

> Eliminating regulation seems like a rather rubbish idea from any angle.

Adding/changing regulation seems like a rather rubbish idea from any angle.

> My argument is that relying only on lengthy, expensive and often untenable (because I'm dead) lawsuits, that involve not just you, a couple of lawyers and a judge, but now involving a jury (let's take a dozen people away from their daily lives because I have problems recognizing the benefits of making rules before people get hurt), as the only means of providing safer case is not the smartest idea I've ever heard.

I'm completely and utterly baffled to hear that all of those resources are necessary in every case. The threat of all those things happening is enough to make people settle in most of the cases.

> The lawsuits are for when everything fucks up and you end up in a bad situation after the fact. Regulations are to have a good go at keeping you from ending up in the bad situation to start with.

This is equivocation, plain and simple. You've arbitrarily designated lawsuits as "only for really really bad things" and claimed regulations are "preventative." But this is true of both lawsuits and regulations.

Reason to sue: Doctor kills you because of negligence.

Regulation: Don't be negligent.

Same thing. You kill someone because of negligence without state regulations? You get fucked. You kill someone because of negligence with state regulations? You get fucked.