Hacker News Reader

Comment by RandoHolmes | Hacker News Reader

> Safety standards could be addressed by insurability, and this is really a very separate concept from wage.

Sorry, but no. And I'm going to judge you for having that opinion.

The idea that it's acceptable for a human being to lose their sight (or legs or arms or ...) and suffer the quality of life problems that result from it as long as they're covered by insurance is horrendous and I judge you for it.

I don't even care if you come back and tell me you've changed your mind based upon this post. The fact that you needed your mind changed makes you a monster.

View on HN

You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces.

Again, my example is UL ratings of building materials.

Your response is over the top, and I am quite worried about you talking to me this way, it feels like a threat.

>You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces.

That is just not true. I think it's convenient how everyone forgets the kinds of calculations US corporations make: breaking the law/killing people/not having insurance is cheaper and more profitable than the alternative. Remember the Ford Pinto? Ok, that was probably too long ago. How about Firestone?

Firestone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro...

Well, that’s a good point. But what if the government merely said ‘without insurance, you can’t operate.’

This would be a modest intervention, but would allow a market of insurers to determine what is safe, so as to reduce cruft.

Maybe it’s flawed, but it works for UL rating and building materials ... no UL certification no insurance, therefore no materials are sold without the certification, even though it is technically legal to sell them. This results in a private market for, say, awesome cherry wood coffee table tops that aren’t regulated, but Sheetrock and structural steel clearly is.

Maybe it wouldn’t work, I’m just saying OSHA and state regulations aren’t the only conceivable way to imagine workplace safety being enforced.

I don’t know. Too me it seems flimsy to rely on insurance alone. It feels like the economic incentives could fluctuate such that there would be opportunity to skimp or exploit insurance.

It feels like you might want to add criminal liability if you distort insurance, in which case you may as well make it illegal outright to jeopardise people’s health.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24459650 and banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com