NationStates

Senator Tillis has our backs though.

So, how much overreach is too much overreach? Where's that nebulous sweet spot that puts everything into the Goldlocks zone of "not touching my tacos with your junk funk" and "not invading my uterus with a Senate Committee"?

There's a balance to be had here, and the US (despite what some may think) is actually one of the better countries in the world at handling that balance.

I'm just not terribly sure that we should call health and sanitation regulations "government overreach".

I always use health codes as a counterpoint to someone arguing against government regulation of business, because they seem like the sort of thing that it is impossible to be against. I guess I was wrong.

Sdaeriji wrote:I always use health codes as a counterpoint to someone arguing against government regulation of business, because they seem like the sort of thing that it is impossible to be against. I guess I was wrong.

You must not live in America.

The answer depends on the person. It's subjective.

That said, if you can't find attempts at overreach in America, you probably aren't looking very hard.

Sdaeriji wrote:I always use health codes as a counterpoint to someone arguing against government regulation of business, because they seem like the sort of thing that it is impossible to be against. I guess I was wrong.

It is great that in the article someone posits that "the free market" would take care of the hand washing issue, so long as companies posted signs saying that they don't require hand washing.

Which requires the follow-up question, who's enforcing the sign posting?

The main flaw with this kind of liberal restriction of government, is that they don't take into account the individual's dependence on society. An Individual is created by his society, without a society people would have no preferences or beliefs, we would simply be empty(more realistically we would be like animals). Therefor the State can have a bigger role in people's lives than most liberals believe, because the voluntarist conception of a person is wrong.

(I edited this to make it sound better several times)

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:I always use health codes as a counterpoint to someone arguing against government regulation of business, because they seem like the sort of thing that it is impossible to be against. I guess I was wrong.

It is great that in the article someone posits that "the free market" would take care of the hand washing issue, so long as companies posted signs saying that they don't require hand washing.

Which requires the follow-up question, who's enforcing the sign posting?

Yeah, that's necessarily the next question, isn't it? What's less intrusive about mandating the sign posting versus the actual hand washing?

I think the CDC would like to have a word with the good senator.

Government should only seek to protect and forward the public interest in the economy, but not in a way to hurt free enterprise where possible. Socially, the government should only protect the life, liberty, and property of indviduals, and not forward any notion of morality beyond, "thou shalt not kill," and, "thou shalt not steal/perjure."

The senator does have a point. Hand-washing requirements are about the most inane and impossible to enforce thing that could be introduced besides wearing gloves whilst pooping. If someone doesn't wash their hands, a sign that says they gotta isn't going to make them (one might compare it to the TSA. It's there to make the people who don't work there feel better) and there isn't, to my knowledge, any enforcement arm of the CDC dedicated to hand-washing requirements. Nor should there be. Because that's stupid as well. Just more stupid and more wasteful than needless signage.

That said, there are much better examples of government overreach, and much larger points of concern revolving around governmental interaction with the private sector (subsidies, military contracting, banking and market regulations being either too lenient or too strict varying on size of the company involved instead of broad law, etc.)

Occupied Deutschland wrote:The senator does have a point. Hand-washing requirements are about the most inane and impossible to enforce thing that could be introduced besides wearing gloves whilst pooping. If someone doesn't wash their hands, a sign that says they gotta isn't going to make them (one might compare it to the TSA. It's there to make the people who don't work there feel better) and there isn't, to my knowledge, any enforcement arm of the CDC dedicated to hand-washing requirements. Nor should there be. Because that's stupid as well. Just more stupid and more wasteful than needless signage.

That said, there are much better examples of government overreach, and much larger points of concern revolving around governmental interaction with the private sector (subsidies, military contracting, banking and market regulations being either too lenient or too strict varying on size of the company involved instead of broad law, etc.)

I have seen fines and penalties levied by health inspectors catching employees not washing their hands, though. It *does* exist as a thing.

Expecting companies that serve products for physical consumption to follow appropriate sanitation procedures isn't inane, it's essential to preventing a hell of a lot of lawsuits.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:The senator does have a point. Hand-washing requirements are about the most inane and impossible to enforce thing that could be introduced besides wearing gloves whilst pooping. If someone doesn't wash their hands, a sign that says they gotta isn't going to make them (one might compare it to the TSA. It's there to make the people who don't work there feel better) and there isn't, to my knowledge, any enforcement arm of the CDC dedicated to hand-washing requirements. Nor should there be. Because that's stupid as well. Just more stupid and more wasteful than needless signage.

That said, there are much better examples of government overreach, and much larger points of concern revolving around governmental interaction with the private sector (subsidies, military contracting, banking and market regulations being either too lenient or too strict varying on size of the company involved instead of broad law, etc.)

I have seen fines and penalties levied by health inspectors catching employees not washing their hands, though. It *does* exist as a thing.

Expecting companies that serve products for physical consumption to follow appropriate sanitation procedures isn't inane, it's essential to preventing a hell of a lot of lawsuits.

They accompany employees into the bathroom?
These health inspectors are sounding incredibly creepy to me.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:I have seen fines and penalties levied by health inspectors catching employees not washing their hands, though. It *does* exist as a thing.

Expecting companies that serve products for physical consumption to follow appropriate sanitation procedures isn't inane, it's essential to preventing a hell of a lot of lawsuits.

They accompany employees into the bathroom?
These health inspectors are sounding incredibly creepy to me.

The health inspectors actually use the bathroom as a "customer". If they note an employee come in, they'll note whether or not they wash their hands. It's indicative of poor training, which is an area of concern if you're serving food. Not all inspections are announced.

I know I am not eating anything sen. Tills prepares.

I think we should invite the good senator for dinner somewhere.

Then once he finished eating, we'll inform him that no one involved in making his dinner bothered to adhere to hand washing regulation.

Shilya wrote:I think we should invite the good senator for dinner somewhere.

Then once he finished eating, we'll inform him that no one involved in making his dinner bothered to adhere to hand washing regulation.

So in other words a food truck? You don't have to tell him that. It's sort of an understanding that comes with getting food from one.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Shilya wrote:I think we should invite the good senator for dinner somewhere.

Then once he finished eating, we'll inform him that no one involved in making his dinner bothered to adhere to hand washing regulation.

So in other words a food truck? You don't have to tell him that. It's sort of an understanding that comes with getting food from one.

No, a regular place. Just gotta get them to lie to him if necessary. Or bribe them enough to offset any fine they may incur.

It has all come together, I know what the GOPs replacement for The Affordable Healthcare Act is! A national pandemic that kills off the poor!

Think about it. More than one Republican presidential hopeful has within the last week said that vaccinations should be voluntary or in Rand Paul's case that they are proven to cause mental issues (a claim that has been scientifically debunked so many times that elementary students debunk it as a school project*). Now they have members of their party stepping forward to claim that its an abuse of government power for health inspectors and the CDC to require people that handle food and et all to wash their hands. Combine that with their insistence that people don't need to be able to afford to pay for doctor's visits when they get sick and it paints a picture of a national conspiracy to kill off the masses through infectious disease! They can just let nature do the job for them and then they don't have to feel guilty or take any direct actions - they just need to convince the paupers that they'll be fine wallowing in sewage without any sort of preventative measures or medical care and watch them drop like flies.

This is their plan for healthcare reform (if there are less poor people there will be less uninsured people to make unpaid ER visits) and their solution to poverty and income equality (kill off the poor via diseases). Fucking genius!**

*May be a hyperbolic statement on my part for further details check my signature.
** See above.