Sure,... you can choose not to buy an i-pad or a Ford,.. but,...
... if you wee in a motorcycle accident and was rushed to hospital... you don't have time or choice, you must have the expectation that these facilities will meet standards and the people will be qualified...
You also must expect the water from your tap to meet safety standards...
Electricity, gas, etc...
Microwave ovens should not leak radiation... the platics that store your food should be safe...
The materials that are in your plumbing?...

The vitamin industry is unregulated,... and it is corrupt... many of the supplements you buy are not as advertized, and are mostly rice powder...
This is shameful, but profitable...

Recently, it has been found that many faux fur clothing items are actually made of animal skins... The animal product is cheaper...
Shameful, but profitable...

Money is a corrupting influence...
So many things you pay for are not what you think...

Look at nuclear power, or drones.

It was a chance. We wanted supreme control. Once other countries said "Hey, we can do this" is when regulation became an issue.

The nuclear power is the hindsight. Drones are the future.

If we don't establish fair and balanced regulations for drones now then there won't be any protections when other countries start using them.


--Steve

[quote author=7563746971646972060 link=1424977991/0#9 date=1425014313]Kris01 wrote on 02/26/15 at 20:04:33:

Oh! Got it.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 02/27/15 at 16:05:48:


About 20 years ago... Lawyers and Drug companies were allowed to advertize on TV... Before that they weren't...
Another deregulation move,... maybe Lib's did it, I don't remember...
Anyway... it was a bonehead idea...
Now, every other commercial is for a pill, or a class action suing the makers of the pill...
Lawyers used to chase ambulances,.. now they chase class action suits..
Mo' money...

JOG -
As a defense lawyer, let me correct you.  Lawyers only have to SELL a story to a jury, regardless of whether it's factually true.  Suing a pharmaceutical company is easy if the jury is composed of people like you are, who always thinks they are being duped by businesses.

Bot -
While I'm not a plaintiff's lawyer, as I said, I'm on the defense side, I do believe in the contingent fee system.  Sometimes plaintiffs win in cases when no person, or groups of people could ever afford to litigate based on an hourly rate.  
I had such a case about 15 years ago,  It concerned a 3 fatal airplane crash.  Plaintiff's theory was nuts, and after a 6 week trial, they lost after the jury deliberated for only about 3 hours.
But, the plaintiff's 3 lawyer team not only wasted 6 weeks in trial, and 2 years in preparation for $0 in fees, they ate well over $100K in expert fees, hotel bills, meals. etc.
The trial was in a smaller city, and my team stayed in a modest Holiday Inn - lawyers and experts.  My hotel bill alone, which the defendant's insurer paid in the end, was over $11K for the several rooms for those 6 weeks and our meals.  And that was a modest priced hotel in a small town.
So, plaintiff lawyers swallow a goose egg fairly often - you only hear about the wins.

To return to the original subject of this thread:

If I understand correctly what this is net neutrality nonsense is about,I have to wonder; do we really want the same outfit that can't put together a functioning health insurance website  to be in charge of the internet ?