[whiddershins]

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.

[callmeal]

>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...

[whiddershins]

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.

[jacobush]

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.