The gorvenment regulations are draw up in 3 steps:
Step 1: Public comment period. People who are affected by the proposed rule have the right of comment during the eleboration stage and their comments help to formalize the final version of the rule.
Step 2: Notice of proposed rulemaking. This document represent what types of comment is taken into account and how they should be submitted during the public comment periods. It also explain why the rule is necessary and affects businesses, consumers and other groups affected by it.
Step 3: Drafting. A draft is draw up reflecting any comments received during the public hearings or written comments during previous review steps. The draft is later modified based on new information during the writing process.
Taking these three steps into account, it's concluded that the elaboration of government regulations is based on what a group of citizens needs.
In case of, for example, "The Employer Health Insurance Mandate" which says: The “employer mandate” slated for 2014, is a key element of the PPACA. It requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide health benefits or face a penalty of $2,000 per employee, this regulation is necessary even if at the expense of companies, after all, in this country, where hospital bills are exorbitant (The average cost of a 3-day hospital stay is around $30,000) and according to "The Individual Health Insurance Mandate": The “individual mandate” slated to take effect in 2014, is the cornerstone of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The PPACA requires U.S. citizens to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service—a fine that escalates from $95 or 1 percent of taxable income in 2014 to $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016. Subsidies to purchase coverage will be provided to those who meet generous income-eligibility requirements.
It would be interesting to see a debate over whether any singular regulation is better than no regulation at all. Because liberals and libertarians generally have a fundamental disagreement on which would be better.
To a libertarian, for the overwhelming majority of regulations and government departments out there, things would be better without its existence and the regulations. But liberals believe that most regulations and government departments are better than none at all.
That is the real debate here. So to answer it, I believe a true-to-the-issue debate of whether any regulation at all, could be something everyone loves or something difficult to defend, makes society an inherently better place than no regulations.
I would be up for that.
We can debate universal healthcare maybe. Let me finish looking through your interests
We can debate universal healthcare maybe. Let me finish looking through your interests
It feels like every new debate on this site insists on making the BOP easy as pie for themselves and impossible for their opponent.
Liberals oppose so-called “deregulation” because advocates of it often want to slash away all regulations, good and bad, even to the point of defunding or disbanding entire government departments. Obviously, there are bad regulations out there which only serve as red tape and make it harder to get things done. Anyone desperate enough to accept this debate would have to jump through hoops to argue against this.
Gosh I want to take this just for fun, lol. I just may in a couple days if nobody else does. Idk. But I don't think you want to debate a polemics practicer on this one.
That's what Ii am trying to do.
Put them in Syria or Afghanistan and see if they complain.
I hear liberals criticize deregulation all the time. Why would they have a problem with deregulation if there is even a single unnecessary or harmful regulation somewhere. Deregulation merely means removing that harmful or useless regulation.
Liberals? Wrong, authoritarians.
Good luck getting someone to accept a rigged resolution like this - "zero" is a ridiculously high burden of proof.