Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (128920)	1/29/2010 11:52:08 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541991

I was not calling for deregulation. I like regulation. I was calling for a different style of training. Nothing more. Liking regulation doesn't preclude liking or calling for deregulation. Calling for allowing a different style of training, when the current style is mandated by regulation, is deregulation, or at least it is if your not talking about having highly specific regulatory mandates to enforce your new style, replacing the regulatory mandates that currently mandate the old style. Calling for deregulation for something, doesn't mean that you want to totally deregulate everything and let everyone do whatever they want. It doesn't even mean that you want the total amount of regulation to be reduced. You might want to deregulate physician training, but add new regulations somewhere else in the medical system (perhaps about insurance coverage), and in areas outside the medical system (perhaps tightening leverage for banks, or imposing other regulation on the financial system). A combination like that can mean your calling for deregulating A, while creating new regulations for B, tightening regulations for C and D, while leaving E to Z the same. In a specific context you would be calling for deregulation, but it doesn't imply any dislike of regulation or movement to a general deregulation.