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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (15963)	4/1/2010 8:43:16 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The benefit or regulatory competition is that you get competition both among the regulated, and among the regulators. Neither is a monopoly. But if that is somehow off the table, than at least before considering the specific proposed regulations, or opinions on how reasonable they are likely to be, there is something to be said for a national regulator of a national business, rather than a balkinized 50 small markets system. The balknizes system does keep the "laboratory of democracy" idea, you can see what works and what doesn't. But in this area what doesn't work, doesn't seem to get changed very often (or if it does change it often isn't an improvement). And the bigger point is that complying with 50 sets of regulations directly drives up costs to an apparently important degree. My main concern about a national regulator/legislative control is that it seems likely at the moment that it would be similar to or worse than the worst states in many ways. If the nation was in a more deregulatory/free market mood, than I might support it more, but even then I could hardly rely on that condition being durable.