232 Protections House Republicans Think You Don't Deserve

[AsGryffynn]

pokoko said:

Kind of a mixed bag.  Some of these should definitely be reviewed--actually, all such rules and programs should be reviewed periodically.  Others look like fluff designed to seem meaningful but are really just anchors.  Cutting those will help businesses without hurting anyone.  However, some of these should be left alone or, at worst, streamlined.  Especially programs that help spread technology or protect consumers from misleading product claims.  

I just hope that the pros and cons of each are considered carefully in terms of real-world impact instead of political point scoring.

mrstickball said:

Have you tried running a small business in the United States to make that argument? Or been in a situation where you've tried to make a life for yourself, and the government has done more harm than good? There's a reason that conservatives push for smaller government for both the populace and business.

I've owned and managed two successful small businesses and I found your "in other words" to be far too simplistic.  Many of them have nothing to do with "being responsible for yourself".

He might be referring to Obamacare induced bankruptcies due to skyrocketing premiums, which I agree are among the things Trump needs to scrap on his first day. 

If he wants to keep the protections, he should be able to without ensuring there's a government ruling in favor of mandatory insurance... 

How of making insurance an adaptable thing that will be enabled if you fall sick and be non existent otherwise...