There are two other rulings negative rulings, with more (including a multi-state lawsuit with multiple AGs participating against the bill) with ruling not yet made.
What exactly are you relying on to reach your conclusion?
I did not say it was. I pointed out there is dispute over whether it is as definitive as the thread or you implied. There are legal questions. Hopefully you can see that.
and the problem would be?..well, except for the abortion provider targets.
I have no problem with states and regions establishing curriculum that reflect the local culture, as long as reading, writing and arithmetic are the focal point.
As with employment, if you don’t like what is offered there you are free to take your kids elsewhere, utilize a private school, or home school
So, of course one can grant that it is not frivolous anymore, but it is still wishful thinking that the rulings against reform will prevail.
That none of what he cited is actually accurate, maybe? You may be fine with children (anywhere) being taught that everything was created in six days, but I’m not. Because it’s WRONG.
Of course, if the entire southeast and southcentral regions of the US want to become international laughingstocks as they watch their children continually denied admission to actual accredited universities for lack of real education, that should be no skin off my nose. Except for what it does to those children.
ETA: I’m sorry, I have to revisit, mostly because I’m incredulous that someone who, IIRC, is a conservative but not one of the biblethumpers actually worships the idea of local control so much that he would gleefully watch science education in any particular region completely evaporate in favor of ancient myths. It boggles my mind.
Considering that the educational systems of the Deep South are already the nation’s worst, one can hardly imagine how bad they’d be without federal oversight.
Can you re-write that with the grammar mistakes corrected? I can’t understand what you’re trying to say. Thanks.
I bet it’s something to do with rulings.
I agree with this statement, and further say that a district judge should not take it on himself to reverse Supreme Court precedent. He may dislike it, but it is the (case)law of the land.
Yeah, that sentence wasn’t my finest hour, was it?
There are two other rulings negative rulings, with more (including a multi-state lawsuit with multiple AGs participating against the bill) with ruling not yet made.
That means:
Arrayed against the one ruling we’re discussing here, there are two courts that have ruled in the opposite way, and other lawsuits – including a multi-state plaintiff suit – as yet undecided. So characterizing the one case here as against the manifest weight of the rulings is not correct… there are only two that cut the other way, with more undecided.
And besides that: rulings rulings rulings rulings.
That seems rather puzzling to me. Does this happen very often, that is having a district judge reverse SCOTUS precedent? Is that a way for a lower level judge to essentially force the hand of the SCOTUS to revisit that precedent?
Heh.
In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the binding Supreme Court precedent is straightforward. That’s exactly what it is, then: a way for the lower level judge to kick the issue up and see if the mood has changed. At worst, they get a rebuke in the opinion that overturns them.
Providers do charge excessively high “list prices”, but they almost never get those fees, because they’ve agreed to accept far less from their contracted insurers. This doesn’t help the person who can’t get approved for insurance at all, or who can’t afford premiums that are half or all of their income.
Insurance company profits are generally wafer thin, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still ask if they should exist at all (with respect to health insurance). Those notorious CEO payouts aren’t necessarily counted as profit, nor are the much more modest wages of the armies of administrative staff, together with the cost of rent, utilities, and so on. How can all this not represent a huge layer of cost in the system? This was the particular egg that needed breaking.
Insurers set the prices in individual situations, but these prices are in turn driven by the average prices for the region as a whole, which are largely beyond the control of the insurers. (There was some scandal recently relating to the fact that UHC owned the main outfit that calculated R&C pricing, and thus had a conflict of interest.)
Even beyond prices, utlization is also impacted by this issue.
Bottom line is that the decision as to whether or not to seek a given medical treatment/procedure/checkup is made by someone who is not going to bear the financial brunt of that decision. On an aggregate level this tends to inflate the cost of medical care.
One way around this is rationed healthcare, where the decisions are made - or at least heavily influenced - by bureaucrats. Another approach is to have high deductible “catastrophic” health care plans, where the costs below a certain level are paid by the individual and the insurance kicks in at a higher level. This way, the decisions about whether to see a doctor for a cold or whether to have an MRI for something that seems-OK-but-you-never-can-tell-so-why-not-rule-it-out will be made by someone with skin in the game, but if the guy gets cancer or something they’ll be covered. The Bush administration tried this approach in pushing CDHPs, but the Obama people have backed off on this, IIRC.
Insurance is not portable? I thought there was COBRA, right? As for rising health care expenses, so what? You can go overseas to get cheaper health care nowadays. It’s called medical tourism. In some cases even health insurance companies support that. And if you can’t do that, why not turn to your community for help? Oh yeah that would require being an active citizen of your community, right?
Why do we always turn to the Government instead of our community? Whatever happened to “can do”?
I disagree with this. I assume you are referring to Wickard. That ruling said nothing about economic inactivity. I think that the individual mandate is akin to making a farmer grow wheat against his will. This seems like the exact opposite of Wickard.
That’s right, get your church to fund a spaghetti dinner for your sons chemo therapy. At $10.00 a head you only need 5,000 diners to cover this years bills.
I know a self employed person who have a catastrophic policy, $10,000 annual deductible, $15,000 max out of pocket. She actually hit that limit, but would have had double or triple the expense if the rates she had to pay the doctors and hospitals weren’t regulated by the contract they had with the insurer.
I am not arguing about your point of health insurance costs. A health economist once described this the American system to me as follows. We have a doctor who wants to make $500k per year for seeing 5000 patients (about three an hour, $100 per patient). The insurance companies (and Medicare/Medicaid) think this is too much, and he should only get $350k. They then play a huge game involving administrative workers, both in the medical practice and at the insurer (and the software companies, consultants, regulators etc). In the end the doctor makes $250k and society ends up paying four other people $500k, for a total cost of $750k per doctor, who ends up seeing only 4000 patients. I asked how he knew that in the absence of all this game, the doctor wouldn’t make off with $1M for seeing 2000 patients and spend the rest of his time playing golf. Part of the reason he works hard to see 4000 patients is that we REDUCED his rate per patient.
I can afford my son’s chemotherapy if he were to ever need it.
I’m not trying to be callous or flamebaitish here, but I have an honest question… if it’s his time to go it’s his time to go. If you can’t find the money to save his life why bring everyone else down in the process? Again, I’m not trying to troll, there is the whole natural selection thing.
Seriously, if liberals disagree with that then why don’t they contribute more donations to such things? I don’t see Angelina Jolie (or name your other supposedly liberal icon) rushing out to help every time there’s a kid who needs chemotherapy. I visit dailykos and moveon.org and I rarely if ever see them headlining a charity drive for these kids. What gives?
“Boy, If Life Were Only Like This!” - Woody Allen in Annie Hall after producing Marshall McLuhan out of nowhere to show some loud critic that he was wrong abut McLuhan.
So it is now, I love this internet era.