Since when do state and local laws override the Constitution of The United States?
Hint: They DON'T.
Please state where in the Constitution it says one may not be required to have insurance or may not be required to sign a contract
State law may not be less restrictive than federal law, but it may be more restrictive.
The auto insurance requirements are for the privilege of driving and not a general requirement. Don't own or drive a car and you don't need to have insurance.
I can't speak to all states, but in Florida the requirement is for "financial responsibility". Specifically, one either has insurance or posts a US$10,000.00 bond with the state.
Since auto insurance requirements are not interstate and thus don't fall under the rubric of the Constitution.
Yes, and this is an argument against reform HOW? It is clear statement of how the current system is BROKEN.
There is nothing in the current reform bills that will fix it.
What happens when someone breaks in to your house and takes your wall wart? Or, your pissed off ex takes it?
Re:How to have Healthcare that a Republican would
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
Apparently, you need to do some research into health insurance and insurance law.
1. Collect a tax that is proportional to the expected premium for the nation, for the given coverage. Define the coverage as only those MOST COMMON things that we need/are entitled to. This means basic and routine care, emergency hospital visits and life-necessary prescription medications.... 3.Finally leave all controversial services to be paid for by a private supplemental policy. Viagra, abortions, cosmetic procedures, lifestyle liabilities (lung cancer of smokers) would all be paid by the optional private policy
OK, we pay a tax AND have health insurance policies. But, who decided whether a specific disease or injury is "lifestyle liability"?
You mention lung cancer for smokers, but what about mesothelioma? How about someone who smokes, but comes from a family of smokers in whom there is no history of lung cancer?
Or, a smoker who comes from a family of NON-smokers but in whom there is a family history of lung cancer?
Is HIV a "lifestyle liability" for homosexuals?
What about prostitutes and drug users?
Are gun shot wounds a "lifestyle liability" of gang members and criminals?
How about ODs for drug abusers?
Heart attacks, diabetes, etc for fat people?
How about heart attacks for thin people who work out, but have high stress jobs, have a high intake of salt and fat, and smoke a pack a day?
How about high blood pressure in black people?
Broken bones for people who work in dangerous industries?
Injuries related to a motorcycle crash? Ask any motorcyclist and you will be told it is a "lifestyle".
Which of those will or will not be covered?
It preserves competition among the insurers.
There is no real competition among the insurers. In almost every state, there is one insurer who has over 85% of the market. From state to state, the majority insurer may change, but in each state that majority insurer has an effective monopoly. This is because one does not buy insurance from "Blue Cross/Blue Shield" but rather "Blue Cross/Blue Shield of [insert state here]". And, this state by state monopoly system is not just allowed but actually encouraged by the current laws.
So then all laws requiring motor vehicle insurance are unconstitutional? That would be interesting.
You will notice that the laws requiring motor vehicle insurance are STATE and LOCAL laws, not FEDERAL laws. That is the difference.
We also clearly pay far more for the same drugs than people in other countries.
Because we end up subsidizing those countries. Those countries say to the drug companies "You can only charge X." and the drug companies say "No problem, we will just charge more in the US". This is why the drug companies fight anything that could lower the amount they charge in the US.
Your post is full of misconceptions and misrepresentation. Try doing some research next time.
There is nothing new in this. People have been using game theory to make predictions for decades.
In fact, it is one way that Japan screwed up in WW2. They gamed out different strategies for the Battle of Midway during which an admiral arbitrarily lowered Japanese casualties. The results of the changed games showed an easy win for Japan, but when the arbitrary changes were removed, the results of the gaming exercises reflected the Japanese losing the battle.
Because intelligence on much bigger things such as invading another country for the bountiful supply of Weapons of Mass Destruction they had was excellent top notch intelligence. 1 million dead Iraqis later.. still looking for those weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, because mustard gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. Most of those "1 million dead Iraqis" were killed by... other Iraqis.
The President is not a King, nor a tyrant. Only Kings and Tyrants decree someone needs to be executed while they are driving around in a car or sleeping in their bed at night.
No, actually. In fact, it wasn't until executive order 11905 in the 1970s that political assassination was banned. Maybe you should wake up and smell the history. As far as those who are targeted by the drones, they are not poor little people who aren't doing anything. They aren't even political dissidents. They are violent, evil fucks who are engaged in waging war against the United States. If the United States decides to drop a bomb on them, well, that is what happens in war.
if they're on the battle field with a weapon, they're fighting a war and are military targets. Otherwise, they're Americans who have been denied due process. Innocent until proven guilty and all that... I like our rights as Americans. Maybe you don't.
No, as soon as the signed up with a group that declared war on America, they became the enemy, whether they are armed on the battlefield, or in a house asleep, or hiding a hole in the ground. You keep acting like they have been accused of a crime and will be going to trial. That is not what is happening here. They have taken up arms against the United States for a group that has declared war on the United States, that makes them enemy combatants regardless of whether they are in a trench with a gun or driving along a mountain pass in Pakistan.
Oh hey!! I think the warrant-less wiretapping network just picked up on you telling your grandma you are "Shelving the bible on the second shelf".. apparently that's code for bombing the pentag0n. You are now an enemy combatant.
A) My grandma is dead. B) I don't believe in the bible or any religion. C) Apparently, you are fucking asshole and if I could get my hands on you, I would beat you into a fucking bloody smear.
If I was on a drone assassination list, I would be be dead by now. I actually use Google Latitude *gasp*.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The no-fly list is a list of names used by people who could be dangerous. The targets of the drones are known and verified terrorist/enemy combatants. One is a list of possibles, one is a list of knowns.
No, they are targeted because the intelligence and, in many cases, the targets themselves say they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.
onsidering that they are involved in a permanent war with no front line the only way to protect family would be to choose not to have one
That is a false statement. One way for one of these terrorists to protect his family would be not to live or visit them.
Terrorists presumably don't own houses
No. In fact, many terrorists have families and own houses. That is why we often hear of strikes on terrorists at their homes. Please explain why you would presume that terrorists would not have homes.
they probably just show up at a friend of a friend's house--and he faces a more immediate threat than drones if his family doesn't welcome the wild-eyed men with cases of explosives.
So, what you are saying is that some guy shows up on someone's door step and says "Hi, I am a friend of your friend Ahkmed. He said I could stay with you tonight." and said someone says "OK armed stranger I have never met before. Please come in to my home with my family and children."?
The target is not merely a criminal, but rather a soldier for the enemy. He has not "put down the gun" until he has surrendered or has been captured. Until he is captured or surrendered, he is still a valid military target.
This is not just a crime, it is acting as an enemy soldier and attacking the United States.
Are you actively engaging in war against the United States? Were each of the soldiers of the Confederate States of America tried in a court before the American Civil War?
You are hung up on calling waging war against the U.S. and its troops "a crime" while it is, in fact, war. If the targets were to surrender, they could be tried for a number of crimes, but as active enemies of the United States, they are valid enemy targets regardless of their nationality.
I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the assassination of specific individuals
That statement is a joke right? Here, let me clear things up for you.
by your own admission, it is permissible to attack military enemies
targets of the drones are considered by the military and the government to be enemies
specific individuals are the targets of the drones
an assassination is an attack
then you are saying:
I don't think the question here is whether it is permissible to attack military enemies, so much as whether it is permissible to engage in the attacking of specific military enemies
Interesting post. Except: You are assuming that someone is going to "shove your name on a top 10 target list" for no reason. Your assumption that one will be targeted because one is " just walking along a remote mountain top soaking up the sunshine" is foolish and unsupportable.
One does not simply end up on a target list for no reason. Those on the target list are known enemy combatants or leaders. In order to get on the target list, an American must effectively disown his country and take up arms against it.
You are wrong because you start from the false premise that one can and will get one's name on a target list for no reason.
Terrorists indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace for the terrorists' political gain. The government is selectively targeting terrorists to stop the terrorists from indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace. If the terrorists targeted did not want their families to be in danger, they would not have been around their families. However, the terrorists, being violent sociopaths, didn't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.
However, that is not what is going on here. Specifically, those targeted are enemy combatants. They are not being targeted "merely because the president says so", but rather because they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.
All core internet networks have "high value data."
A) prove that statement. B) While it may be true, prove that listening in on all core networks is a better strategy than listening in on specific points with higher concentration of the desired traffic.
Please demonstrate or explain in detail how to do so in a manner that will capture desired data most of the time. Remember, we are concerned with the contents of the packets, not just their endpoints or metrics, so if you find a suspicious packet, you must capture all other related packets possibly doing cryptographic, grammatic, and lexical analysis including but not limited to word replacement and letter replacement, on the contents in real time.
Guess what: tap rooms exist in more than just bars. This is not philosophy class. You can't change reality with word games or bad analogies. It exists anyway.
It is not that that tap rooms don't exist, nor have I said that they don't. It is that you say tap rooms exist everywhere and in in operation on every communications system at all times. And, yes, that is what you implied in your original post. What you suggest they are doing is not technically feasible, not legal without a warrant, would result in too small an ROI to be implemented, would cost too much to implement covertly, and would be impossible to keep secret.
Apparently, you don't know what the Geneva convention says. I suggest you read it some time. It has nothing to do with what you have posted.
From your linked article:
Although the United States has not ratified the protocols
If the U.S. has not ratified the protocols, then they have no force of law in the United States.
If captured, the unlawful acts committed during their direct participation makes them subject to prosecution in civilian courts or military tribunals.
Which is how it has always been with covert service.
Two things strike me about your linked article. One is that it is the opinion of a single person who's claim to expertise is writing a book. His opinion may or may not be valid. The other is that the article is full of ifs and maybes. The author has spun out a series of suppositions and based a conclusion on them. If any one or more of those suppositions is false, then the conclusion is probably false as well. It is not so much an article as it is an opinion piece and opinions are not fact.
I do not hope terrorism happens. It will happen eventually. I just hope that when it does, it personally effects you and that it could have been avoided using the techniques you say are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Hint: They DON'T.
Since auto insurance requirements are not interstate and thus don't fall under the rubric of the Constitution.
There is nothing in the current reform bills that will fix it.
What happens when someone breaks in to your house and takes your wall wart?
Or, your pissed off ex takes it?
Apparently, you need to do some research into health insurance and insurance law.
OK, we pay a tax AND have health insurance policies. But, who decided whether a specific disease or injury is "lifestyle liability"?
Which of those will or will not be covered?
There is no real competition among the insurers. In almost every state, there is one insurer who has over 85% of the market. From state to state, the majority insurer may change, but in each state that majority insurer has an effective monopoly. This is because one does not buy insurance from "Blue Cross/Blue Shield" but rather "Blue Cross/Blue Shield of [insert state here]". And, this state by state monopoly system is not just allowed but actually encouraged by the current laws.
You will notice that the laws requiring motor vehicle insurance are STATE and LOCAL laws, not FEDERAL laws. That is the difference.
Because we end up subsidizing those countries. Those countries say to the drug companies "You can only charge X." and the drug companies say "No problem, we will just charge more in the US". This is why the drug companies fight anything that could lower the amount they charge in the US.
Your post is full of misconceptions and misrepresentation. Try doing some research next time.
Is it individual insurance or did you get it through your employer? Did your employer lower the amount they were paying towards the premium?
There is nothing new in this. People have been using game theory to make predictions for decades.
In fact, it is one way that Japan screwed up in WW2. They gamed out different strategies for the Battle of Midway during which an admiral arbitrarily lowered Japanese casualties. The results of the changed games showed an easy win for Japan, but when the arbitrary changes were removed, the results of the gaming exercises reflected the Japanese losing the battle.
Yes, because mustard gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. Most of those "1 million dead Iraqis" were killed by... other Iraqis.
No, actually. In fact, it wasn't until executive order 11905 in the 1970s that political assassination was banned. Maybe you should wake up and smell the history. As far as those who are targeted by the drones, they are not poor little people who aren't doing anything. They aren't even political dissidents. They are violent, evil fucks who are engaged in waging war against the United States. If the United States decides to drop a bomb on them, well, that is what happens in war.
No, as soon as the signed up with a group that declared war on America, they became the enemy, whether they are armed on the battlefield, or in a house asleep, or hiding a hole in the ground. You keep acting like they have been accused of a crime and will be going to trial. That is not what is happening here. They have taken up arms against the United States for a group that has declared war on the United States, that makes them enemy combatants regardless of whether they are in a trench with a gun or driving along a mountain pass in Pakistan.
A) My grandma is dead.
B) I don't believe in the bible or any religion.
C) Apparently, you are fucking asshole and if I could get my hands on you, I would beat you into a fucking bloody smear.
If I was on a drone assassination list, I would be be dead by now. I actually use Google Latitude *gasp*.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The no-fly list is a list of names used by people who could be dangerous. The targets of the drones are known and verified terrorist/enemy combatants. One is a list of possibles, one is a list of knowns.
No, they are targeted because the intelligence and, in many cases, the targets themselves say they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.
I am not on the list, therefore one does not end up on the list for no reason. QED.
Now, prove that people end up on the target list for no reason.
That is a false statement. One way for one of these terrorists to protect his family would be not to live or visit them.
No. In fact, many terrorists have families and own houses. That is why we often hear of strikes on terrorists at their homes. Please explain why you would presume that terrorists would not have homes.
So, what you are saying is that some guy shows up on someone's door step and says "Hi, I am a friend of your friend Ahkmed. He said I could stay with you tonight." and said someone says "OK armed stranger I have never met before. Please come in to my home with my family and children."?
So, you wouldn't care if you were a citizen of the United States or a subject of Taliban/Al Qeda rule, right?
The target is not merely a criminal, but rather a soldier for the enemy. He has not "put down the gun" until he has surrendered or has been captured. Until he is captured or surrendered, he is still a valid military target.
This is not just a crime, it is acting as an enemy soldier and attacking the United States.
Are you actively engaging in war against the United States?
Were each of the soldiers of the Confederate States of America tried in a court before the American Civil War?
You are hung up on calling waging war against the U.S. and its troops "a crime" while it is, in fact, war. If the targets were to surrender, they could be tried for a number of crimes, but as active enemies of the United States, they are valid enemy targets regardless of their nationality.
That statement is a joke right? Here, let me clear things up for you.
then you are saying:
Interesting post. Except:
You are assuming that someone is going to "shove your name on a top 10 target list" for no reason. Your assumption that one will be targeted because one is " just walking along a remote mountain top soaking up the sunshine" is foolish and unsupportable.
One does not simply end up on a target list for no reason. Those on the target list are known enemy combatants or leaders. In order to get on the target list, an American must effectively disown his country and take up arms against it.
You are wrong because you start from the false premise that one can and will get one's name on a target list for no reason.
Terrorists indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace for the terrorists' political gain.
The government is selectively targeting terrorists to stop the terrorists from indiscriminately target civilians to instill fear in the populace. If the terrorists targeted did not want their families to be in danger, they would not have been around their families. However, the terrorists, being violent sociopaths, didn't care about their families and thus their families were collateral damage.
However, that is not what is going on here. Specifically, those targeted are enemy combatants. They are not being targeted "merely because the president says so", but rather because they are engaged in combat operations against the United States.
A comedian is not a reputable source.
What was the point of the GPP? He made a statement, I made a counter statement using the exact same format and criteria.
A) prove that statement. B) While it may be true, prove that listening in on all core networks is a better strategy than listening in on specific points with higher concentration of the desired traffic.
Please demonstrate or explain in detail how to do so in a manner that will capture desired data most of the time. Remember, we are concerned with the contents of the packets, not just their endpoints or metrics, so if you find a suspicious packet, you must capture all other related packets possibly doing cryptographic, grammatic, and lexical analysis including but not limited to word replacement and letter replacement, on the contents in real time.
It is not that that tap rooms don't exist, nor have I said that they don't. It is that you say tap rooms exist everywhere and in in operation on every communications system at all times. And, yes, that is what you implied in your original post. What you suggest they are doing is not technically feasible, not legal without a warrant, would result in too small an ROI to be implemented, would cost too much to implement covertly, and would be impossible to keep secret.
Apparently, you don't know what the Geneva convention says. I suggest you read it some time. It has nothing to do with what you have posted.
From your linked article:
If the U.S. has not ratified the protocols, then they have no force of law in the United States.
Which is how it has always been with covert service.
Two things strike me about your linked article. One is that it is the opinion of a single person who's claim to expertise is writing a book. His opinion may or may not be valid.
The other is that the article is full of ifs and maybes. The author has spun out a series of suppositions and based a conclusion on them. If any one or more of those suppositions is false, then the conclusion is probably false as well. It is not so much an article as it is an opinion piece and opinions are not fact.
I do not hope terrorism happens. It will happen eventually. I just hope that when it does, it personally effects you and that it could have been avoided using the techniques you say are wrong.
And what of terrorists who use torture to both gather information and to instill terror?
And, remember, what you have said is your opinion and is not necessarily correct.