Because there was not much of an alternative. How to you do this without doing how the ACA setup or going single payer? Single payer was not going to happen, so conservatives forced this method on them.
availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
In correct. In other words. The law was clearly drafted with a given intent that the plaintifs want the court to ignore, however intent of the law is an important part of the SCOTUS's interpretation of all laws.
that Congress plainly meant to avoid
Not one Congressman has read the law in full — not before it was passed, not after. It is too long and too complicated.
Though it is acceptable for courts to turn to legislative intent sometimes, that's specifically reserved to cases, where the laws language is unclear.
That was not the case here — as written, the law clearly only allows subsidies for residents of those states, that have set up "health exchanges" of their own. Whether that was the intent of the law-makers or not is irrelevant. The court's decision is wrong.
What is written is not what is meant by intent, what is meant by intent is what the law was meant to accomplish. In this case if you remove all context from those few lines you can make it look like the intent was not to provide subsidies to these states (if you ignore that the word state has dual meaning in legislation), however when you look at the full bill, or heavens forbid, talk to the drafters of the law, you can see that the intent was to provide the credits either way.
Did you really have to use a.de domain to try and change the output so much? If you use the normal.com domain you get normal results. It is almost as though the German root level does not care much about a state in the US's tourism federation, or the EUs rules on how these search companies must censor results may be in play.
Even still all the WTF messages are relevant because the acronym was a cause for it to change the name of the federation.
Monster sued beats before it was owned by apple. Apple bought beats and is now cutting them off. That is very low. If this was allowed it would give every buisness a way to terminate a contract.
"I dont want to honor this contract anymore" "well sir the company is suing this other company" "ok buy them and then we can terminate our contract with them."
I am not talking about just cabled, I am talking about in general, apple products are vastly overpriced for what they do, and the quality that they give.
food cost is typically going to be 10% yes, but labor is going to be 20-40%, then rent, electricity, etc. You will be lucky if you get a 20% profit margin. BMI gets 100% profit off this.
I am pretty sure you serve the same meal once, you cannot serve it 2 or more times, unless you are waiting in the bathroom to get what comes out the other end.
We actually cant afford not to. How much longer do you think this planet will be able to support the exponential growth of the human population? Clean water, land, food, they are all going to start costing more soon, and maybe have to be rationed. Just because we may not see it does not mean we should put it off for our descendants to deal with when we know it is coming and we are a major contributor of it. If we could stop starting wars and cut the military we could easily afford it.
Well now you have. I switched from the iphone 3 to Android more 5 years ago and never switched back. Where I work, which is a major university, outside of the hipsters apple is seen as a joke. But then again I work at an engineering college where people like to be able to do more on their phones than what anyone may allow them to.
Also my experience is that Android is much more polished experiance.
Driving hybrid cars and increased fuel economy vehicles is more about saving the environment than not paying to support the roads you have to drive on. Both are needed.
Because it shifts the burden on maintaining our roads. I could use my gas vehicle 10 miles a year and have to pay much much more than someone who drives an electric 100000000000000000000 miles a year.
Red herring. I didn't claim the States could or should leave the Union. I simply claimed that the Federal Government can't decide for them how much power they wish to delegate to their political subdivisions. You should familiarize yourself with the 10th Amendment and concept of enumerated powers
Strawman: He was not talking about succession, he was talking about states rights.
However you are still failing to look at the picture. The NC constitution is similar to to the US constitution int hat it gives power of taxation to the, or more important, the regulation of trade, to the local governments, so the situation is the same for how the US treats NC as how NC treats locals in this case.:
Look at it this way, can, or should, the state be able to override a county's ability to limit a cities property tax? If so then why should it be limited to the state, and why should the fed not do the same?
Slashdot Mirror
Because there was not much of an alternative. How to you do this without doing how the ACA setup or going single payer? Single payer was not going to happen, so conservatives forced this method on them.
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
In correct. In other words. The law was clearly drafted with a given intent that the plaintifs want the court to ignore, however intent of the law is an important part of the SCOTUS's interpretation of all laws.
Not one Congressman has read the law in full — not before it was passed, not after. It is too long and too complicated.
Though it is acceptable for courts to turn to legislative intent sometimes, that's specifically reserved to cases, where the laws language is unclear.
That was not the case here — as written, the law clearly only allows subsidies for residents of those states, that have set up "health exchanges" of their own. Whether that was the intent of the law-makers or not is irrelevant. The court's decision is wrong.
What is written is not what is meant by intent, what is meant by intent is what the law was meant to accomplish. In this case if you remove all context from those few lines you can make it look like the intent was not to provide subsidies to these states (if you ignore that the word state has dual meaning in legislation), however when you look at the full bill, or heavens forbid, talk to the drafters of the law, you can see that the intent was to provide the credits either way.
It depends on where you are from and the content. In the US op-outs are generally legal, but not so much for other countries.
It is significantly different. The difference between op-in and op-out is massive.
Did you really have to use a .de domain to try and change the output so much? If you use the normal .com domain you get normal results. It is almost as though the German root level does not care much about a state in the US's tourism federation, or the EUs rules on how these search companies must censor results may be in play.
Even still all the WTF messages are relevant because the acronym was a cause for it to change the name of the federation.
Citation please?
Trademark still has fair use, and fair use can even be established if it is confusing.
Monster sued beats before it was owned by apple. Apple bought beats and is now cutting them off. That is very low. If this was allowed it would give every buisness a way to terminate a contract.
"I dont want to honor this contract anymore"
"well sir the company is suing this other company"
"ok buy them and then we can terminate our contract with them."
I am not talking about just cabled, I am talking about in general, apple products are vastly overpriced for what they do, and the quality that they give.
Pilots are not removed from it though like drone pilots are. Pilots stay in the area and can see the aftermath, they feel the impact more.
Your second quote has nothing to do with the first, aka your premise.
Technically apple did not own beats at the time of the lawsuit being filed.
But then again so is apple.
food cost is typically going to be 10% yes, but labor is going to be 20-40%, then rent, electricity, etc. You will be lucky if you get a 20% profit margin. BMI gets 100% profit off this.
I am pretty sure you serve the same meal once, you cannot serve it 2 or more times, unless you are waiting in the bathroom to get what comes out the other end.
So replacing part of a school day which would not be considered giving them time to be kids or to *breathe* would stop them somehow?
We actually cant afford not to. How much longer do you think this planet will be able to support the exponential growth of the human population? Clean water, land, food, they are all going to start costing more soon, and maybe have to be rationed. Just because we may not see it does not mean we should put it off for our descendants to deal with when we know it is coming and we are a major contributor of it. If we could stop starting wars and cut the military we could easily afford it.
Well now you have. I switched from the iphone 3 to Android more 5 years ago and never switched back. Where I work, which is a major university, outside of the hipsters apple is seen as a joke. But then again I work at an engineering college where people like to be able to do more on their phones than what anyone may allow them to.
Also my experience is that Android is much more polished experiance.
Driving hybrid cars and increased fuel economy vehicles is more about saving the environment than not paying to support the roads you have to drive on. Both are needed.
Because it shifts the burden on maintaining our roads. I could use my gas vehicle 10 miles a year and have to pay much much more than someone who drives an electric 100000000000000000000 miles a year.
Washington DC would like to have a word with you.
Red herring. I didn't claim the States could or should leave the Union. I simply claimed that the Federal Government can't decide for them how much power they wish to delegate to their political subdivisions. You should familiarize yourself with the 10th Amendment and concept of enumerated powers
Strawman: He was not talking about succession, he was talking about states rights.
Of requiring the buyer to commit to the same privacy policy if you allow that privacy policy to be broken?
However you are still failing to look at the picture. The NC constitution is similar to to the US constitution int hat it gives power of taxation to the, or more important, the regulation of trade, to the local governments, so the situation is the same for how the US treats NC as how NC treats locals in this case.:
Except the NC constitution makes it not unitary, but at least semi-federalist
Look at it this way, can, or should, the state be able to override a county's ability to limit a cities property tax? If so then why should it be limited to the state, and why should the fed not do the same?
Smaller components does not necessarily mean simpler.