The use of a common private contract would actually vastly simplify most estate rights. States would have whatever rules they felt necessary to determine the above by default, and a private contract would specify any changes desired by the contracting individuals.
States have no business determining who should be able to enter into those sorts of contracts, except to the extent of determining who can legally enter into private contracts of any sort.
It's effectively the same thing, except it's not. It would allow a lot more fine tuning of rights and additionally would prevent others from interfering in who makes those contracts. It would completely eliminate the gay marriage rights debate, which does currently prevent two people from using the powers of "spouses" you listed above in very many States.
Any chemical birth control also contains the means to abort an implanted embryo. While I am politically pro-choice, I do understand the opposing position, and the previous sentence is why they oppose birth control. It is biologically equivalent to abortion, even though it happens at a much earlier stage than is possible with surgical abortions.
Indeed. If you want to allow powers not enumerated by the Constitution as being allowed to the government, you need to amend it.
The problems come when people clamor for shortcut changes to address a problem. Once it became standard practice to ignore the need to amend the Constitution, those shortcuts were used to do very bad things as well. People who support the former have no business protesting the latter, because they allowed it to happen.
The "socially-accepted ethics" argument has also allowed things like indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and "police actions." Many of the positive change shortcuts have then been used for negative changes by less-scrupulous politicians. When you shortcut parts which prevent certain actions for what some consider "the common good," you leave the door open to nasty individuals to do the same for bad things, like allowing tainted evidence to be introduced at trial as long as the officer claims they thought they were following procedure (or secret evidence, as in any case claimed to involve national security). The list of bad things done via shortcutting the process is easily as long as the list of good things done.
Indeed. Negotiating non-insured rates at hospitals and with individual doctors frequently costs less than carrying health insurance and paying out-of-pocket costs at the rates insurers negotiate. This was certainly the case with my father and an otherwise very expensive surgical procedure, as well as the time he dislocated his shoulder. Had he paid via insurance rather than negotiating directly with the doctors and hospitals, he would have paid many thousands of dollars more for going the route of insurance.
Of course, the above isn't sustainable for end-of-life care or cancer treatment, since those tend to be expensive in the realm of millions of dollars, but then that's due to pharmaceutical costs (though even those can be negotiated; most pharma companies have discount and fee-waiver programs if you actually ask).
Premiums regularly change. The ACA prevents premium changes over $5 (for non-compliant plans only), which is a bar no insurance policy could ever actually meet.
The US population growth is flattening, as are most other industrial countries. Education has turned out to be the most effective means of birth control. The least-educated segments of the population drive the vast majority of population growth.
Depends on your definition of "grind." If you mean killing the same things over and over to get anywhere, there are a numbers of MMOs without a grinding requirement.
I don't think it was meant that he actually could have been President at that time, rather it was a theoretical "if he were back then as he is currently."
Really? Last I checked, disarming the populace was how the English monarchy retained its stranglehold for as long as it did. The same is true with every other brutal government that has ever existed. Arms are for the elite, not the peons.
You actually believe most of those murders were those who thought only of themselves? They murdered people simply for having possessions from the "wrong" culture.
It comes from the "o" in "would," even though it is as often used as a stand-in for "will not." We just don't have a separate contraction (i.e. wiln't)
Nobody is talking about dissolving companies, and your post does nothing to address the point that people are, in fact, not able to keep plans that are supposed to be grandfathered in. The law has resulted in people losing their plans, and prevents people from buying plans prior to its enactment that would be grandfathered in.
It's amazing how scared some people are of actual facts being discussed.
People can freely associate. They shouldn't expect their liability to be limited though. Any free association should be able to donate unlimited amounts, but limited liability is not a right, it's a privilege. When speech is filtered through a fiction which limits the liability of the speaker, they are no longer exercising their right to free speech, they are exercising their privilege of limited liability.
It should be tied to liability. If a group operates under a limited liability construct, that group should not be allowed to make political statements.
Not if the construct under which the group operates limits their personal liability. If it does not, they should not be limited in their political expression. If it does, they should not be allowed to.
Yup, and it should apply to any umbrella of limited liability. If your personal liability is limited by a construct of law, you should not be allowed to exercise any rights through that construct, only privileges granted by the jurisdiction in which that construct is created.
Slashdot Mirror
The use of a common private contract would actually vastly simplify most estate rights. States would have whatever rules they felt necessary to determine the above by default, and a private contract would specify any changes desired by the contracting individuals.
States have no business determining who should be able to enter into those sorts of contracts, except to the extent of determining who can legally enter into private contracts of any sort.
It's effectively the same thing, except it's not. It would allow a lot more fine tuning of rights and additionally would prevent others from interfering in who makes those contracts. It would completely eliminate the gay marriage rights debate, which does currently prevent two people from using the powers of "spouses" you listed above in very many States.
Any chemical birth control also contains the means to abort an implanted embryo. While I am politically pro-choice, I do understand the opposing position, and the previous sentence is why they oppose birth control. It is biologically equivalent to abortion, even though it happens at a much earlier stage than is possible with surgical abortions.
Indeed. If you want to allow powers not enumerated by the Constitution as being allowed to the government, you need to amend it.
The problems come when people clamor for shortcut changes to address a problem. Once it became standard practice to ignore the need to amend the Constitution, those shortcuts were used to do very bad things as well. People who support the former have no business protesting the latter, because they allowed it to happen.
The "socially-accepted ethics" argument has also allowed things like indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and "police actions." Many of the positive change shortcuts have then been used for negative changes by less-scrupulous politicians. When you shortcut parts which prevent certain actions for what some consider "the common good," you leave the door open to nasty individuals to do the same for bad things, like allowing tainted evidence to be introduced at trial as long as the officer claims they thought they were following procedure (or secret evidence, as in any case claimed to involve national security). The list of bad things done via shortcutting the process is easily as long as the list of good things done.
Indeed. Negotiating non-insured rates at hospitals and with individual doctors frequently costs less than carrying health insurance and paying out-of-pocket costs at the rates insurers negotiate. This was certainly the case with my father and an otherwise very expensive surgical procedure, as well as the time he dislocated his shoulder. Had he paid via insurance rather than negotiating directly with the doctors and hospitals, he would have paid many thousands of dollars more for going the route of insurance.
Of course, the above isn't sustainable for end-of-life care or cancer treatment, since those tend to be expensive in the realm of millions of dollars, but then that's due to pharmaceutical costs (though even those can be negotiated; most pharma companies have discount and fee-waiver programs if you actually ask).
Premiums regularly change. The ACA prevents premium changes over $5 (for non-compliant plans only), which is a bar no insurance policy could ever actually meet.
The US population growth is flattening, as are most other industrial countries. Education has turned out to be the most effective means of birth control. The least-educated segments of the population drive the vast majority of population growth.
Depends on your definition of "grind." If you mean killing the same things over and over to get anywhere, there are a numbers of MMOs without a grinding requirement.
If it passed across an NSA desk, yes. National security and all...
It only has NetFlix support if you pay MS monthly. It's free on every other platform.
Will never work. There are too many stupid humans, and they out-breed the smart humans by an enormous ratio.
To be fair, you can also stab by pointing it in. Frequently this turns out to be a Darwinian result though.
There are tons of hardware add-ons to the Pi that are simply not possible with a PC (and difficult with most tablets).
I don't think it was meant that he actually could have been President at that time, rather it was a theoretical "if he were back then as he is currently."
Really? Last I checked, disarming the populace was how the English monarchy retained its stranglehold for as long as it did. The same is true with every other brutal government that has ever existed. Arms are for the elite, not the peons.
You actually believe most of those murders were those who thought only of themselves? They murdered people simply for having possessions from the "wrong" culture.
It comes from the "o" in "would," even though it is as often used as a stand-in for "will not." We just don't have a separate contraction (i.e. wiln't)
Really. It's too bad my mod points expired yesterday. That AC deserves far more than a 0.
Insurance plan != insurance company.
Nobody is talking about dissolving companies, and your post does nothing to address the point that people are, in fact, not able to keep plans that are supposed to be grandfathered in. The law has resulted in people losing their plans, and prevents people from buying plans prior to its enactment that would be grandfathered in.
It's amazing how scared some people are of actual facts being discussed.
It's clearly asking how many ounces are in the cup when you put 5 pennies into a cup holding 6 ounces of liquid.
People can freely associate. They shouldn't expect their liability to be limited though. Any free association should be able to donate unlimited amounts, but limited liability is not a right, it's a privilege. When speech is filtered through a fiction which limits the liability of the speaker, they are no longer exercising their right to free speech, they are exercising their privilege of limited liability.
It should be tied to liability. If a group operates under a limited liability construct, that group should not be allowed to make political statements.
No, they just shouldn't be able to do it under a liability shield.
Not if the construct under which the group operates limits their personal liability. If it does not, they should not be limited in their political expression. If it does, they should not be allowed to.
Yup, and it should apply to any umbrella of limited liability. If your personal liability is limited by a construct of law, you should not be allowed to exercise any rights through that construct, only privileges granted by the jurisdiction in which that construct is created.