The justices could simply rule the law unconstitutional because it lacks clarity or specificity. If you cannot understand what the law is to do, then by default it is unconstitutional. So toss the law and force Congress to try again.
Not being obtuse, simply being correct. Nixon wasn't impeached. Fact. He had the decency to resign rather than be impeached - that was at least one noble thing the man did.
We also pay from taxes; fully 40% of all health spending is by the Federal Government. And the Federal Government spends more than just about any other nation on the face of the Earth (in absolute and per capita dollars). That FICA stuff you pay each month? Yeah - that's Federal health insurance for everyone...
The problem is that the Federal Government has screwed up the system so that it penalizes individuals who pay their own premiums. Health insurance spending is deductible by businesses, but unless you spend more than 10% of your income on health insurance, it is NOT deductible by an individual. So the system is financially rigged to ensure that the consumer does NOT pay for insurance premiums (even into Medicare). We have party A (employer) paying party B (insurance company) to pay party C (doctor) solve an issue for party D (consumer). And we're surprised it's screwed up?
Until America wises up to the concept of healthcare as a basic human right, I don't see this ever getting properly fixed.
I don't think ANYONE is debating whether or not healthcare is a basic human right; what is being debated is how much that healthcare should cost. If you have no insurance, then break your leg, should you be able to buy insurance after the fact to cover at 100% all costs of your broken leg? Or do you bear any responsibility to at least carry some insurance up-front - and if you choose not to carry, should you bear the burden of financial harm because you chose to forgo insurance?
Deciding if a given law is legal or not is radically different than creating a new law out of the ether. Judicial activism is literally the latter - inventing new "rights" and "regulations" where none exist.
Let me open my browser (Chrome, Samsung Galaxy Note 8), pop open Bing, type in Taiwan. Works fine here! Same with texting the word to my wife. Even downloaded a picture of the Taiwanese flag. Yep - seems to work on Android at least. I guess Google doesn't want to bow so deeply to Beijing!
Sometimes it's fun to watch tinfoil-hat videos... But if you ARE going to try to be "authoritative", please do NOT use fresh news articles, especially about anything political, racial, or climate-based. Many of those have "corrections" issued a few days later, meaning that they were NOT in fact, authoritative. Better to just let it go as-is, and stop trying to hand-hold the viewer. Let people learn when they screw up, and learn the lesson that sometimes you need to check the facts that you hear, and also look at the other side as well to see if it has a better position backed with facts and logic.
So if Facebook only had 200 million accounts, you think it would have the same market value? The value is based upon its market dominance and number of users. Take the value that investors give Facebook, divide by the number of users, and you have the value per user that investors assume is there.
So, pray tell, what's to stop YOU, or ANYBODY, from writing their OWN iOS Software and loading it onto THEIR iOS device(s)?
$99 per year for developer registration and purchase of a Mac, for starters... For Android I can use pretty much any computer I already have (including my phone that will run the app).
In case you haven't noticed, iOS has alternative browsers
False. They have alternative UIs for the pre-installed WebKit browser engine. Good luck using ANY web browser engine other than the one provided by Apple. Sure, you can put a pretty frame and UI around that engine - but you only get to use one engine - Apple's engine.
Was it good that Microsoft ruled the PC platform for 20 years?
Yes, and it's a good thing they continue to do so. IT/web/PC market expansion was slow until the mid 1990s when Microsoft really started to dominate things. Turns out a common platform really helps industries grow by leaps and bounds. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have to port your code to 7 different platforms, build 6 different adapter cards for different buses, etc. A common platform is a good thing for nearly any market. You can argue if Microsoft was "good or bad", but the concept of a common OS for 95% of all the world was most definitely a good thing.
Likewise, you should be prepared to pay for your maps, for your e-mail account, for your photo sharing site, for your file storage, for your group chat, etc... Or you can exchange the data you CHOOSE to share (meaning - what you want to put into the free apps) and get access to those tools for free.
No, we know what the value of your information is. Facebook is worth $590 billion, and has 2 billion accounts. That means each account is worth about $295. They make about $5 billion a quarter in profit, so each account is worth about $2.5 per quarter in cash flow.
Gotta do something to encourage more people to buy iPhones in light of their dropping market share. I mean, if new colors won't do it - maybe trying to hype up the "you look rich if you carry one!" vanity will work?
Then, recognizing that the largest share of Federal spending is on Healthcare (2nd place is pensions - 99% of which is SSI), I would cut Federal healthcare spending back to 1% of GDP maximum as it was in the 1950s. This one change alone would cut Federal spending by approximately $1 trillion - our entire deficit. The Federal Government dominates all healthcare spending the US (approximately 40% of all healthcare spending is directly done by the Federal Government).
With these changes, we'd back to fiscally responsible Federal Government spending, and could start addressing our massive debt.
Here's a list of historical revenues for the Federal Government in current and constant dollars. In constant 2009 dollars, we see the revenue for 1957 was $634 billion. In 2017, revenues were $2,940 billion - about 5 times.
The population of the US went from ~171 million in 1957 to ~326 million in 2017. A little less than doubling.
Revenue per capita in 1957, in 2009 dollars, was about ($634 billion / 171 million) $3700. Revenue per capita in 2017, in 2009 dollars, was about ($2940 billion / 326 million) $9,000. Almost triple.
So where' the math wrong? And how would you recommend "adjusting for inflation"?
Slashdot Mirror
The justices could simply rule the law unconstitutional because it lacks clarity or specificity. If you cannot understand what the law is to do, then by default it is unconstitutional. So toss the law and force Congress to try again.
Right to privacy. Does not exist in the Constitution, made of whole cloth by the judiciary.
Not being obtuse, simply being correct. Nixon wasn't impeached. Fact. He had the decency to resign rather than be impeached - that was at least one noble thing the man did.
We also pay from taxes; fully 40% of all health spending is by the Federal Government. And the Federal Government spends more than just about any other nation on the face of the Earth (in absolute and per capita dollars). That FICA stuff you pay each month? Yeah - that's Federal health insurance for everyone...
The problem is that the Federal Government has screwed up the system so that it penalizes individuals who pay their own premiums. Health insurance spending is deductible by businesses, but unless you spend more than 10% of your income on health insurance, it is NOT deductible by an individual. So the system is financially rigged to ensure that the consumer does NOT pay for insurance premiums (even into Medicare). We have party A (employer) paying party B (insurance company) to pay party C (doctor) solve an issue for party D (consumer). And we're surprised it's screwed up?
The Constitution does not need interpretation; LAWS established need interpretation and to be checked that they are Constitutional.
Until America wises up to the concept of healthcare as a basic human right, I don't see this ever getting properly fixed.
I don't think ANYONE is debating whether or not healthcare is a basic human right; what is being debated is how much that healthcare should cost. If you have no insurance, then break your leg, should you be able to buy insurance after the fact to cover at 100% all costs of your broken leg? Or do you bear any responsibility to at least carry some insurance up-front - and if you choose not to carry, should you bear the burden of financial harm because you chose to forgo insurance?
Nixon wasn't impeached.
Deciding if a given law is legal or not is radically different than creating a new law out of the ether. Judicial activism is literally the latter - inventing new "rights" and "regulations" where none exist.
Let me open my browser (Chrome, Samsung Galaxy Note 8), pop open Bing, type in Taiwan. Works fine here! Same with texting the word to my wife. Even downloaded a picture of the Taiwanese flag. Yep - seems to work on Android at least. I guess Google doesn't want to bow so deeply to Beijing!
Maybe you just use a 3rd rate carrier... I get nearly weekly updates (security, OS, etc) on my Verizon Samsung Note 8...
Sometimes it's fun to watch tinfoil-hat videos... But if you ARE going to try to be "authoritative", please do NOT use fresh news articles, especially about anything political, racial, or climate-based. Many of those have "corrections" issued a few days later, meaning that they were NOT in fact, authoritative. Better to just let it go as-is, and stop trying to hand-hold the viewer. Let people learn when they screw up, and learn the lesson that sometimes you need to check the facts that you hear, and also look at the other side as well to see if it has a better position backed with facts and logic.
We seem to have done quite well back in the 1950s, didn't we?
So if Facebook only had 200 million accounts, you think it would have the same market value? The value is based upon its market dominance and number of users. Take the value that investors give Facebook, divide by the number of users, and you have the value per user that investors assume is there.
So your phone only has a removable card for storage? No on-board storage?
So, pray tell, what's to stop YOU, or ANYBODY, from writing their OWN iOS Software and loading it onto THEIR iOS device(s)?
$99 per year for developer registration and purchase of a Mac, for starters... For Android I can use pretty much any computer I already have (including my phone that will run the app).
Can you use a browser engine other than WebKit? Can you use OK Google as the default voice assistant?
In case you haven't noticed, iOS has alternative browsers
False. They have alternative UIs for the pre-installed WebKit browser engine. Good luck using ANY web browser engine other than the one provided by Apple. Sure, you can put a pretty frame and UI around that engine - but you only get to use one engine - Apple's engine.
Was it good that Microsoft ruled the PC platform for 20 years?
Yes, and it's a good thing they continue to do so. IT/web/PC market expansion was slow until the mid 1990s when Microsoft really started to dominate things. Turns out a common platform really helps industries grow by leaps and bounds. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have to port your code to 7 different platforms, build 6 different adapter cards for different buses, etc. A common platform is a good thing for nearly any market. You can argue if Microsoft was "good or bad", but the concept of a common OS for 95% of all the world was most definitely a good thing.
Likewise, you should be prepared to pay for your maps, for your e-mail account, for your photo sharing site, for your file storage, for your group chat, etc... Or you can exchange the data you CHOOSE to share (meaning - what you want to put into the free apps) and get access to those tools for free.
No, we know what the value of your information is. Facebook is worth $590 billion, and has 2 billion accounts. That means each account is worth about $295. They make about $5 billion a quarter in profit, so each account is worth about $2.5 per quarter in cash flow.
Gotta do something to encourage more people to buy iPhones in light of their dropping market share. I mean, if new colors won't do it - maybe trying to hype up the "you look rich if you carry one!" vanity will work?
I would start by eliminating add Federal Departments created after 1950. Then I would prune back all Federal agencies created after 1950 as well.
Then, recognizing that the largest share of Federal spending is on Healthcare (2nd place is pensions - 99% of which is SSI), I would cut Federal healthcare spending back to 1% of GDP maximum as it was in the 1950s. This one change alone would cut Federal spending by approximately $1 trillion - our entire deficit. The Federal Government dominates all healthcare spending the US (approximately 40% of all healthcare spending is directly done by the Federal Government).
With these changes, we'd back to fiscally responsible Federal Government spending, and could start addressing our massive debt.
So your contention is that a dollar spent in the market is better than a dollar invested in a company?
At least for the Los Angeles area those sources are pretty darn poor...
Here's a list of historical revenues for the Federal Government in current and constant dollars. In constant 2009 dollars, we see the revenue for 1957 was $634 billion. In 2017, revenues were $2,940 billion - about 5 times.
The population of the US went from ~171 million in 1957 to ~326 million in 2017. A little less than doubling.
Revenue per capita in 1957, in 2009 dollars, was about ($634 billion / 171 million) $3700. Revenue per capita in 2017, in 2009 dollars, was about ($2940 billion / 326 million) $9,000. Almost triple.
So where' the math wrong? And how would you recommend "adjusting for inflation"?