Comment Re:Legal Precedent? (Score 1) 495
This comes under the general category of "absurdly overbroad".
It's like pitching an entire city of of their houses because you suspect that there's criminal activity going on somewhere in that city.
This comes under the general category of "absurdly overbroad".
It's like pitching an entire city of of their houses because you suspect that there's criminal activity going on somewhere in that city.
That's Verisign, not Verizon.
Though not all the domains in question were
1. 9% is the "typical use" failure rate. The "perfect use" rate is hypothetical and of little consequence for practical use, as people doing things perfectly is a damn rare occurrence. It's a far better idea to promote the use of methods that are inherently screwup-proof.
2. Yes, that is probably entirely within the constitutional powers of the US federal government. What you listed is quite similar to what was mandated by the second Militia Act of 1792. Though I don't think there was ever a legal challenge to that law, so I'm not completely sure on its constitutionality.
You got that backward, though. An IUD is considerably cheaper than the pill.
In total, yes, but with the IUD, it's all paid up front, which comes to a paycheque or two for a low-wage worker, whereas the pill comes in $10/month instalments.
That's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? A month of generic birth control pills costs about $10/mo. Purchased in bulk, condoms are about $0.50/ea. Both are readily available at no cost from a variety of sources for those who can't afford them. Setting aside the heated political debate, it seems foolish to route these sorts of purchases through your insurance company, with inevitable overhead, rather than simply purchasing them yourself.
Great! The people least able to afford a pregnancy can only get the least-effective forms of birth control! Awesome! That's definitely not a bad idea.
Or we can offer them any method they want, including far more effective and foolproof ones (IUD, implant, etc.), all at the same cost, which is what the mandate is about.
Yes yes, No True Catholic.
Though that may not be a bad thing.
We had it before the ACA's mandate. 85% of group health plans provided it. Non-profits in all 50 States and many local governments make it available to those who can't afford it. The cost is not prohibitive even for those without insurance who don't wish to avail themselves of the aforementioned options.
You're assuming all birth control methods are created equal. They aren't.
The pill is a comparatively poor method in terms of success rate (roughly 9%/year failure rate and needs to be taken religiously every day) compared to more recent methods, such as IUDs (0.2-0.8% failure rate, depending on type. Basically foolproof as they're insert-and-forget for 3+ years) and implants (0.05% (this is actually better than the success rate for tubal ligation), insert-and-forget for 4 years).
The mandate expanded the state of things from "Oh, you're poor, so you get the failure-prone pill because it's cheap" to "Take your pick of any method, they're all covered", which is a good thing. Saddling people who can least afford a child with the most failure-prone method for preventing that is a recipe for disaster.
To start with Hobby lobby was NOT against contraceptives, and offered it to their employees. They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".
HL has stated they're not against contraceptives, just the ones the voices in their head tell them are bad. And yet somehow, they didn't have a problem with them before the PPACA.
We'll see where they go now that they have their nose in the tent.
Actually just the male Catholic judges.
Sotomayor is also Catholic, but joined up on Ginsberg's dissent.
There's no more reason to trust that your paper ballot is being counted correctly than your electronic ballot.
Sure there is. Up here in Canada, the counting of the ballots is observed by representatives of each candidate that wishes to send one. Unless you want to claim that all the candidates are in on it (in which case you're screwed regardless), it's decidedly difficult to mess with the counting process.
I grabbed the numbers from the World Bank site, though it seems to not be functioning correctly at the moment, as the data won't display for me now.
which I would argue could be spent better on improving the efficiencies on the user side..
I'm not sure that there's a whole lot of slack to be taken up as far as efficiency goes. Per capita, Germany uses a little more than half (about 7 megawatt-hours per year vs. 13.2) as much electricity as the USA does.
No, nothing about this ruling was based on the constitution. It was ruling whether or not Aereo fell under the provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, specifically the provisions requiring cable TV system operators to pay broadcasters to carry those channels.
Fixing this would simply require an amendment to that act.
Would someone please think of the upper class's ability to maximize profits by squeezing the life out of the working cla--I mean the Economy, would someone please think of the Economy?
Don't bother trying to appeal to someone's better nature. They may not have one. Go at their self-interest instead.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
