Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:A track-history of lawlessness (Score 1) 258

Slavery, while unwise and wrong, was legal at the time, which is the test we are applying here. We are discussing lawlessness versus lawfulness, not your or my personal definition of morality.

What you describe as the spanish-american war of aggression was lawfully declared by our Congress under our constitution and the laws of nations at the time. You fail to explain how it exemplifies systemic disregard of constitution or law, merely that you disagree. BTW, we see this as a war against European colonialism and imperialism.

All the other things you mention, which constitutional principle do they violate?

Congratulations to Finland. But with a population (5.4M) smaller than Missouri (6M), only three ethnic groups (Finn, Swede, and Sami), and a completely different culture from us, its easy to see why you have such a peaceful society. I could pick a small American state with a mostly all-white population, Vermont for instance, and also demonstrate low levels of violence and low infant mortality. I not sure what that proves about respect for the constitution though.

Comment Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (Score 1) 258

Ummm no. The problem here began because girlintraining just got caught not knowing what he was talking about, again, while acting like an expert about a topic, again.

girlintraiing then just did a complete about-face attempting to salvage the situation, proving as well that honesty and accuracy on the tin isnt as important to him as appearances.

The common theme between the two posts is appearances, accuracy be damned.

Comment Re:Real-time processing required (Score 1) 637

The federal government does not have the constitutional power to order the states to do anything. At best, they can coerce them by withholding federal aid, but that part of the ACA was deemed optional by the SCOTUS - hence the 30 states that have refused to create state wide heath exchanges. That forces the federal government to create the federal exchange, but the law says that there will be no subsidies to those in the federal exchanges.

Comment Re:Just curious (Score 1, Insightful) 637

By what legal authority did Obama delay this implementation?

None.

But then again, what legal authority did he (or HHS Secretary) have for:

  1. waivers
  2. delaying employer mandate
  3. giving Congress (and their staff) 75% price support

None are legal because the law itself doesn't give anyone the power to change it willy-nilly, as each changes the law without the necessary legislation to modify the existing law.

jerry

Comment Re:A track-history of lawlessness (Score 1) 258

Let me turn the question around; can you name a century during which no systemic corruption, disregard for human rights and life, or unjust violation of national sovereignty of a foreign nation condoned by US government did not happen?

Yes, the entire two centuries have been without systemic constitutional irregularity. There have been anecdotal violations of statutes and constitutional provisions, but never systemic. These other things you seem to being trying to introduce into the conversation do not seem to be related to constitution or statute. Are you trying to say any blemish ruins the entire national project? Or are you saying another world power lasting two centuries has a better track record and therefore the US is lacking in comparison? Name the world power? (Its actually irrelevant to the conversation, because we are talking about US law, not foreign powers) I believe you are simply an anti-american who like to shout "You're not perfect, You're not perfect".

Comment Real-time processing required (Score 4, Informative) 637

From what I heard today, the problem is as follows:
  1. 1) patient goes to pharmacy to get prescription filled
  2. 2) pharmacy contacts authorizer to find out what the cost of the prescription is under patient's plan
  3. 3) patient buys drugs for price returned by authorizer
  4. 4) authorizer sends bill on to insurance company

Step 2 is an immediate response, step 4 is handled in batch processing nightly. So far so good. Except that the Affordable Care Act makes it *illegal* to make a patient pay more than the annual limit. The authorizer and/or the pharmacy can be charged for forcing the patient to pay above the annual limit. This means that the authorizer must be aware of limit of each patient and be able to respond in real-time so that neither they nor the pharmacy will be sued. The insurance company doesn't have that information available real-time, nor do they make it available to the authorizer.

It is a computer issue, but as simple as everyone thinks. Putting individual insurance files on-line so that the out of pocket expenses can be tracked real-time isn't trivial. Now, maybe the Insurance companies were hoping the law wouldn't be implemented so they didn't do the hard work necessary to get set up, or maybe the rules were only written as to how to handle the annual limit must be handled.

Just remember, the last time companies put together a real-time on-line credit/debit system, the government decided that they charged too much to support the infrastructure, and started regulating it. That was the Durbin amendment to Dodd-Frank, which put a fixed limit on per swipe fees - regardless of what the infrastructure and support costs actually are.

jerry

Comment Re:A track-history of lawlessness (Score 3, Informative) 258

But it does! Because its not the Executive's job to adjudicate the constitutionality of the laws; that job belongs to the courts. The President has an opportunity to veto a law at the time it is passed and (not) signed. There is no constitutional provision for an after-the-fact veto.

Comment A track-history of lawlessness (Score 5, Informative) 258

You may or may not agree with the wisdom of any particular law, but the executive branch and the President have an obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed until such time the law is repealed, even when they disagree personally (or politically) . Under the Constitution, it is not the place of President or his advisers to second-guess a duly passed law. If they think the law is unwise, they should go through the democratic process of petitioning Congress to repeal it. Just unilaterally deciding to ignore the law undermines the rule of law and the democratic process.

Here are some laws that the administration has famously ignored, instead of pursuing a repeal through the democratic process. There are probably more.
  • The Defense of Marriage Act
  • Mandatory Sentencing
  • Yucca Mountain

Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts. Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?

Comment Re:I skim RT daily (Score 1) 254

I read RT for the first time today and was surprised how crude it was. It consisted mostly of articles that were obviously written to stir up hatred/anger towards the US, and towards the west more generally. One article referred to the Bank of England as "monetary jihadists" and claimed they are "financial terrorists".

That kind of propaganda is just way too crude. The average person can see through it.

RT would be much more persuasive if they toned it down a lot. Right now, it's just silly.

Comment Re:Happy President (Score 4, Insightful) 569

Your politics are rather black-and-white and naive. Are you a libertarian?

Who taught you to cast "black and white" aspersions as your "excuse" for the bad excuse?

(a) willingly vote for someone that you know is bad
(b) willingly vote for someone that you think might be good

Yes it really is black and white, but no it is not wrong or bad to see it for what it really is.

Do you know why?

Because the argument doesnt present an opinion. Instead, the argument examines an excuse that relates to your own opinion. The argument deals with your opinion of a man and your actions given that opinion of that man. Specifically the argument destroys the excuse of willingly voting for the lesser of two (in your opinion) evils, because it shows quite succinctly that you still voted for what you believed to be evil.

Its black and white because it doesnt present an opinion. I know its uncomfortable when someone tells you that you willingly voted for fucking evil. Doesnt change the fact that you willingly voted for fucking evil.

Comment Re:Happy President (Score 1) 569

Those on welfare don't vote -- if we have to feed your ass, you don't get to decide a damn thing.

I'm not sure I agree on the land-owner qualifier but this I can get behind 100% -- If we draw the line somewhere that is even remotely close to some measure of "skin in the game", then the people that accept tax dollars as the means of their basic survival would certainly fall on the "you don't get to vote right now" side of things.

I would suggest however that "land owner" is probably not even close to the best metric of "skin in the game", even though it is probably easily provable that it is better than the current "a citizen that is not currently in prison" metric. Many wealthy people enjoy that wealth entirely due to the government in some way, people that have not contributed to the production of any real value at all. They are just as much leaching off the government as those on welfare, yet they often own plenty of land.

My fear with drawing a voter line however, is that it will be redrawn in a series of tactical moves that repeatedly culls the set of illegible voters. To defend against this, all people should have a vote as to where the line should be drawn and what metric is used while only the reduced set get to vote on anything else.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost

Working...