Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
If you understand that America's system is a failure then you should be ready for some learning of new ideas on what works.I know its a failure. How many times must i say it? Does Canada not teach reading and comprehension?You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
Lose all your wrong ideas on HC and start from scratch.
When you're ready to learn by acting like rational adults, the rest of the world has some answers.
Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....
You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
- The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
- It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
standing
www.law.cornell.edu
Right, that isn't what you said it means
You seem confused by what standing means.
Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?
Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.
Los you American 'know everything' attitude and start listening to what others can teach you.
It feels like the goalposts are moving.Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
- The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
- It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
standing
Right, that isn't what you said it means
You seem confused by what standing means.
The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
Group insurance plans are a proven effective way to reduce costs. You still haven't learned to stfu and open your head to learning the answers from people of other countries.You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
Obviously. The question is: why?
In my view, things really started to go south with group health insurance. And pretty much every reform effort is aimed at doubling-down on that approach.
Show me the part that says employers fund most of the HC in Sweden?? Or better yet, just give me a percentage ...is it 75% 60%, 51%??Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.
Sweden
By Anna H. Glenngård, Lund University School of Economics and Management Sweden’s universal health system is nationally regulated and locally administered. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs sets overall health policy, the regions finance and deliver health care services, and the...www.commonwealthfund.org
Does this explain why Conservatives have continued to fail at repealing the ACA at the Supreme Court??
It feels like the goalposts are moving.Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
- The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
- It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
standing
Right, that isn't what you said it means
You seem confused by what standing means.
The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
I'm not here to debate Americans who already know everything.Show me the part that says employers fund most of the HC in Sweden?? Or better yet, just give me a percentage ...is it 75% 60%, 51%??Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.
Sweden
By Anna H. Glenngård, Lund University School of Economics and Management Sweden’s universal health system is nationally regulated and locally administered. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs sets overall health policy, the regions finance and deliver health care services, and the...
"Sweden’s health expenditure represents a little over 11% of its GDP, most of which is funded by municipal and regional taxes"
Likewise.
Whatever dude.It feels like the goalposts are moving.Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
- The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
- It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
standing
Right, that isn't what you said it means
You seem confused by what standing means.
The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you. Go fuck yourself
Please site the proof of that claim. The widespread adoption of 'group insurance' has tracked pretty squarely with spiraling health costs. It breaks market incentives and pushes prices for health care higher and higher.
Whatever dude.It feels like the goalposts are moving.Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
- The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
- It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
standing
Right, that isn't what you said it means
You seem confused by what standing means.
The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you. Go fuck yourself
You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.Whatever dude.It feels like the goalposts are moving.Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
- The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
- It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
standing
Right, that isn't what you said it means
You seem confused by what standing means.
The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you. Go fuck yourself
You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down
