Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
Why?
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 eitherGovernment in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.
Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?
Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.
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.....Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.Yes, I want to get employers out of healthcare and have it funded by taxpayers...I also want healthcare to be truly portable - so people don't feel like they have to stay at a job instead of doing something else because of health insurance....that definitely isn't freedom...The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.
The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.
Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?
You were right the first time, it was a cop out.
If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.
The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government
The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.
You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.
"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."
No, that isn't what standing means
They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....
All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....
Everyone is harmed by ACA, but the problem is things were even worse before ACA.
The solution has to be more fundamental.
Get employers out of our heath care.
With a proper and successful HC system, there is no need to rely on your employer.
When will you Americans begin to want to understand how the world's best systems work?
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 eitherGovernment in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.
Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?
Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.
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.I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.
The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.
Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?
You were right the first time, it was a cop out.
If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.
The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government
The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.
You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.
"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."
No, that isn't what standing meansStanding 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?Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
Why?
There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.Yes, I want to get employers out of healthcare and have it funded by taxpayers...I also want healthcare to be truly portable - so people don't feel like they have to stay at a job instead of doing something else because of health insurance....that definitely isn't freedom...The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.
The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.
Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?
You were right the first time, it was a cop out.
If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.
The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government
The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.
You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.
"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."
No, that isn't what standing means
They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....
All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....
Everyone is harmed by ACA, but the problem is things were even worse before ACA.
The solution has to be more fundamental.
Get employers out of our heath care.
With a proper and successful HC system, there is no need to rely on your employer.
When will you Americans begin to want to understand how the world's best systems work?
Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here
Los you American 'know everything' attitude and start listening to what others can teach you.Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
Why?
There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
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.I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.
The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.
Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?
You were right the first time, it was a cop out.
If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.
The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government
The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.
You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.
"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."
No, that isn't what standing meansStanding 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 eitherGovernment in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.
Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?
Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.
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.Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.Yes, I want to get employers out of healthcare and have it funded by taxpayers...I also want healthcare to be truly portable - so people don't feel like they have to stay at a job instead of doing something else because of health insurance....that definitely isn't freedom...The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.
The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.
Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?
You were right the first time, it was a cop out.
If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.
The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government
The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.
You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.
"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."
No, that isn't what standing means
They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....
All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....
Everyone is harmed by ACA, but the problem is things were even worse before ACA.
The solution has to be more fundamental.
Get employers out of our heath care.
With a proper and successful HC system, there is no need to rely on your employer.
When will you Americans begin to want to understand how the world's best systems work?
Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here
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??Standing is more than that. It requires the person who brings the case to (be or represent the people who) suffer direct harm from the controversy.
The USSC said that a taxpayer doesn't have standing to object to government waste.Look up the record on the "line item veto"I'll take the opinion of a Harvard educated lawyer with decades of experience over yours....
"Most judges and justices use standing only to kick out truly meritless lawsuits and clear their dockets of the riffraff. By the time a case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, there’s usually some thin veneer of legal harm that allows the justices to grant standing and then rule on the heart of the matter."
Six senators took it to court, as a violation of the constitution, and it was tossed out because of lack of standing. And this was a case coming from the people who wrote the law.
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia
But it took na actual controversy, and not just principle, to make it judgeable.
Clinton v. City of New York - Wikipedia
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.Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.Yes, I want to get employers out of healthcare and have it funded by taxpayers...I also want healthcare to be truly portable - so people don't feel like they have to stay at a job instead of doing something else because of health insurance....that definitely isn't freedom...The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.
The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.
Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?
You were right the first time, it was a cop out.
If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.
The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government
The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.
You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.
"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."
No, that isn't what standing means
They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....
All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....
Everyone is harmed by ACA, but the problem is things were even worse before ACA.
The solution has to be more fundamental.
Get employers out of our heath care.
With a proper and successful HC system, there is no need to rely on your employer.
When will you Americans begin to want to understand how the world's best systems work?
Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here
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.Los you American 'know everything' attitude and start listening to what others can teach you.Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
Why?
There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
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.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.
I can't waste more time on you ignorant louts until you can fully accept the concept of single payer, government run universal HC for all the people.
(and that includes even the black and brown ones too)
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
