Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
@Lolli,
The article was written by ABC, the link is in my post.
Jeeze, you'd think ABC would be part if it correct!
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
I wasn't a fan of the ACA, lets face it, what are the chances that a Heritage Foundation approach would be good for anyone other than corporations.
But despite this, after looking in to it a bit more, there's a lot in the law thats going to be a big improvement on the status quo.
The big omission is that it doesn't address one of the crucial failings of the current system... how we train health care professionals.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Jorroh,
For once, I agree with your conclusion, though probably for a different reason. We simply do not train enough doctors, nurses, physician's assistants or nurse practitioners to meet our expanded population. Because I'm married to a nurse, my best friend (other than my wife) is a radiologist married to a professor of nursing at Fresno State, my late aunt developed the LVN program in California, and my main climbing partner is married to a nurse practitioner, I am particularly aware of the difficulty in getting accepted to a nursing education programs in California.
If we really want to do something about lowering cost and increasing quality of care, we'd train more health care professionals. While the University of California still subsidizes M.D. programs (for example, yearly tuition for an M.D. student is less than that for a law student, even though the cost of educating an M.D. student greatly exceeds that of educating a J.D. student), that doesn't help unless we have a lot more medical schools. It's been around 40 years since UC Irvine's med school opened. California's population skyrocketed since then.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
My view of the ACA & the recent SCOTUS decision is within the context of HR that contains 'reform' that operates within the same general structure: employer based, private insurance companies. An approach that's proven to be ineffective, but apparently, a major paradigm shift into a single payer system is just too much to expect right now.
Regarding Roberts' decision, there seems to be speculations on his motivations that range from conspiratorial to rational. There are those on the Right & Left that hyperbolize his motivations: 'He's a turncoat! Another Souter! He's made this decision to 'balance' his past decisions!'
Maybe he hasn't been around long enough to make me believe otherwise, but so far, Roberts doesn't strike me as a strong ideologue or 'activist', certainly not in the mold of a Scalia, anyway. I have a hard time believing that he reached this decision to 'balance' any past decision, either.
I do wonder, though, in his role as CJ, what thought he gave to the apparent pattern of decisions (at least during his tenure)...an awful lot of them have been 5-4, along ideologic lines, on hotbutton issues. As he took his position, he lamented such splits as being detrimental to the longterm integrity of the institution of justice, and it's separation from the legislative & political branches of gov't. It's one thing to be a Scalia or Ginsberg on that bench, and maintain your individual view and voice of issues....it's another thing to be the voice & representative (practically & historically) of the entire court.
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
Yes, I've got no patience with medical practitioners whining about their free market rights, when they work so hard to limit entry into the medical professions. There's a deep shortage of primary care physicians...and 50 plus qualified applicants for every place in medical school....complete B.S.
In fact, one of the big advantages of the single payer system is in training. at one end the education is heavily subsidized (+ no malpractice insurance) at the other end Salaries are reasonable instead of extortionate, and there are no practitioner shortages.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
The AMA has made it extremely difficult to get more doctors, in order to protect the income of existing doctors. In fact they successfully lobbied for immigration laws that kept doctors out while letting nurses in! More nurses means more money for doctors because the hired help is cheaper. There were schools in the Philippines that catered to training nurses for the United States.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Roberts’ chamber did much of the drafting of the former section, Interesting reference to "Roberts' chamber"--that implies drafting by a law clerk instead of Roberts himself.
So perhaps a recent law grad wrote both the majority and large portions of the dissent in one of the most important cases in recent history.
Ain't America great?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
What makes you think law clerks don't write much, if not most, of the written opinions in modern American law? The judges tell their clerk what they want, the clerk (or in the case of the SCOTUS, clerks) then find the appropriate authority and do the first drafts. Most law offices with any large number of associates do the same thing.
The judge (or the lead attorney) is still ultimately responsible for the content of the document, as I once found out the hard way. One of my associates had filed a pleading with my name on top, then his. It contained typos in the citation of two cases. The judge, obviously a friend, called me into his chambers when I finished an appearance, pointed out the errors, and said that the upper left-hand corner (where the attorneys' names are) was often the most important part of the pleading. Obvious translation: It has your name on it, and because of that, I don't expect errors.
It's really no different from a lot of classical composers, who planned out a large piece, and then had students fill in many of the notes, subject to the composer's later editing and approval.
As for writing much of the "dissent," realize that except for the portion dealing with the taxation clause, the dissent is, in fact, the majority opinion, and the "concurrence and dissent" is much more a dissent than a concurrence.
But I'm sure that won't keep people from their own interpretations.
John
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
writing by clerks and students is not uncommon even in legal scholarship.
also common at b-school.
the campos piece doesn't surprise me much. and switching to vote with a majority whose philosophical position differs from yr own was a regular practice of renquist, although for very different reasons-- he used it to prevent the winning side from creating a more sweeping judgment, since as chief, if he voted with the majority, he (and his clerks) could write it himself.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Not only that, much of the work on many of the masterpieces attributed to Michelangelo and other great artists was in fact done by students and journeyman, under supervision.
Not that courts often produce masterpieces...
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
artist workshops through the early modern era were usually that-- workshops in which apprentices, employees or family members did sometimes significant chunks of the work. the idea of the artist as a lone creative genius, and art as a voyage of interior discovery, is entirely a product of recent european history.
i'm less certain about law, though. i believe the tradition of having others do much of the actual writing is fairly recent. i don't believe that's a continuation of the craft tradition.
in any event, it doesn't matter much if he or his clerks wrote the actual prose. i'd guess there's a good chance he wrote it himself or at least much of it, but i'm not going to do the source criticism.
the oliver wendell holmes bit seems pretty personal as a choice. set piece in law school, or at least it used to be.
in any event, it's setting off a near civil war in the gop. the ultimate source for that cbs story had to be one of the other justices.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
well, you have the justices seemingly turning on each other. ive never, ever seen a news story immediately reporting stuff that only the justices and their clerks could know about a decision and the internal bickering. now we've had two in only a few days.
the tea party wing immediately seized on the decision to announces that aca was the biggest tax in us history, but then romney's camp agreed with the wh in calling it a "penalty," presumably because the aca is essentially the same legislation that romney passed in massachusetts and his signature achievements as governor. that elicits all kinds of pushback from the tea party grassroots but also from murdoch and now welch suggesting that romney needs to shake-up his campaign team.
the judgment that the mandate was a tax was a gift to the tea party grassroots and they are pushing for it to begin iten munber one in the election campaign. romney's camp isn't doing that, though. (probably because one of his chief advisors actually works to set up state exchanges like those in the aca, and possibly because there's old tv footage of governor romney describing mandates as penalties not taxes-- i don't know that, but the camp's early move to say romney thinks it's a penalty suggests they believe there might be.)
i am surprised that so many of the strategy wonks (on both sides) seem to have been taken entirely by surprise. there was apparently pretty tight leak discipline right up to the public decision. and now we have republican supremes spraying to journos.
the whole thing is just weird.
edit-- lol, dude got rolled
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/romney-shifts-says-mandates-a-tax-128026.html
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!