America has always been a country of self reliant individuals. What you're forgetting (and what todays "progressivists" want to erase from history) is that America was (and still is somewhat) a country with convictions, particularly because of the Christian religion which a majority of Americans in the 19th and 20th century identified with. Charities, church hospitals, philanthropic efforts by the wealthy, and a sense of taken care of your local community knitted our country together far better than government mandated collectivsm ever could have.
I hope these individuals and companies fight for and win the change they want to see in the world because I agree with them. But I hope the vote passes tomorrow and ISPs no longer fall under Title 2 regulations. A 100 year old law cannot possibly fit the world of global, decentralized digital information sharing that the internet has become in the last 20 years. We need a new law for the new time. And it's this passion and energy we need from these luminaries and large companies to get people aware enough of the problem to pressure congress to do something about it. So the fight doesn't end tomorrow, it starts tomorrow.
You're digging into a topic I've inquired about many times. I've never received any response from any admin. Ironically my submission was flagged itself for asking why certain articles were flagged and hidden. See here Ask HN: Why are “Google memo” links being flagged and hidden? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14994180
dang replied to you in that thread: the flags are coming from the users. So what exactly are you expecting more? Mind-reading the motivations of individual flaggers?
The executive branch is granted authority by Congress to issue rules. This saves the congress from writing every detail into each law.
It's similar to pork -- congress can write: spend $X on whatever; or they can write: spend $1 on project A, $2 on project B, etc with a final total of $X. If congress writes the first, then the executive branch will make the decisions about the specifics of how $X will be spent.
If congress does not want the executive branch to decide, it's up to Congress to put the details into the law, and restrain the authority of the agencies. Federal rules can never override a law passed by congress.
You're saying the delegation doctrine is unconstitutional? That (Supreme Court) ship sailed decades ago, so what's your view on Marbury v. Madison's doctrine of judicial review?
I think J.W. Hampton was rightly decided, but that the “intelligible principle” formulation led later New Deal-era courts astray. The framers might have envisioned Congress delegating the authority to adjust import duties, but I don’t think they envisioned executive agencies fashioning entire codes of law in specific areas, including creating crimes. I agree that the Supreme Court gets to say what the law means, but also agree with Scalia that stare decisis is a matter of policy, not dictate, and the Court could revisit the issue and decide to actually enforce separation of powers.
you're a lawyer, so can you explain for me? What makes administrative law unconstitutional? Is Congress not allowed to delegate authority to the executive branch?
Congress can clearly delegate enforcement authority and give the executive some enforcement discretion. But calling modern administrative regulations, with agencies that make laws and try people in front of executive-branch judges, an exercise of enforcement discretion is a reach.
> The post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional,* and its validation by the legal system amounts to nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution.
It's not a novel idea, it's an old and discarded idea.
Regulatory agencies such as FDA and EPA exist because it actually takes an agency to do a competent job regulating drugs and medical devices and investigating the toxicity of effluent. They were created by Congress, but under the Executive branch.
"Today, Congress passed a bill in both houses requiring airlines to disclose baggage fees. Riders to the bill also funded $100M for pork-related research in Alabama."
Congress grants agencies (in this case, DOT) the authority to issue regulations as long as those actions do not go beyond their statutory authority or violate the constitution.
most of the health care cost is NOT due to doctors salaries. the reason health care costs are so high in America is due to the way Providers (Hospitals, small clinics, and large Systems) charge insurance companies. Several decades ago when insurance really started getting big, they realized they had huge groups of people they could send to "in network" hospitals. they choose which Providers are in their network. therefore they have leverage over the Providers, and use it to negotiate the price they pay for all claims (the bill the provider sends the insurance company). They negotiate huge discounts on the "listed" price for a claim. Therefore, every year for decades, hospitals have been jacking up their prices in order to actually be able to stay in business (given that the large majority of costs are paid for by insurance companies, who are getting a huge discount). So 2 tylenol go from $3 to $10 to $100 to $500 over time, as the insurance companies negotiate bigger and bigger discounts. This is why the "cost of healthcare" is so high, even those it's not really the true cost. Unless you're not insured, in which case you have to pay the "actual" rate (ie $500 for 2 tylenol).
> most of the health care cost is NOT due to doctors salaries.
It bothers me that people continue to oversimplify problems and spin yarns about how "these people did this" and "those people did that" and that it's all due to one or two groups of bad or greedy actors.
The problem is so huge and so complex that it's worth considering that all of the proposed causes are contributing factors. There is now a systemic dysfunction that is broad, multi-faceted, and tough to dissect and study. Ultimately, many incentive systems are misaligned. The fact that the problem does have so many facets seems to always give rise to these distracting conversations where well-meaning commenters drive the discussion away from the actual findings to their favorite hobby horses instead.
RTFA. Doctor pay is an actual issue. They did not claim it is the whole problem. But it is a problem, and there are things we can do to tackle it.
And no, for the record, I am not disagreeing with you. But please, don't distract. Solve problems instead.
I feel a simple solution would be a law hospitals/clinic etc have to publish prices and all people/companies have to pay those prices.
It would stop this dual pricing and encourage healthy competition. And private insurance companies would negotiate better rates for the market as a whole.
Make an objectively true statement, watch it get voted to the bottom. You are now my Punxsutawney Phil for US healthcare: Six more years of overpriced healthcare.
Do you mean to suggest that physicians' incomes should be several orders of magnitude less than what they are currently? If not, I'll continue to be "distracted" by the Tylenol.
No, it means to suggest that the number of people who have actually paid anywhere near $500 for a couple Tylenol pills is so small as to be an irrelevant rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
20% is still a problem. Putting a cap on the the 20% contributes to the solution. If it was 1% of the problem then hosepipe bans would be inn-effective.
...While refusing to even entertain regulations on or reduction in the 80%? When the problem is truly massive, far exceeding what home use can hope to change?
I never said that. If political walls make it impossible to reduce the 80% then do what is possible. All I'm saying is that 20% contributes to the solution.
I would imagine that farmers will start revolutions if you cut off their water supplies, while city folks won't care too much if the lawn isn't watered. 20% is an easy target... hit it first and slowly work on the other problem.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (aka the government) is the largest payor in the country and it sets floor prices for care per region. This is what primarily drives reimbursement rates.
That's because the insurance companies can negotiate steep discounts from eye glass providers, given they have so many members and choose what eye glass providers they can buy from "in network". So the eye glass providers up their prices so that 25% discount from last year takes a smaller bite out of their profit margins. Rinse and repeat for 40 years and you'll get what has already happened to the health insurance market place: $800 for a pair of Advil "base price". Insurance companies get a huge discount. Non insured individuals are shit out of luck (though the providers normally waive a substantial percentage of cost for the neediest patients.)
I've met these "YIMBY" members personally, and only about 20% of them are actual home owners. The rest are renters. So first of all, it's not their backyard to say yes to. Secondly, these people are promoting the Hong Kong-ification of small cities such as Palo Alto and Mountain View. Yes to 20 story apartment complexes along the 101? Vote with YIMBY!
The slogan is "Yes in my backyard." But the people saying it don't have a backyard. They should not be coercing people with backyards and imposing their will.
If I live in SF, I have the right to vote in local elections, and I have the right to vote for people who represent my interests, regardless of whether I rent or own. If you're hoping for the ballot box to be restricted to homeowners, you're about 300 years too late.
It's more conversationally natural for me to refer to the yard adjoining my property as 'my backyard' than my landlord to (who likely has a yard of his own for which that is more semantically assonant).
That's technically wrong, the worst kind of wrong. If you rent a house, the backyard is owned by your landlord. Sure in casual conversation you will say "my backyard", but we're talking about ownership here.
And we're talking about how a (loose) organisation is branded, not the legal implications. The "backyard" in question is already one metaphor deep, for crying out loud.
This is like complaining that Amazon has little to do with the rainforest.
Jesus Christ, it's not literally referring to the backyard attached to your particular house. I can't believe I have to explain this, but "backyard" in this context means neighborhood.
That's a feature, not a bug. High cost is an efficient barrier to growth that exceeds the carrying capacity of the region.
California is suburban. Changing that will take decades. Cramming more people in to the Bay Area will not result in transit solutions springing up...these will take decades.
Don't forget that the State continues to have long term systemic issues providing water to current residents.
California is at 40 million now and I have no desire to see it reach 50 million. The Governor needs to start thinking about how many people we want here.
If you’re going to use a literal interpretation of backyard, instead of the colloquial and intended meaning (neighborhood), then the only person who’s talking about their own yard is the person who wants to build on their land.
When a neighbor says they can’t build, it’s a case of exactly what you decry: “it’s not their backyard to say [no] to”.
