Honestly never understood the common argument "market X needs more govt intervention bc it's been totally effed by govt intervention" Huh?
-
-
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome My health insurance reform plan...remove provision making employer provided insurance pre-tax dollars. Fin.1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @_Drew_McCoy_
@DrewMTips that's crazy talk, man. You're crazy. (Mine has a few other planks, but all along similar lines)1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome Sales across state lines? I know that's popular but I haven't thought through federalism/Commerce Clause implications2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @_Drew_McCoy_
@DrewMTips shouldn't be a problem. Commerce clause was intended to prevent interstate protectionism.2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome Question would also be who does the regulations? The states or the feds? If it becomes the latter, that's an issue.#Details1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @_Drew_McCoy_
@DrewMTips I still don't see much of a legal issue: this is actually a clear, const'l case of federal preemption. (For once)1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @scottlincicome
@scottlincicome If it becomes auto insurance sure but if "federal preemeption" means a federal regulatory regime replacing states, I'm leery1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
@DrewMTips yeah, clearly you'd need severe limits on the regulatory scope. Basic prohibition against protectionism, etc
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.
RTS. You didn't read the article, did you?