US Politics Mega-thread - Page 616

On November 09 2013 00:22 xDaunt wrote:


I've done a lot of employment law in the past, most of which revolved around representing employees in these types of suits. It really isn't hard for the employer to protect himself from false accusations. As long as the employer keeps good employee records and has a system in place to deal with employee complaints (and maintains it in good faith), it is pretty easy to show and prove that the employer had a legitimate reason for doing whatever it did or demonstrating that there was no discrimination. With disgruntled employees in particular, the employer has plenary authority to create his best evidence that he'll use in court, because the employer has free reign to insert all sorts of negative shit into the employee's file.

More importantly, it is surprisingly hard for the employee to prove discriminatory motive or animus (ie, showing that the employer hates blacks, women, muslims, whatever). Basically no one throws around the N-word or other slurs at people at work. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but the employee will very seldom have smoking gun type evidence that shows that the employer did something adverse to the employee for a forbidden reason. Even getting good circumstantial evidence is hard. As such, the vast majority of these cases that are filed in court get kicked out on summary judgment when the employee is unable to show any evidence of forbidden animus. Again, the presumption in most states and under federal law is that employers are free to fire their workers (or take any other adverse employment action) for any reason -- good, bad, or none whatsoever -- so long as the employer does not do it for one of the very specific reasons forbidden by the anti-discrimination laws.

The ADA is a different animal, because it requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. It's a lot easier for employers to get tripped up there.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the system is too employer friendly or anything. My only point is that employers can't really lose these lawsuits unless they fuck up. The employer always holds all of the cards. If the employer loses, the employer almost certainly deserves it, either because he violated the law or because he was an idiot (usually it's a combo of both). If you think about it, this is how it should be.

On November 08 2013 18:59 HunterX11 wrote:


Uh, greater governmental control in the area of health care in the modern era was originated by Otto von Bismarck, a leader who literally outlawed advocating socialism with the Anti-Socialist Laws.

On November 09 2013 09:42 Danglars wrote:

The economic system is characterized by its management of the economy. Whatever Bismarck did to secure his government against revolution, the man practiced some state socialism.

On November 09 2013 10:52 HunterX11 wrote:


The economic system is characterized chief by collective ownership of the means of production. The notion that all forms of government influence over the economy are "socialism" is a peculiar terminology used almost exclusively by American Republicans and Libertarians--and not by anyone on the right or left who cares about what capitalism or socialism actually are. It's also worth noting that Bismarck's primary foes were not even Communists, but Social Democrats, who believed in the parliamentary system and wanted to allow the existence of markets, so actually his welfare state was aimed squared at disarming the people who were for "some socialism" too. Or for a more modern example, recent presidents such as Nixon and Reagan would be considered huge socialists (though to be fair, they actually were accused of this by Birchers and the like). Saying that Obama is a socialist because he isn't an anarcho-capitalist is like saying that vaccination is pro-disease because vaccines inject people with viruses.

On November 09 2013 08:14 DeltaX wrote:


I think the issue is less about people getting sued and losing, it is more about lawsuits that you win or get thrown out in summary judgement still cost money to get that far. I suspect lawyers might even just take these cases on the hope that the business will pay a few grand to just make it go away if that is less than it costs to get it thrown out.

I think in general it would be nice if judges could make the accuser pay full legal costs in those types of lawsuits. They may be able to do that, but my understanding from following patent trolling is that if the defendant wins they can still get stuck with a large bill.

On November 09 2013 10:52 HunterX11 wrote:


The economic system is characterized chief by collective ownership of the means of production. The notion that all forms of government influence over the economy are "socialism" is a peculiar terminology used almost exclusively by American Republicans and Libertarians--and not by anyone on the right or left who cares about what capitalism or socialism actually are. It's also worth noting that Bismarck's primary foes were not even Communists, but Social Democrats, who believed in the parliamentary system and wanted to allow the existence of markets, so actually his welfare state was aimed squared at disarming the people who were for "some socialism" too. Or for a more modern example, recent presidents such as Nixon and Reagan would be considered huge socialists (though to be fair, they actually were accused of this by Birchers and the like). Saying that Obama is a socialist because he isn't an anarcho-capitalist is like saying that vaccination is pro-disease because vaccines inject people with viruses.

How this scam works is that private insurance companies send out letters notifying existing customers that their current policy has been canceled, because of the ACA’s new requirements. They then offer customers a new, ACA compliant policy at far higher rates than what the customer would pay if he went through the ACA marketplace. In most cases the insurance companies do not tell their customers what other options are available or even let them know they have a choice under the new law. Some insurance companies have pressed their customers to sign up for the new policies by a certain date, saying if they don’t, their health coverage will be lost.

On the program, Barrette tells CBS that she has to hurry and make up her mind by November 1st or she will lose out on her chance to buy in. CBS offered her no explanation of her alternatives, but Consumer Reports examined Barrette’s story shortly after it aired. They easily found her a policy in the Marketplace for $165.00, not the $591 Blue Cross Blue Shield was shamelessly going to charge her.

What’s more, Consumer Reports also looked at her old policy, the one she was paying $54 a month for. They determined that it was “junk.” In essence, Barrette had been paying one of these corrupt private insurance companies nearly $650 per year, to have almost no real medical coverage, under her previous Blue Cross Blue Shield policy.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's final: Health insurance companies must cover mental illness and substance abuse just as they cover physical diseases.

The Obama administration issued new regulations Friday that spell out how a 5-year-old mental health parity law will be administered.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the rule should put an end to discrimination faced by some mental health patients through higher out-of-pocket costs or stricter limits on hospital stays or visits to the doctor.

The law, signed by President George W. Bush, was designed to prevent that. But mental health advocates said health insurers at times sidestepped lawmakers' intentions by delaying requests for care and putting in place other bureaucratic hurdles. They described the new Obama administration rule as necessary to ensure patients get benefits they are entitled to receive.

The administration had pledged to issue a final mental health parity rule as part of an effort to reduce gun violence. Officials said they have now completed or made significant progress on 23 executive actions that were part of a plan announced in response to the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., last December.

The 2008 mental health parity law affects large group plans. It does not require they offer mental health coverage, but if they do, that coverage must be equal to what is provided for patients with physical illnesses. Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act extends the parity protections for those participating in individual and small group health insurance plans.

On November 09 2013 16:48 sam!zdat wrote:
obamacare is a desperate compromise to resist socializing the healthcare industry

but the problem is that in order to fix the healthcare system we have to confront a lot of very difficult things about our culture which we're not wiling to confront. about the imperative to improve diet, exercise, and preventative care, and the problem both moral and economic about how to treat end of life care.

On November 10 2013 16:28 sam!zdat wrote:
i'm not talking about a compromise between democrats and republicans

Barack Obama has had a difficult year since his reelection victory. His overall job rating stands at 41%, down 14 points since last December. A majority (53%) now disapproves of the way he is handling his job as president.

Second-Term Presidential Job ApprovalThe latest national poll by the Pew Research Center, conducted Oct. 30-Nov. 6 among 2,003 adults, finds that Obama’s second-term job ratings have followed a similar downward trajectory as those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. A year after his reelection, 36% approved of Bush’s job performance, down from 48% in December 2004.

In contrast, the two prior presidents who won reelection – Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan – enjoyed positive ratings over the course of the next year. At comparable points in their fifth year in office, 58% approved of Clinton’s job performance while Reagan’s job rating stood at 62%.

On November 10 2013 23:00 Danglars wrote:


Pew

Obama's a hard worker. He still has a chance to overtake Bush's descent slope. I'm rooting for him!

Eager to avoid the loud and lengthy protests over same-sex marriage that disrupted the Hawaii House of Representatives this week, the state Senate may act swiftly on Senate Bill 1.

Senators are considering accepting the House's amended version of SB 1 that expands religious exemptions, removes language concerning parental rights and changes the effective date to Dec. 2.

The Senate could vote on the historic legislation as early as Tuesday. That would avoid conference committee deliberations between House and Senate members and immediately send the bill to the desk of Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who has championed the legislation.

The governor's signature on SB 1 would make Hawaii the 16th state, along with the District of Columbia, to legally recognize gay marriage.

"I commend the House of Representatives for taking this historic vote to move justice and equality forward," Abercrombie said in a statement after the House voted 30-19 to pass the bill late Friday night. (Two House members, who were formally excused, were absent.)

"After more than 50 hours of public testimony from thousands of testifiers on both sides of the issue, evaluating dozens of amendments, and deliberating procedures through hours of floor debates, the House passed this significant bill, which directly creates a balance between marriage equity for same-sex couples and protects our First Amendment freedoms for religious organizations," he said.

The bill could encounter snags in the Senate, but nothing like what happened in the more evenly divided House this week. Republican Sam Slom or any of the three Democratic senators who also voted "no" on SB 1 last week could mimic the stalling tactics that House opponents employed, like proposing floor amendments that were destined to fail.

Another section of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s 2012 book Government Bullies appears to be plagiarized from an article by a think tank scholar, as well as a section of a speech copied from a conservative chain email.

As BuzzFeed previously reported, parts of the book were plagiarized from a variety of sources, including the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and a Forbes article.

As was the case with other instances, Paul includes a link to the work in his book’s footnotes, but does not note that the language itself was taken from the source.

Here’s Cato scholar Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation in Regulation Magazine in an article on wetlands.

Congress enacts broadly worded statutes threatening devastating penalties for vaguely worded violations—and leaves administrative officials the discretion to fill in the details.

And here’s how Paul wrote it:

Congress enacts broadly worded statutes threatening devastating penalties for vaguely worded violations— and leaves administrative officials to then muddy the law through drawn-out litigation with the discretion to fill in the details.