If my employer made the contribution?
Nah, unless theyâre going to hire a hitman to take out one of the conservative justices before they hold the final vote, anyway. Which I doubt is the tree theyâre barking up.
But they see an opportunity to raise funds, so theyâre taking advantage.
Republicans do the same thing, FWIW.
They should say that on the text.
Itâs super annoying when the text says itâs from a particular person, like kamala or Joe or Hillary, etc. No itâs not. Iâm not that stupid. Donât say that. It makes me less inclined to give them money
3 Likes
Iâm going to put on my actuarial nitpicking hat and say that if you canât afford the deductible on your high deductible insurance, then you canât afford the high deductible insurance.
1 Like
Yes.
Do you not understand HSAâs at all?
They are YOUR savings account.
And very, very few people have an HSA that is exclusively funded by their employer. The majority of the money in HSAs are from the employees/individual.
This is a stupid and inaccurate argument to claim that the monies in the HSA are not yours.
But, how does a thinking person say âgenerally legalâ is okay but âWhen the woman does not want the child for any reasonâ should be illegal.
Almost all the abortions in âgenerally legalâ in the first trimester are going to be cases where the woman simply doesnât want a child right now.
Just shows how little respect political parties have for the intelligence of their supporters. This is universal!
3 Likes
yeah, iâm sure the republicans do the same exact thing.
just tell me itâs (insert name of volunteer) texting me. iâd respect that a lot more than claiming youâre kamala harris.
and if you are kamala harris and have all this time on your hands to text me, iâm not sure i want you as vp.
Are employer contributions to your 401k your money?
Not if laws passed were to guarantee rights to all citizensâor extend rights to non-citizens.
Or to enact a form of âinterstate commerce clauseâ that would cover certain services. That is, it is within Congressâ capacity to enact laws that would invalidate some of TX laws around âaiding people to get services in another stateâ.
Correct. but the only certainty is the premium. And the HDHP premium is all they can afford right now. anything more is often still a financial catastrophe for people.
1 Like
ITA. Itâs one of the reason why I do not register as a member of a particular political party. (Although, I think this line of discussion is better suited in the polarization of Congress thread.)
For many in Trumpâs base, the assumption of intelligence level isnât that far off; and I think the Trumpster-politicians act accordingly.
But I agree that many in politics target their âlowest common denominatorâ as apply that assumption whole-sale to all âvoters of interestâ.
Yea this is the case. That article didnât do anything to change my opinion on Alitoâs ruling. He did not believe it was a violation of the 4th amendment to
âThe Supreme Court has been a stickler for saying the warrant must state on its face who is to be searched,â said USC law professor Charles H. Whitebread. âIf the warrant itself did not say they can search all the occupants, it could not permit searching them.â
So the existing precedent was that the search of the child wasnât legal.
âThis is a very technical issue. And obviously, itâs unfair to say this is about strip searches. That is almost irrelevant to the legal analysis,â he said. âBut Chertoff is right. The warrant itself controls, and this case shows Alito as bending over backward to defer to law enforcement.â
Alito doesnât care about upholding privacy rights as much as he wants to support law enforcement. I donât see any other reading of a ruling like this.
So I guess I will get more specific in my comments.
Alito condoned the strip searching of a child who wasnât named in a warrant because he doesnât truly value the right to privacy, even in the face of SCOTUS precedent determining such actions to be illegal.
Sure, he made a comment about having a âvisceral dislikeâ to the search, but who cares that he said that? Doesnât change is decision.
the case suggests Alito is willing to defer to law enforcement,â said Alan K. Chen, a criminal law expert at the University of Denver College of Law. âIronically, it shows he is not a strict constructionist, at least in the area of criminal procedure.â
This is also a blow to your claim that justices make decisions based on their judicial philosophies and not based on their politics.
I think theyâre yours in precisely the same way that the premium you or your employer pays is yours or the tax dollars to fund government-sponsored health insurance is yours. The rest is all smoke and mirrors IMO.
Yes, they do.
I didnât say 9th Amendment; I said 10th Amendment.
This ruling is effectively saying that since the Constitution doesnât grant the federal government the power to regulate abortion, it should be regulated by the states. It seems like a 10th Amendment argument, I think.
So if the federal government canât regulate it, it canât grant the right to all Americans.
I suppose that theoretically a state ban on abortion could be found unconstitutional on 9th Amendment grounds. (Wonât happen with this court, but itâs theoretically possible that it could happen and also not override this decision.)
But I would think any federal law on abortion would fail on 10th Amendment grounds based on my read of the decision.
Actually if thatâs where we ultimately landed on abortion Iâd be ok with that. Itâs a more solid reasoning than the invented right to privacy.
This. If youâre living paycheck to paycheck then that higher premium for a non HDHP is out of reach.
I was addressing the 10th amendment:
There are no federal laws around abortion (everyone kept deferring to Roe v. Wade), so at present its regulation is at the State level.
I acknowledge that such a law will likely be challenged and likely come before the SCOTUS. However, a well-crafted Constitutional Amendment that is passed will provide a clear support for a âConstitutional rightâ.
Yeah, I think it would take a Constitutional amendment, and thatâs just not going to happen on anything controversial⌠by design.