pacino wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:This is why Reps targeted state governments over the past 20 years while dems were focusing more on national races. A lot of changes can be done at the state level, including doing things that will help win national elections (such as the mischief in Ohio that was fortunately stopped by the courts).

Of course, with all the gerrymandering, it may be hard to reverse the tide.

JH will say this is crazy talk, but the fact that more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in most swing states and nationwide should mean something in regards to the House, but the gap barely closed between the two parties.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:This is why Reps targeted state governments over the past 20 years while dems were focusing more on national races. A lot of changes can be done at the state level, including doing things that will help win national elections (such as the mischief in Ohio that was fortunately stopped by the courts).

Of course, with all the gerrymandering, it may be hard to reverse the tide.

JH will say this is crazy talk, but the fact that more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in most swing states and nationwide should mean something in regards to the House, but the gap barely closed between the two parties.

What should it mean?

jerseyhoya wrote:How Can the Supreme Court Help Gay Rights? By Keeping Out Entirely

I love where I live, Durham NC. I want to marry the man I love here in Durham NC. But NC passed one of those anti marriage equality constitutional amendments this past May. (Let us hope that as we were one of the last states to join the confederacy, we'll also be the last to put that sort of discrimination into our constitution.) And not only do we want to marry, my community overwhelmingly supports us; the amendment failed at 30% for to 70% against and that was with a very large and politically active African-American electorate before Obama's endorsement. And our region, The Triangle, also supported us though at not quite that level. Why should all of us wait the estimated 17 (or 19) years for this to work itself out?
Sorry, don't buy it.

thephan wrote:I just heard right to work described as employees right, a right to leave without any notice or reason. It is hard to grasp that there would there would not be any fallout who the employee who quit in this manner.

Note: voice to text android posting to this forum is sketchy at best.

TenuredVulture wrote:

thephan wrote:I just heard right to work described as employees right, a right to leave without any notice or reason. It is hard to grasp that there would there would not be any fallout who the employee who quit in this manner.

Note: voice to text android posting to this forum is sketchy at best.

I thought you pretty much always had the right to quit whenever. Two weeks or whatever notice was a courtesy, not a legal requirement. Even contracts that say you won't work for a competing business in the same area are basically unenforceable.

Just 18 states and the District say they plan to operate their own exchanges, which are slated to begin enrollment in October. In an additional 32 states, the exchanges will be run either entirely by the federal government or a federal-state partnership.

It’s now official: In well over half of the states, local governments will relinquish all or some control over implementation of a law that will impact untold numbers of their own constituents. In so doing, they are reducing, rather than increasing, control over what happens in their own states — all in the name of states’ rights. [...]

The states that run their own exchanges, for example, will decide whether to allow all health plans that meet the law’s minimum standards to be sold on the exchange or to limit the selection to a few that regulators think offer the best value.

In the federally run exchanges, federal officials will make that call.

pacino wrote:lol:

Just 18 states and the District say they plan to operate their own exchanges, which are slated to begin enrollment in October. In an additional 32 states, the exchanges will be run either entirely by the federal government or a federal-state partnership.

It’s now official: In well over half of the states, local governments will relinquish all or some control over implementation of a law that will impact untold numbers of their own constituents. In so doing, they are reducing, rather than increasing, control over what happens in their own states — all in the name of states’ rights. [...]

The states that run their own exchanges, for example, will decide whether to allow all health plans that meet the law’s minimum standards to be sold on the exchange or to limit the selection to a few that regulators think offer the best value.

In the federally run exchanges, federal officials will make that call.

lol, idiots.

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:lol:

Just 18 states and the District say they plan to operate their own exchanges, which are slated to begin enrollment in October. In an additional 32 states, the exchanges will be run either entirely by the federal government or a federal-state partnership.

It’s now official: In well over half of the states, local governments will relinquish all or some control over implementation of a law that will impact untold numbers of their own constituents. In so doing, they are reducing, rather than increasing, control over what happens in their own states — all in the name of states’ rights. [...]

The states that run their own exchanges, for example, will decide whether to allow all health plans that meet the law’s minimum standards to be sold on the exchange or to limit the selection to a few that regulators think offer the best value.

In the federally run exchanges, federal officials will make that call.

lol, idiots.

There will be plenty that states can do to obstruct implementation of a systematic health system via PPACA or any other way, and plenty of institutional players whose interests are aligned with that obstruction. I wish their resistance was impotent, but plenty of people will be inconvenienced, annoyed, overcharged, and harmed by these efforts.