It’s rare for criminal action of corporate leaders to be charged, period.
I think a better starting place would be to change this. Be much more willing to hold malicious corporate leaders accountable for their crimes. They far too often fall behind the security of a corporate veil, which if investigated, usually ends up with a fine, a slap on the wrist.
Prosecutors are allowed to pierce the corporate veil for criminal actions, but they rarely do so.
Very true. Even just writing (or rewriting) the regulations is full of ways to get whatever the executive branch wants.
“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” George Carlin
I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot more to separation of powers than this. You might be well aware of all this, but for those that aren’t, here’s a giant wall of text.
The executive branch’s powers are clearly defined and including acting as the head of the military, the head of foreign affairs, and the executor of the laws congress passes. It is quite restricted by congress in many ways. Of course, the executive branch has emergency powers and limited ways around the laws congress enacts, but that’s not the default and it is very much intended to be restricted by congress.
The executive branch also has room to make interpretations (create regulations) and to prioritize certain laws when they come into conflict.
This is what they’re doing here. They have weighed the laws (from congress) they are tasked with enforcing, which includes (a) specific immigration restrictions and (b) a variety of other ones that could impact their ability to execute the immigration restrictions (the “26” laws waived, including water and environmental protections). The DHS (an executive branch agency) has determined that (b) these 26 place an undue burden that prevents them from executing (a) the immigration restrictions, and is therefore temporarily waiving (b).
You can read the actual order here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-22176.pdf
Notice that it does not say it’s randomly waiving laws of its own accord without a law that it is executing. It is clearly referencing the statues (enacted by congress) that it is acting on. It is identifying that it is failing to execute some laws, but only so it can prioritize another one it has deemed more important for this specific action. It’s also become popular for the executive branch to use emergency decrees to act unilaterally, but these are supposed to be much more limited and a functioning judiciary/congress should hold the executive accountable when this happens.
What the executive branch is NOT doing here is very important too. It is NOT deciding it doesn’t want to do what congress says. Congress could rewrite the immigration law or any of the other 26 laws to change the way the executive branch executes them, if it feels the executive is implementing them wrong. And the judicial branch could easily weigh in on this if someone affected brings the case to them.
Wise of you to seek out advice and plan this far ahead. I’ve moved many times and have learned a thing or two.
First, savings. Don’t minimize them. It’s always crucial to live within your means and have cash set aside. Everything costs more than you think. The move, the new place, the getting settled into a new place. Jobs may not work out. Bottom line, do whatever you can to have some savings and quickly replenish it if you have to dig in.
Second, housing and transportation. Usually the two biggest out of pocket costs. Moving to a new area means you don’t know exactly where you want to live or what commutes are tolerable and where is worth living. So find something you’re comfortable with, but don’t overspend or get too committed. I love being close to work so I don’t have a long commute and will take a much smaller place to do so. I also don’t like living with roommates, so I often cut back transit costs and other expenses to live alone. If you don’t mind living with others, you can save a lot of money. But do not be house or car poor. See the first point.
Third, furnishings and getting settled in. It will take time. Don’t put too much pressure on yourself to create a picture-perfect home or have a big groups of friends right away. These things take time, especially to be done well. Cover your household basics (a good mattress is a worthwhile investment) then keep an eye out for second hand goods to get things started. Try to expand your horizons and join local groups or clubs to make some friends with similar interests. If you notice red flags, pay attention to them. Sometimes nasty people cling onto newcomers and can cause you unnecessary stress/problems. Seek out worthwhile relationships and nurture them instead.
Moving to a new places is one of the most exciting and frightening things you can do. But as long as you avoid getting your bank account too close to zero and take your time while putting in effort to live like a local, it can be absolutely amazing. I’ve lived in different countries, met people from vastly different cultures, lived on entirely different cuisine, and simply had some of the most mind and soul-expanding adventures in new areas. I’ve also missed my home, my family, friends I left behind, things I gave up, and more. But the reality is that all the material stuff will come and go, the time with family and friends should be cherished but not limit your life, and at the end of the day, you are the one in charge of your destiny. It’s up to you and you alone to figure out where to live and what to do to discover happiness. Just make sure to give yourself a fighting chance. Don’t go broke. And avoid abusing anything. Moderation and variety.
I write too much. Good luck!
The FTC home page has a list of options, including “file antitrust complaint.” I’m guessing that’s probably the most useful: https://www.ftc.gov/ I’ve also seen others say to email antitrust@ftc.com.
But here is the FTC contact page: https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/contact. And here is more generic agency information: https://www.usa.gov/agencies/federal-trade-commission
Contacting most government institutions is usually surprisingly easy and you typically don’t need to be overly concerned about using the right template or anything.
Just quickly and clearly communicate what topic it’s about, what your specific issue is, a small bit of reasoning showing why it’s a problem, and a brief conclusion that usually asks for a specific action.
You can always call the general phone number and very briefly explain in laymen’s terms what you need (maybe something g like “I’d like to submit comment about a specific technology” or something similar). The operators are usually willing to help get you in touch with the right person, as long as you can explain what you need in a succinct manner (unlike this ridiculously long comment).
Along this same train: critical thinking.
“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”
https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Learn how to think critically and you can do damn near anything from diagnosing car problems to understanding complex economic issues. You’ll improve your communication, your understanding, and your ability to handle the world around you. It’s where open minded meets level headed.
Did someone say people should work for free? No where am I saying that. Massive profits are not necessary to cover overhead - expenses like overheard and salaries are paid for by revenue - what’s leftover is profit.
This thread is about whether the current US healthcare insurance industry is a scam or not. Scam means “a dishonest scheme” and insurance saying it’s going to provide healthcare coverage but actually just takes your money, doesn’t provide coverage, and only pays investors/executives could be considered a dishonest scheme by many.
Insurance companies have a natural tendency to become worse and worse over time. This is called the race to the bottom and is an incredibly well-known phenomena in insurance. Like monopolies, insurance is one of the rare situations where experts are in damn-near universal agreement that heavy regulation is necessary.
Right now, insurance companies are objectively very bad to the people they provide coverage for. This isn’t an opinion, this is a fact that’s easily verified and well understood. They are not being effectively regulated and as such, are racing to the bottom by providing absolutely terrible coverage while taking in massive premiums. This is not good for anyone and is not fixed by a free market in any way. You cannot effectively shop for insurance and their behavior is not rectified, unless prohibited by law (regulation).
Many people lock in interest rates for the life of the loan. Most often 30 years for mortgage loans. You don’t have to renew a mortgage’s interest rate unless you get an adjustable rate one.
This is the main reason why mortgage applications are down significantly right now. People with super low interest rates don’t want to move because they’d have to get a new loan to do so, and interest rates are much higher now. If they stay and they have a fixed-rate loan, nothing changes.
It’s true insurance companies need to take in adequate premiums in order to have the money the money to pay claims. And when done in balance, insurance is a great thing. Not all insurance in a scam, no doubting that.
But the current state of insurance, especially health insurance in the US, shows that these companies are making massive profits. How does this happen? Literally one way: They take in more premiums than they pay out in coverage. How? By either knowingly overcharging people or skirting out of paying covered claims through other means (such as baseless rejections).
That’s the problem with the entire insurance industry and why it must be properly regulated in any industry: It is a race to the bottom. The worse the insurer treats the people that buy insurance from them, the better the company does financially (charge a lot, pay out a little). Mix in the fact that (1) you cannot shop around at the time you need a claim and (2) the contracts are so intensive only a sophisticated legal team can interpret them, and it’s a recipe for disaster.
So you’re right that all insurance isn’t necessarily a scam. But if you can’t see that the US health insurance industry raking in profits shows serious dysfunction that could be considered a scam, it’s worth taking a second look.
This next election is going to be wild. Stacked full of unpopular candidates.
Biden’s approval rating is abysmal, and his age is actively working against him. Sure, he’s likely to get most D votes, but unlikely he’ll get extra voters to come out from any fringe group or independents.
If Trump is selected as the R candidate, his supporters will come out in droves to vote. But independents aren’t looking like they’ll give him support. Then again, a lot of people said they wouldn’t vote for Trump in 2016, but did anyway.
If Trump isn’t on the R ticket, another person could grab hold of independents and a good chunk of the R party voters. But impassioned Trump supporters are a wild card. Will they just write in Trump? Vote third party out of vengeance? I guess they’ll probably do whatever Trump says, which seems like it has a good chance of splintering the R vote.
Honestly, this is all just wild. And the only certain thing is that there is no certainty.
I really hope young voters show up.
So far, yes. They’re allowing things to continue as they did before this case was brought.
But much more importantly, they’ve agreed to rule on the merits of the case. While this order might make you think they’re in favor of the administration, they could easily flip against when the issue the actual ruling. Then it’s a more permanent action.
I see this as a very important issue of our time. Social media platforms have speed up the exchange of opinions and information tremendously. But they’re terrible at preventing the spread of misinformation. That’s shouldn’t always result in government intervention, but sometimes it should. There are many restrictions on the first amendment that are justified.
During a global emergency about a serious health hazard, it seems entirely justified to place more restrictions on first amendment rights and allow government intervention when the private companies fail to act.