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.

Craziest part to me is how successful some right wing groups are at convincing the poor to follow along. Those that quite literally benefit the most from the social programs are willing to vote against their own interests to support the elites.

How mind boggling is it that rednecks are literally willing to overthrow their beloved country for a NY trust fund baby and reality TV star? Then he goes and helps the rich even more and they love him for it. He pisses all over “law and order” and the military. They don’t care. Just wild.

I know a lot of their feelings come from fringe topics like immigration/sexuality, but it’s still amazing considering the economic situation they’re facing. The lack of education and critical thinking is evident.

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!

Without knowing the costs, it sounds like you’re good candidates for the supplemental life or even an additional life policy. A year of salary can go quite quickly, as can the time and the costs of taking it off work. Term can be fine to start with, then later in life as it becomes a larger concern (especially with kids) you may consider whole life. But if you have substantial liquid savings, then you might just be fine with the 1-1.5x coverage for now. Once again, just all about your risk tolerance and savings.

Disability is very difficult to plan for and make a purely rational decision about. There are so many moving factors with the medical costs and length of the problem. For people who want total security, that $700 can be well worth it to sleep soundly. For others with more savings and a little room in their finances to cut back expenses, it might not be worthwhile. The more savings and the more you can rely on your partner for income, the less important it is.

But tackling it from a quantitative perspective may help. For $700, you’re getting 20% of your income. It’s a low-cost premium because the risk is usually low (unless you have reason to believe you’re likely to become disabled). You can also shop for separate plans to see how the premium lines up against competitors. It’s also important to understand the elimination period (how long you have to wait before you can claim benefits) and if it will pay out if you can perform ANY job vs your actual profession.

This is a pretty decent article on an approach to disability coverage: https://www.usbank.com/financialiq/plan-your-future/health-and-wellness/is-your-employer-long-term-disability-insurance-enough.html

Wayyyy too long of an answer. But I have some experience and might as well not let it go to waste. Definitely doesn’t hurt to talk with a financial advisor about it.

Always a good idea to check out market rates but your employer provided one likely has better premium rates as part of the group and with part of the payment possibly covered by your employer.

Deciding how much life insurance you should get is dependent on your personal situation, your desired coverage, and your risk tolerance.

But it’s likely that both of you having spousal coverage is a little toward overkill. I’d be more concerned about your disability coverage or the coverage of the highest-earning partner, especially if there’s a large disparity in earnings.

The main reason many people get life insurance is to make sure a non-working surviving spouse has the resources they need to get by with the same lifestyle and hopefully in the same house. So when you or your partner is not working, it’s usually the working partner that you want to have the most coverage (perhaps aligned with what would be needed to comfortably “retire” which really means just live the same lifestyle but only off investment income).

The second reason people get life insurance is to help with the short term consequences and expenses. Funerals are expensive. Debt can pile up with end of life care. Taking time off work can cause income drops. Daycare costs might need to be incurred. This is usually where the spousal coverage comes into play. Typically much lower coverage to give the working, surviving spouse a temporary boost due to death-related expensive, but not retire. Child policies are similar.

The more savings or investments you have, the lower your true need for this insurance is. If you can already comfortably retire, then it’s not a huge deal if either one passes (financially). And you have the cash to pay for short term death-related expenses.

Disability is a bigger deal to many people with substantial savings. It can mean a serious increase in expenses (to handle the disability) with a simultaneous decrease in earnings.

But some people also treat life insurance as an investment or a way to hedge specific risks. If you don’t want to work again if your spouse/partner passes, you can get increased coverage. Or if you simply like the security of getting a lump sum if one of your passes early, the premium cost might be worth it. Those are a personal decision and risk/reward calculation only you can make.

On the open market, you’ll find term and whole life. Term insurance is much lower cost because it only lasts a certain period (term). Whole life can be paid as a continuous premium until you file a claim (someone passes). People who are serious about life insurance get whole life policies and treat them as a wealth building investment. Many have cash values, where part of your premium goes into a savings-like account that builds at a certain interest rate. If you’re thinking of this, talk with a qualified advisor. And get at least 2 quotes from highly-rated and stable insurance companies.

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).

Calling out lies as lies, not mere differences of opinions, is justified and this author does a good job of pointing out two direct lies. I’ve always respected the “you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts” mentality. That’s basically all he’s saying.

First, he points out that some coverage indicates the laws used to prosecute Trump are ONLY for Civil War era crimes. Which is just complete bullshit and deserves to be called out. That would be like saying the financial regulatory overhauls that came from 2008 are ONLY applicable to the 2008 crisis. Laws may be enacted for a specific purposes, but they can and should be applied to future wrongs.

Second, he points out that some coverage indicates there is a legal requirement for specific monetary connections. But that just isn’t true under the statutes used for the charges, and the report he’s pointing to literally cites an entirely unrelated statute and precedent. Once again, this is not a difference of interpretation. It is an intentional misleading of their audience and refusal to acknowledge the truth. It deserves to be called out for what it is.

Critical thinking is being lost. Pieces like this that call out bold-faced lies are valuable and I wish more journalists (and debate moderators) would be willing to do so with the same brutality as this piece.

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.

Sad story. But always good to see someone take a stand. I hope they land on their feet.

I’ll never be able to comprehend the hypocrisy of some on the right.

“I want a small government that lets the free market do its thing, doesn’t tell me what to do, and doesn’t bother with regulation even when it comes to literal murder machines.”

“We need to take these books off the library shelf because I don’t agree with them and I don’t understand a lifestyle that isn’t my own.”

These two thoughts should not be able to go through the same brain. I know the answer is that they’re actually more motivated by hate and fear that “freedom”, but god damn is it annoying. Go live your own lives and stop worrying about what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Worried about child grooming? Go after the actual groomers found in churches and other places of power.

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.