Healthcare Reform Act Prediction Market 185
An anonymous reader writes "The Wisconsin School of Business is running a prediction market study on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Healthcare Reform Act. By participating you will not only be helping university students, you will also get to express your opinion and compete with others to show that you have the most accurate prediction."
Re:prediction (Score:2, Insightful)
many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum
At most, companies with 60 people might, MIGHT be willing to cut 10 people.
For the most part, I doubt it. It's a severe pain in the ass to do work while understaffed, and if you were already able to do work with less than 50 people, you would've had less than 50 people.
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Market forces won't work if there's no incentive to be right. It's tempting for ideologues to sign up and just vote the way they want it to go, instead of the way they think it will go.
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing.
Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.
Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there is: An activist judge is a judge that makes a ruling which creates a precedent I don't like.
It was "Judicial Activism" when the court ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to Teh Gays, and it'll be the same if they rule that the Commerce Clause can't be used to justify literally anything.
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there is: An activist judge is a judge that makes a ruling which creates a precedent I don't like.
Funny, but no. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.
Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly. It creates uncertainty and undermines the accumulated legitimacy of the court, as the conflict implies that at least one of the rulings—and any others based on it—was in error.
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
They rolled back the commerce clause when they nullified the Gun Ban in "school zones" by telling Congress they stretched the definition of commerce too far. They also rolled it back some when they said Congress can not force states to create storage facilities to dispose of nuclear fuel.
And then they went and blew whatever gains they had made by declaring that pot grown in your own backyard for your own personal use is interstate commerce.
Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (Score:2, Insightful)
When someone cries judicial activism about the court ruling with the constitution it's whining.
What I predict is that the SCOTUS will ignore the fact that the question before them is "is mandating that people buy a product constitutional?" and void the entire act, despite the fact that several parts of it have already gone into effect without the mandate and those parts are doing just fine and would continue to do fine with or without the mandate.
Republicans will cheer for this, despite the fact that they looked the other way every other time the SCOTUS has used some weaselly "jurisprudence" excuse like whining about standing (because destroying the Constitution doesn't injure me one bit) or declaring an issue moot to avoid making a hard decision like "what to do about an american citizen held by the Bush administration without charge for two years" or "what to do when the Bush administration steals the evidence of warrantless wiretapping of American citizens after it has been presented to the court".
The saddest thing is that the entire law was the wrong answer to the wrong problem. The right answer to the wrong problem would have been repealing that law that says the ERs have to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay, then everyone will be lining up for insurance or dying in a ditch. The right problem is why the fuck I need insurance to not go bankrupt if I break my arm. And no, the answer to that one isn't tort reform [newyorker.com] (seriously, read the article if you think it is.) I don't know what it is, but nobody on either side of the aisle is even bothering to look.