Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jarhead

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 279
Current Law Students / Re: To law students 29+
« on: August 30, 2006, 05:42:37 PM »
there are dumbasses at every age, dont forget that.  And you are only as old as you feel and act.  I tell you the good thing about being married and going to law school is that you have all the time that you would spend chasing tail to study :D

yeah i know but i dont want to be a total anti-social...these people will presumably be my colleagues so i'd like to be able to make some not married w/kids so i dont really fit in with that set and im not a 20 something worried about "chasing tail  :D"... i just hope i can find some down to earth people that i have things in common with ...whatever age they are...  my experience in undergrad, as a non-trad, let me know that my patience for juvenile bs is very short.

Current Law Students / Re: tools, spoiled brats and jerks...
« on: August 30, 2006, 05:34:31 PM »
see thats the part of law school im not looking forward to....juvenile 20 somethings

Current Law Students / Re: To law students 29+
« on: August 26, 2006, 02:57:40 PM »
 thanks for all the input...i hate to sound like an cranky old man..but some of the b.s. i read on here makes me want to hurl...'specially when people post about how "real" law school only 33 but i feel really old when i read that stuff... because most of it seems like common sense to me....

Current Law Students / Re: tools, spoiled brats and jerks...
« on: August 26, 2006, 02:49:58 PM »
[WTF young man/woman i will humour you they dont get it and never will get it ("it" meaning why all the things i am saying about them is true) because they lack character...and if you dont know what character means or is then i really cant help you

Pot calls the kettle black.....


pot doesn't like people trying to be smartas--es so pot responds in kind

Current Law Students / Re: tools, spoiled brats and jerks...
« on: August 14, 2006, 02:37:16 PM »

... they don't get it and will never get it because what it all boils down to is lack of character ...

Are you sure they don't get it that what it boils down to is what you say it is? I mean, really - think about it ..

WTF young man/woman i will humour you they dont get it and never will get it ("it" meaning why all the things i am saying about them is true) because they lack character...and if you dont know what character means or is then i really cant help you

Current Law Students / Re: To law students 29+
« on: August 14, 2006, 01:53:42 PM »
 thanks everybody  ;D  thats what i thought i just need a little reassurance every now and then

Current Law Students / Re: tools, spoiled brats and jerks...
« on: August 14, 2006, 01:46:18 PM »
im not a law student yet but i did go to an ivy league undergrad and i think the phenomena is the guessing you are going to a pretty good school ranking wise because people at these types of schools are typically are over concerned with prestige they think that going to harvard etc. means that they are better and smarter than everybody else, they've probably never done a hard day's work in their life and mommy and daddy foot the bill on everything...these type of people are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple they look down on everyone else who is not a "power hitter"....most of them are approx. 18-25 year olds who think they known it all, seen it all done it all, some of them will read this and post some ridiculous comment about how they're are not ashamed to come from a family where people are not lazy and work hard for the things they want...blah blah etc etc, ...they dont get it and will never get it because what it all boils down to is lack of character....this does not apply to everyone as i said i attended an ivy league university and it does not apply to me and lots of people i know but if you find yourself getting red in the face and typing some long ass let me further show how naive and totally clueless i am reply i might just be talking about you

Current Law Students / Re: To law students 29+
« on: August 13, 2006, 04:29:29 PM »
I often wonder if I am being over confident Im 33 I've been working for ten years now and have a very high stress/pressure job. I was also a Marine for five years, I'm just not thinking that all the horror stories i hear about law school and how much work it is will bother me. Im no stranger to hard work, I've been dealing with dealines and such for a long time now ...and i just dont think academic work is that difficult if you put in the time and i crazy?

Transferring / Re: T3 to T1 is possible
« on: June 25, 2006, 09:45:52 AM »
Hi, congrats. I live and work in the DC area and just to warn you it is EXPENSIVE. If GW has on campus housing I would suggest you take that option. If the law school is co-located with the undergrad its located on 23rd St. near the State Department and Watergate Hotel. Rents in DC metro usually low end start at $1200. which is pretty cheap. I'm not sure you will be able to find anything in that area for below
$1500. Anyway I am not a law student yet but just wanted to give you the heads up on what to expect for housing costs. Once again congrats on the transfer

Black Law Students / Re: Post Your Interesting News Articles Here
« on: February 15, 2008, 09:22:54 PM »
Wall Street Journal
January 30, 2008; Page A16

Arnold Schwarzenegger's "universal" health-care plan died in the California legislature on Monday, in what can only be called a mercy killing. So let's conduct a political autopsy, because there are important lessons here for the national health-care debate.

It's especially useful to compare today's muted obituaries to the page-one melodrama that surrounded the Governor when he announced his plan a year ago. Endless media mash notes were bestowed on the "post-partisan" Republican trying to get something done.
[Arnold Schwarzenegger]

The idea was that Mr. Schwarzenegger would set a national precedent, leading to a groundswell for reform in Washington. Not to mention that the Schwarzenegger plan was a near-copy of the one Mitt Romney pioneered in Massachusetts, and the one Hillary Clinton now favors. A leading author of the California plan was Laurie Rubiner, who directed health policy at the New America Foundation before becoming Senator Clinton's legislative director in 2005.
* * *

So much for that. The California legislature is probably the most liberal this side of Vermont, and even Democrats refused to become shock troops for this latest liberal experiment. Mr. Schwarzenegger and Democrats in the State Assembly did agree on a compromise plan in December. But on Monday, only a single member of the Senate Health Committee voted to report the bill to the full chamber -- and thus it joined a graveyard full of state "universal" health-care failures.

Like collapses in Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, this one crumpled because of the costs, which are always much higher than anticipated. The truth teller was state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, who thought to ask about the price tag of a major new entitlement amid what's already a $14.5 billion budget shortfall.

An independent analysis confirmed the plan would be far more expensive than proponents admitted. Even under the most favorable assumptions, spending would outpace revenue by $354 million after two years, and likely $3.9 billion or more. "A situation that I thought was bad," Mr. Perata noted, "in fact was worse."

This reveals that liberal health-care politics is increasingly the art of the impossible: You can't make coverage "universal" while at the same time keeping costs in check -- at least without prohibitive tax increases. Lowering cost and increasing access, in other words, are separate and irreconcilable issues.

Of course Washington might be able to disregard these practicalities, because the states are prohibited from running deficits while the feds aren't. But the California experience also reveals some of the ideological differences among Democrats, which would also divide in the Beltway.

The centerpiece of the Schwarzenegger plan was the "individual mandate," which is also the heart of HillaryCare 2.0. Such a law would compel everyone to acquire insurance, with subsidies for those who couldn't afford it. But the individual mandate incited a liberal revolt. Many Democrats and some unions argued the subsidies weren't generous enough to cover lower-income families, and it wasn't fair to penalize them for coverage they couldn't afford. One state Senator called the plan "a knife in the throat of the working poor." So the plan failed because it was too expensive -- and because for some Democrats it wasn't expensive enough.

Opposition also arose because the plan didn't do enough to punish the left's health-care villains. While it greatly expanded regulation of insurers -- requiring them to accept all applicants, and prohibiting premium differences based on health status -- it didn't cap how much they could charge consumers, or regulate their profits. Democrats also complained that the taxes the plan imposed on business, as high as 6.5% of payroll, weren't high enough. Business disagreed.

All of which is to say that while the plan was opposed by nearly all Republicans, it died at the hands of Democrats. Mr. Schwarzenegger was a collaborator in that he went out of his way to assail and thus alienate fellow Republicans for opposing tax increases to pay for the plan. But if Mrs. Clinton or Barack Obama want to push a major health-care reform through Congress, they will have to find a way to appease their own left-wing while not alienating business and taxpayers.
* * *

What the California collapse should discredit in particular is the individual mandate as a policy tool for Republican reformers. This was Mr. Romney's enthusiasm for a time, helped along by the Heritage Foundation. But in order to be enforceable, such a mandate inevitably becomes a government mandate, and a very expensive one at that.

Voters are rightly concerned about health care, but they also don't want to pay higher taxes to finance coverage for everyone. Mr. Schwarzenegger's spectacular failure shows that there's an opening for Republicans to make the case for health-care reform based on choice and tax-equity, not mandates and tax hikes.


There's a big difference between universal coverage mandates and universal public health insurance.  The reason the California proposal is so expensive is precisely because it pays for private health insurance at unregulated rates, as even this WSJ editorial recognizes.  While I am not a fan of any plan that subsidizes payments to private insurers, the Clinton plan is far superior because (a) it is nationwide and (b) it offers price-controlled government insurance plans to compete with private insurance, which would at least counteract the inflationary effect of subsidies.

And what happened to this?

I'm done, not another comment. :-X

i have to chuckle....but that's it, i swear... :-X

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 279