The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
the credited OBAMACARE decision critique
| 180 nibblets | 06/30/12 |
| slippery potus indian lodge | 06/30/12 |
| shaky faggotry | 06/30/12 |
| Vengeful know-it-all alpha | 06/30/12 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 30th, 2012 1:51 AM Author: 180 nibblets http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/121426 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1983197&forum_id=2#20988694) |
 |
Date: June 30th, 2012 8:22 AM Author: slippery potus indian lodge tldr because i could only read it in epstein's aspie voice (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1983197&forum_id=2#20988956) |
Date: June 30th, 2012 1:58 AM Author: shaky faggotry (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1983197&forum_id=2#20988707) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2012 8:01 AM Author: Vengeful know-it-all alpha no, the academics at Hoover are ignoring a basic tenet of law&economics and utilitarian administrative efficiency, which they are all about. this could have been crafted as an across-the-board tax increase on all americans, with a subsequent rebate of the same amount for the ~99% who end up buying health insurance through some mechanism. no one doubts the constitutionality of that. but that would have been asisine given the transactions cost of administering it. so instead, you just do the reverse. imply the rebate from the start and only charge the tax to those who aren't getting the implied rebate. now you're only administering 1% instead of 99%.
surprised the Hoover folks completely miss this for partisan hackery. |