decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Explaining the Legalese of the US Supreme Court's Ruling on the Affordable Care Act ~ pj | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Explaining the Legalese of the US Supreme Court's Ruling on the Affordable Care Act ~ pj
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 09:23 PM EDT
We ought to have the same sort of thing over here. We have a tax called
"National Insurance" which pays for our pensions, health service, etc.
Or claims to, at any rate.

What we and you probably ought to have is a genuine National Insurance, which
quite openly sets out only to provide the basics, and against which you can
claim the cost of any private provision you make.

We actually have that with regards to our pensions - if you opt out of the state
system, the private scheme must guarantee to provide equivalent cover and the
money that would have gone to the state goes to them instead.

But now we're bringing in a stupid enforced private scheme. Given the mess the
bankers have made of the financial system so far, pumping even more money their
way via forced saving is daft !!!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Explaining the Legalese of the US Supreme Court's Ruling on the Affordable Care Act ~ pj
Authored by: mschmitz on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT
Best Press Money Can Buy??

(I didn't say whose money - go figure ...)

-- mschmitz

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )