Ultimately this feels weak. The prefatory clause is an explanation of why the right to bear arms is to be unrestricted. It isn’t a statement to say “the people should only have guns to serve in defense of the country”, it’s to support a militia should it be necessary. Everything else is just secondary to the “shall not be infringed” portion.

The Heller decision did enumerate a right to self defense as part of the 2A, with the justification that is was common to own guns to defend one’s person and property. While it can be argued that we shouldn’t base law today on life in 1787(given issues we are seeing in LGBT rights erosion, namely), I don’t think that there’s any reason why right to self defense has diminished in importance since then.

The Constitution is generally a statement of the limitations of the government, not the citizenry. I think that paints the tone of how the bill of rights should be taken.

I mean. yeah single payer is nice, however that’s really not even on the horizon for the US. For most Americans, especially those who actually have to know how to fully utilize their insurance (if lucky enough to have it), there’s no benefit for them to worry too much about a single-payer or socialized system. They have immediate needs and immediate solutions. They need to get their prescriptions, their surgeries, and their doctor’s appointments. It’s not “supporting” it, as so much as it is the devil you know.

Practically speaking, compared to standard PPO/HMO insurance, HDHPs are pretty good. If you are low-maintenance health-wise, you don’t pay for your physical, are going to spend maybe couple hundred bucks on sick care and maintenance meds. If you have chronic illness, you will only pay the deductible before your care is 100 percent covered, so a hospital stay would be enough to meet your out-of-pocket max, and everything else is covered 100% by your insurer (whereas the traditional plans have 6-10k limits, the HDHPs are much lower at 1-2k for a person and 2-3 for a family). Especially with HSAs, which are savings/retirement accounts for medical expenses, that some employers will pay into, so basically free money to pay copays, prescriptions, even stuff like aspirin and bandages.

They might have to depending on the final court opinion. It’s important to know that that’s a long process, it takes about 10 years. I’m not sure about the specifics of what that would look like for a drug getting re-approved.

As I understand the regulations, the FDA did a roundabout way of approving the drug for general use (it was originally approved under a pathway for drugs that were dangerous and had to be closely monitored by a doctor. This really was a weak spot for the FDA’s case. So I think the main critique from the court being that the decision-making of the FDA was abitrary and capricious in relaxing rules to prescribe (if it was dangerous, why did they relax the rules for use during covid? If COVID necessitated an easier way to obtain it, was it dangerous enough to need the Subpart H approval in the first place?). So the way the FDA approved the drug opened them up to administrative challenge.

You know it’s not good when it’s bipartisan. I think the key point here is the bill sets a catch-22. If you are a dominant platform, you have to follow our rules. if you try to not be dominant, you violate the rules anyway.

It’s just made to control and censor.