End affirmative action by accepting everyone into college.

The inherent problem with affirmative in the context of college admissions is that you reject one applicant in favor of another applicant based on a racial consideration.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with some one being admitted to college as long as it wasn't not at the expense of someone else.  Therefore I propose that public universities, especially state schools begin accepting all applicants.  Let anyone who thinks they can do well and is willing to finance the endeavor give it their best shot.  The worst case is that they have some college experience and perhaps a little debt.  Universities could charge a premium for students who live in the college dorms (as they currently do) and could offer reduced tuition for e-classes.  Local economies would benefit.  More teaching assistants/graders may need to be hired to meet the demand, but the number of full time faculty positions should not see an increase as technology is now available to increase the reach of the same professors.  Moreover tuition rates would probably go down.  The only remaining moral problem is that wealthier students would be more likely to pay the extra amount to actually sit in for the live lectures and live close to campus while the less fortunate would telecommute and be less likely to enjoy the 'college' experience.  Those matters while not trivial, cannot compare to the benefits of extending low cost education to everyone.  When it comes down to it, most people wouldn't trade a quality education, a good paying job, the ability to support oneself and family, and a secure, future for dorm food, football games, and the smell of chalk.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg. An educated person who has written their own job description.

Quote 1
"The court does not make laws, and it's not in the vanguard of social change, but what it can do and can do effectively is to move along a social change that is already under way in the larger society."

So the court can't make laws, but if a disputed law comes to the court and it is in line with the social views of a majority they can help it along?  The courts job is to uphold the constitution which is designed to be a check on the power of the majority.  The job of the court is then the exact opposite; to make sure that social change under way in the larger society does not infringe on the rights of the minority.

Quote 2
"Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to, to control their own destiny.  I certainly respect the belief of the hobby lobby owners, on the other hand they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work for them who don't share that belief."

Let's take that last sentence and do a word replace.  Swap 'hobby lobby owners' with 'hundreds and hundreds of women' and you get "I certainly respect the beliefs of women, on the other hand they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hobby lobby owners who don't share that belief."  So the argument works both ways, she is just picking the permutation that she likes.

Quote 3
"My hobby lobby dissent didn't turn on the difference between a corporation and a sole proprietorship, my point was that no employer, no matter what the business may be, should be able to transfer that religious belief on to people who don't share that belief....One has freedom to move ones arm until it hits the other fellows nose.  Same way with speech same with religion, you can exercise your right freely until it affects other people who share their views."

What a great opportunity to point to a part of the constitution to explain the basis of your dissent....but no, she admits her dissent turned on who she decided was the 'arm' and who she decided was the 'nose'.  If you think about that example though, you could easily just say that the nose should move out of the way.  However, in our system, the nose, remaining stationary is not obligated to avoid the arm which is taking the action.  The action in question here is clear, it is demanding payment for contraception.  Whoever demands payment is then taking that action.  So clearly the women are the ones taking the action, they are the arm, and they are free to demand payment for contraception until it hits someone's nose, that is, anyone who does not want to pay for contraception.  The nose could move, and give up ownership of it's company, but it surely isn't required to.  Now if you change the action to 'refusing to pay for contraception' foregoing that the action itself is a lack of doing something, then hobby lobby becomes the arm, and for the nose (women) to avoid the arm, they would have to pay for it themselves (slowly becoming an old fashioned concept), or find someone more agreeable to pay for it.  Surely less burdensome then giving up ownership of their company.

Justice Breyer in FEC v McCutcheon

"If the average person thinks that what he says exercising his 1st amendment rights, just can't have an impact through public opinion upon his elected representative, he says 'what is the point of the first amendment?'" -Stephen Breyer

Are we really going to abridge one persons 1st amendment rights so another person can feel that the first amendment has a point?  The point of the 1st amendment is Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.  The only way someone can feel the 1st amendment has no point is if the congress ignores it.

The Birth Lottery

Intellectuals often speak of the birth lottery in the context of inequality.  The idea is that your station in life is largely determined by the parents to whom you are born.  The argument goes that since this assignment is random that society should seek to reduce any advantage gained that can be attributed to this lottery.

I have several problems with this idea. 

1.  Humans are not randomly assigned parents by some unseen force.
2.  For liberals this idea should seem repulsive because it implies that there is a 'you' before you were born, which of course cannot be true or the abortion argument collapses.
3.  The direct solutions are terrible; 1.  Only allow 'well off' families to reproduce or 2.  Redistribute new babies from families who are struggling to 'well off' families until they are 18 in order that any 'life handicap' has been avoided, and return them to their original parents.
4.  Many advantages/disadvantages of the 'birth lottery' stems from the free decisions of the parents.  For example, I will raise my baby without a father or mother, or I will abandon my child to be raised by his father/mother, or I will not read to my child, I will not feed my child properly, I will not move to an area with the best schools that I can afford, I will not teach my child right from wrong etc.  These are all rights which are (currently) guaranteed to us.  Of course there are some things that are very difficult to control, you may want to be married but can't find a suitable spouse, you may want and be qualified for a better job but the job market may be dismal, you may want to buy higher quality food but the bad food is more affordable, you may want to move but can't afford the costs of moving.

The best option may be, and this is probably true for any lottery, if your odds of losing are great, don't play.  But should we have to contemplate the life chances of our offspring before we have a child? Isn't that eugenics?  If the government attempts to control the prevalence of race or ethnicity, then it probably is and should be avoided.  However if it is the parents who make the choice, I say it is just smart family planning.

Buy health care like you buy a home.

Let's use the classic example that everyone always uses, you walk outside and get hit by a bus and you are uninsured!. We are a civilized country so of course we will treat you when you are wheeled into the emergency room.  The problem that the ACA is attempting to solve is the uninsured who don't quality for medicaid and medicare but can't afford health insurance or have opted to risk it and not buy insurance.  This should be a relatively small amount of people.  The insurance companies make money by charging more in premiums than they pay in claims, that is there profit margin for providing you the ability to pay for your health care over time (in the form of monthly payments) rather than all at once, whereby you would probably go bankrupt.  So by paying for your health care upfront they lose the ability to make money from investing that money, and you gain the ability to invest or use the money you didn't lose by having to pay your whole bill upfront.  This is almost entirely identical to a mortgage or renting an apartment.  In both cases you are paying a small amount on a regular basis to get something now that is more than you could afford.  In both cases you are charged a fee for this benefit, either an interest payment or a premium that is slightly higher than what the insurance company actually expects you to need over a period of time.  Perhaps the better approach is to treat medical bills more like a mortgage.  Why can the insurance company just charge you interest on the balance of your medical bills until they are paid off.  The cost of say a pregnancy at 4% interest over the life time of a mortgage (30 years) would probably only be $100 bucks a month, that is probably cheaper than you are paying in health insurance premiums.  Not only that but your payments end when it is paid off (like a mortgage) and doesn't continue indefinitely like health insurance premiums.  You adjust the interest rate to account for the fact that if someone dies after their treatment and can't pay their bill, you would be covered from an actuarial standpoint.  The government could subsidize it like they currently do for mortgages and rent for poor people and you could right of the expense on your taxes.  This would more closely relate your decisions and lifestyle as an individual to what you pay in health costs.  The only downside is that people who are born with serious medical conditions would instantly be burdened with a debt they had to pay back.  However seeing as you are going be paying something a month no matter what (interest payments or premiums), you might as well pay for your own costs.  This would force you to shop for the best rates and most affordable care that they market offered as it will directly affect you financially.

Health Care and Cell Phones

When I first got a cell phone, probably in 2004, there were only a handful of providers. The phones were crappy, think black and white displays, two ring tones, no text messaging.  I think I paid around 45 dollars per month with sever limitations on minutes (300 anytime minutes, nights and weekends free).  This market is very lightly regulated compared to others, the FCC regulates the frequencies, and companies couldn't form a monopoly and had to respect privacy (or did they?).  Fast forward nearly 10 years later.  I now have a phone that does more things than I could have dreamed of 10 years ago, I have unlimited text messaging and minutes and can connect to the internet via WI-FI.  I only pay $10 dollars per month.  This is all done through the magic of companies competing for market share.  If only we would let the same power work for Health Insurance...

Jumping into the net.

I believe we need to have an economic "safety net" in America.  I'm glad we do.  But why do both liberals and conservatives call it a "safety net".  If you have a safety net, I believe the general goal is that you are not in the net unless absolutely necessary.  A tight rope walker ideally, never wants to be in the safety net.  But in American society I question whether the our social safety net is really a place of last resort or if many of our citizens are jumping and not falling into the safety net.  Hilary Clinton speaking at the 10th anniversary celebration for the Center for American Progress mentioned that the progressive agenda is ensuring Justice, Liberty and Equality.  But then mentioned that because of policies from the 'other side', mothers can't get the formula they need to feed their babies.  Of course the social safety net should include formula for infants, that's a no-brainer.  My question is how do you 'fall' into a safety net that provides formula for your babies?  How often does it occur that someone goes from comfortably supporting a family to a situation where without government help they will not spend the $20 a week for formula.  Are there really families out there in that situation where unless this check comes from the government they will let their babies starve?  If there actually are these cases, and I'm guessing there are very few, I fully support government funds to buy them formula.  What would be the proper name for a net that people willingly jump into?  Probably a children's bouncy house.