FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1643388242> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1643388242 startingPage "91" @default.
• W1643388242 abstract "INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Economic and legal consequences of USSC decisions are important, interesting and yet are sometimes marginalized in the pedagogy of business education; this is particularly true within the wide-ranging field of topics in legal environment or business law (Miller & Crain, 2011), (Bardwell, A Model Pedagogy for Small Business Consultants and Educators Using Legal Insight Decison Making, 2012), (Steslow & Gardner, 2011). Highly charged and exciting legal cases are the caviar of every business law professor, but alas, cases involving taxation, the commerce clause and insurance are neither typically captivating nor compelling. However, in 2012, the USSC heard the complex, fascinating and significant Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] case which received tremendous media coverage and thus generated excitement and high emotions in the general public. This law was challenged by numerous states and the NFIB; appeals tested Obama administration policy and congressional design of an unprecedented national health insurance program. One can see the full opinion of this very significant case at the official Supreme Court website (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012) at www.supremecourt.gov. The case is discussed in detail later in this article. Many diverse interest groups have opined on the need for and consequences of a national health care policy; there are various points of view both economic and humanistic from well-educated physicians, (Cardo, et al., 2010), economists, lawyers, scholars whose historical perspective cannot be ignored, (Terris, 1999) and budding scholars who describe the value of social media in transmitting information, views and analysis (Osborn, 2010). Each provides compelling reasons why we must treat this issue as a predominant challenge to small business, particularly in our current era of economic recession. How should we have anticipated the significance of this case and of the legislation? We would have predicted it easily under the LIDM model. It promises to become a classic problems new triumvirate in the certainty of death, taxes and health care insurance. ANALYSIS OF THE CASE USING THE LIDM PROCESS A brief review of the Legal Insight Decision Making procedure is provided in Figure 1; this captures the eight steps in applying the LIDM process (Bardwell, 2010) (Bardwell, A Model Pedagogy for Small Business Consultants and Educators Using Legal Insight Decison Making, 2012). Annotations relevant to the PPACA case are inserted in italics. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Step 1: Select Hot Circuits Identify recalcitrant Circuits and include the circuit in which your business interests reside. When a case reached the USSC, every business, wherever located and in every state will be affected. The PPACA case affects small business, individuals and all businesses which may decide to offer health insurance plans as part of the employee compensation package. Step 2: Select Hot Legislative Change Topics Identify legislative changes and add two years to permit the appeals process to mature. As noted, the PPACA was passed in 2010, and took exactly two years for the legal challenge to reach the USSC in 2012. This legislative innovation was the product of decades of rancorous and partisan political activity; but this voluminous piece of legislation was passed by both houses and signed by President Obama as a very hot legislative topic. Step 3: Select Hot Economic Topics a. Identify topics covered in multiple issues in the WSJ, NYT, LAT, WP related to industry performance and add 6 months to one year for trickledown effect upon small business/entrepreneurs. The economic features of the PPACA were featured in all the major media outlets and became the subject of powerful lobbyist efforts, both pro and con. The economic data utilized by lobbyists was not possible to verify, but nonetheless was emotionally compelling. …" @default.
• W1643388242 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1643388242 creator A5071393067 @default.
• W1643388242 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W1643388242 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1643388242 title "Using LIDM to Examine the Potential Effects of the Affordable Health Care Case for Small Businesses and Entrepreneurs" @default.
• W1643388242 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1643388242 type Work @default.
• W1643388242 sameAs 1643388242 @default.
• W1643388242 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1643388242 countsByYear W16433882422019 @default.
• W1643388242 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1643388242 hasAuthorship W1643388242A5071393067 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C2776643233 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C2983635472 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConcept C524211801 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C144024400 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C160735492 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C17744445 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C199539241 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C2776643233 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C2778272461 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C2983635472 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C39549134 @default.
• W1643388242 hasConceptScore W1643388242C524211801 @default.
• W1643388242 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1643388242 hasLocation W16433882421 @default.
• W1643388242 hasOpenAccess W1643388242 @default.
• W1643388242 hasPrimaryLocation W16433882421 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W134827277 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W1522850012 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W1563193647 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W1717976747 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W1980195151 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W2144575995 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W223668879 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W2262893254 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W2336110962 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W2350618464 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W236544271 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W2796319981 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W2801690272 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W2902965166 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W3122996947 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W3125810832 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W3126144549 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W3186843765 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W405062644 @default.
• W1643388242 hasRelatedWork W43816664 @default.
• W1643388242 hasVolume "18" @default.
• W1643388242 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1643388242 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1643388242 magId "1643388242" @default.
• W1643388242 workType "article" @default.