Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Health Insurance: Market Failure or Government Failure?

Abstract: Health insurance is once again on the policy agenda, and it is deja vu all over again. There are the same statistics and anecdotes about the uninsured. There are the same reports by government agencies, think tanks, and do-gooder organizations. There are the same policy entrepreneurs, pushing old wine in new (and not so new) bottles, based on the same appeals to social solidarity, self-interest, or both. The interest groups are back in force as well. Reform proposals are also being pushed by all the usual suspects. The reform proposals vary in their specificity, but all (either implicitly or explicitly) identify the source of the problem as market failure - and promise new regulations and more taxes to fix the problem. This article makes the case that government failure should occupy center-stage in understanding how things came to look the way they do. Rather than market failure, it is our inefficient and perverse regulation of health insurance that should be the focus of our ire, and of regulatory reform.

Scary Monsters: Hybrids, Mashups, and Other Illegitimate Children

Abstract: Human creativity, like human reproduction, always makes new out of old in ways that copyright law has not fully recognized. The genre of vidding, a type of remix made mostly by women, demonstrates how creativity can be disruptive, and how that disruptiveness is often tied to ideas about sex and gender. The most frightening of our modern creations — the Frankenstein’s monsters that seem most appropriative and uncanny in light of old copyright doctrine — are good indicators of what our next generation of creativity may look like, especially if creators’ diversity in gender, race, and economic background is taken into account.

The Difference Prevention Makes: Regulating Preventive Justice

Abstract: Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States and many other countries have adopted a paradigm of prevention, employing a range of measures in an attempt to prevent future terrorist attacks. This includes the use of pre-textual charges for preventive detention, the expansion of criminal liability to prohibit conduct that precedes terrorism, and expansion of surveillance at home and abroad. Politicians and government officials often speak of prevention as if it is an unqualified good. Everyone wants to prevent the next terrorist attack, after all. And many preventive initiatives, especially where they are not coercive and do not intrude on liberty, are welcome. But the move to a preventive justice model also creates potential for significant abuse. These risks suggest that we should be cautious about adopting preventive approaches, especially where they involve coercion. In part I of this essay, I articulate why preventive coercion is a problem. I respond, in particular, to a recent essay by Fred Schauer, The Ubiquity of Prevention, which argued that 'it is a mistake to assume that preventive justice is a problem in itself [because] preventive justice is all around us, and it is hard to imagine a functioning society that could avoid it.' In part II, I outline the formal constitutional and other constraints that are implicated by preventive measures in the United States, and I demonstrate that these constraints play a relatively small role in the actual operation of preventive measures. In part III, I maintain that informal constraints may actually play a more significant operational role in checking the abuses of prevention.