I*****y
发帖数: 6402 | 1 我们学校已经强制要求国际学生在校内买保险好多年了，虽然明面是说只要有校外的eq
uivalent plan就可以在校外买。 可是在实际操作过程当中，无论我们在校外找到任何
很equivalent (or even better)的保险，最后都被学校以任何理由证明not equivalen
t.
就拿这学期开学的一个保险来说，是iStudentCity提供的plan B,我拿过去要求review.
几天后被告知iStudentCity提供的健康保险是外州的一个公司卖的，而且此公司在我们
州没有被licensed. 我自己分析的情况是这个保险比我们学校强制的保险还要好一点点
，可学校就是不给批！学校的保险现在是160刀每个月，而iStudentcity的保险则要便宜
的多。此外，对于part-time student (senior graduate students usually take 1
credit/semester, therefore part-time),每学期还要另外交$120 health facility
fee.
另外，学校在2008年之前是明令强制国际学生买保险 |
s*******f
发帖数: 109 | 2 Yes, you guys definitely can continue your effort of appealing.
If your school (public school, right? if private, all my words do not apply)
made the discriminatory requirements soley based on the facts that you are
from other countries. The school is clearly wrong. And if the state law
allows (or requires) your school to do so, the state law is clearly wrong.
As international students, you are still entiled to the EQUAL PROTECTION
right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to US Constitution. If st |
I*****y
发帖数: 6402 | 3 Thank you so much for the informative reply which is obviously very helpful
as well.
I gave you a wow at your professional vocabulary :)
A question though is if we decided to sue the school in a court, we will
need to hire an attorney to fight for us. Right? Is there any lawer who can
fight for his/her fame instead of money? or we should try to raise some
money for suing school?
thanks again!
apply)
are
【在 s*******f 的大作中提到】
: Yes, you guys definitely can continue your effort of appealing.
: If your school (public school, right? if private, all my words do not apply)
: made the discriminatory requirements soley based on the facts that you are
: from other countries. The school is clearly wrong. And if the state law
: allows (or requires) your school to do so, the state law is clearly wrong.
: As international students, you are still entiled to the EQUAL PROTECTION
: right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to US Constitution. If st
|
f**********h
发帖数: 38 | 4 One thing I learned from law school is that if a sentence has words like "
clearly", and "obviouly" in it, there must be something that is unclear or
nonobvious.
Shameprof, I only intend this to be a friendly discussion. I do not practice
con law, and did poorly on that subject in law school. I would like to see
some clarification to help me understand the issue. So please don't think
otherwise. Thank you.
I just don't see how the school can be "clearly" wrong. You see there is no
fundamental |
s*******f
发帖数: 109 | 5 >I just don't see how the school can be "clearly" wrong. You see there is no
fundamental right to purchase insurance from a provider of one's choice.
You seem to imply that a statute or regulation is facially unconstitutional.
What's the language of the statute or regulation?
A: Equal Protection clause does not require that the right involved must be
fundamental (this is different from substantive Due Process). All my
analysis is based on the facts provided by the first post, I have no idea of
t |
f**********h
发帖数: 38 | 6 My apologies if my comment on "clearly" rubs you the wrong way.
However, you did not touch on the fact that the potential plaintiffs are non
-resident aliens. I imagine it would complicate things, wouldn't it? |
s*******f
发帖数: 109 | 7 Unlike the Immunity and Privilege Clause which does not apply to aliens, the
Equal Protection Clause applies to any aliens if the issue only involves
the state law or action. Federal law can squarely discrimiate against aliens if the law involve Immigartion Clause;; but state has no such power.
non
【在 f**********h 的大作中提到】
: My apologies if my comment on "clearly" rubs you the wrong way.
: However, you did not touch on the fact that the potential plaintiffs are non
: -resident aliens. I imagine it would complicate things, wouldn't it?
|
