not be saved under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(2)(b)(A) to the extent is applied to self-funded plans, but nevertheless, "there is no reason to think Congress would have meant such minimal application to noninsurers to remove a state law entirely from the category of insurance regulation”). 24 . See Ky. Ass'n, 538 U.S. at 337-38, 123 S.Ct. 1471 (concluding that the any-willing-provider statute at issue regulated insurance and likening the statute to a state law requiring all licensed attorneys to participate in ten hours of continuing legal education, which, the Court said, would be a statute regulating the practice of law). 25 . Id. at 339, 123 S.Ct. 1471. 26 . See La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 40:2010 (2001). 27 . 498 U.S. 52, 55 n. 1, 111 S.Ct. 403, 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990). 28 . Id. at 61, 111 S.Ct. 403 (<HOLDING>). 29 . 542 U.S. 200, 217-18, 124 S.Ct. 2488,
holding that congress enacted section 365 to provide debtors the authority to reject executory contracts this authority preempts state law by virtue of the supremacy clause and the bankruptcy clause holding that the state statute returns the matter of subrogation to state law  ujnless the statute is excluded from the reach of the saving clause by virtue of the deemer clause holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes application of the saving statute to save a thra claim against the state in its capacity as an employer because the saving statute does not expressly apply to the state holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause