| Author |
|
Jeremy Simington
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 April 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 4:27pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
ERIC DOYLE: I want basic services provided, but keep my taxes low and I'll find and decide my own health care.
First, a lot of us consider health care a basic service in that everyone needs and, in a country with the wealth & resource of the U.S., should receive. Congress sure thinks so, which is why they get a platinum-plated health care plan fully funded by US taxpayers.
Second, it's nice that you can decide on your own health care because you either have an employer that provides it or the financial stability to pay for your own. In 2010, there were 49.9 million Americans without health insurance, including 7.3 million children. Clearly, the "invisible hand" of capitalism and the private sector were failing them miserably. Agreed that the federal government screws up royally in some areas. However, it's disingenuous to suggest that there's no recourse when the government screws up as the recent events related to the VA have demonstrated. This is also a good time to mention that the most recent data shows that veterans are "highly satisfied" with the VA.
No doubt, it's a complex issue. A single-payer system would have many problems, but it seems to work pretty well for Congress and our veterans and rather than dismiss it due to emotional biases, we should take a rational, reasoned look at it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36361
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 5:07pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
And so it begins...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5732
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 6:02pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Cherry picking government problems doesn't mean they aren't a better solution than the crap for-profit health care we currently have.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5833
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 9:48am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
And so it begins...
Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT
Hiring Order
***
SER: This "redefinition" of "religious freedom" would
have allowed for slavery and continued segregation and,
well, every lousy human impulse that we use religion to
justify.
I've argued that humans aren't inherently bad. We have a
conscience that would otherwise prevent us from following
our worst instincts but we came up with religion to not
only justify those instincts but to praise them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Don Zomberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 November 2005
Posts: 2355
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
This is a helluva country. We make it as difficult as possible for a woman to get an abortion because we so value the sanctity of the unborn, while making it as easy as possible for Jethro to walk into a Wal mart, buy an Uzi, and carry it onto a playground any time he feels like it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1431
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 11:32am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I'm trying to understand what it is exactly that has so many of you upset; why it is that you're upset; and who it is that you're upset with. None of you are really making a focused argument. Some of you seem to be upset with Hobby Lobby, others, perhaps, with the Supreme Court; some of you seem to be upset with the First Amendment, while others seem to be upset with religion in general. Perhaps some of you are upset, to some degree or another, with all of the aforementioned. Why? What is it that strikes you as so absurd about the outcome of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius? What is it that has you so pissed? What is it about Monday's decision that takes us into the realm of a Christian Theocracy? What is wrong-headed about the decision? Why is it total b.s.? And why is it embarrassing?
Are you ultimately upset because the temporary head of the Executive branch of the Federal government signed (and currently enforces) a patently unconstitutional (and unpopular) piece of legislation passed by the 111th Congress, thus ensuring inevitable legal challenges that the Federal government could not win, and therefore risking a decision that carries the force of Supreme Court precedent and a wake that will likely reverberate beyond this one decision?
If that's the case, should you not be directing your ire toward the incompetent fascists who wrote, passed, and signed this toxic piece of legislation? This decision was inevitable, after all.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5732
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 11:53am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
"This decision" was 5-4, and will be overturned when the old men in the SCOTUS die and are replaced by more liberal women.
Again: the main problem is that some people have a totally unscientific opinion about birth control and are being allowed to force others to adhere to this opinion.
Birth control. Is an issue. In the 21st century.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1431
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 11:59am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
On what grounds will it be overturned?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14911
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 12:10pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
patently unconstitutional
-----
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Even in the Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. You do realize that the majority opinion conceded that HHS may have a compelling interest in enforcing the contraceptive mandate, but it was not in compliance with the RFRA, because the government had an even less restrictive option avalailable with the system they had for religious non-profits. Basically Alito and Kennedy said that the government shouldn't force "religious" businesses to pay for contraceptives because the government can pay for it with taxpayer money. I don't understand why conservatives would be celebrating over this decision. It's a black eye on Obamacare, but it pushes things in the direction of a single-payer system.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14911
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 12:13pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
As for why people are upset, it is a decision that burdens women's health for the sake of unscientific mythology. Why is that difficult to understand?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1431
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
They have yet to consider Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services. But that might be made a moot point if the law is first obliterated by Halbig v. Sebelius.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1431
|
| Posted: 03 July 2014 at 1:52pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Why is that difficult to understand?
If your characterization of the matter were accurate, it wouldn't be. Only if, however, the products in question were to be made unavailable by force of law would you have a point about a burden being forced upon women's health; and I would certainly join you in your outrage. But that isn't the case, and you've not only mischaracterized the matter as a burden, but you've also left out of consideration the aggrieved party(s) who, subordinate to the power of law, are forced to directly purchase a product-- against their will, against their judgement, and in direct conflict with their constitutionally recognized right to freely excercise their chosen religion --for the convenience of another human being.
Leave out entirely the religious aspect of the matter and I still find it inconceivable that anyone could not understand the celebration from the right. A victory for the individual over collective responsibility is a victory for liberty; this is what defines us, how would you not understand?
With all this said, however, how would you feel about, as a solution to what you perceive as a burden, the idea being pushed by several Republicans (most notably Bobby Jindal) that would allow for the deregulation of prescription birth control drugs, making them available for over-the-counter sale?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
