If Hobby Lobby wins...

[dblack]

If Hobby Lobby wins, the ACA is as good as toast, and that opens the door for a single-payer, public option healthcare reform bill.

Why do you think the HL case will have much impact? It seems a fairly fringe case.

And I'm still not seeing single payer percolating out of this mess. The entire thing is designed to avoid it - and I simply don't see Republicans touching it in any substantial way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the Right,

Liberty is the new Bigotry.

All of their longheld biases, prejudices - racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., etc., - and their desires to act on them,

all of that has been placed under a new banner of 'liberty', as if somehow attaching a favorable word to their bigotry makes it all good.

And you are dedicated to ending liberty, once and for all - as your entire party is.

 

[Ame®icano]

For the Right,

Liberty is the new Bigotry.

All of their longheld biases, prejudices - racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., etc., - and their desires to act on them,

all of that has been placed under a new banner of 'liberty', as if somehow attaching a favorable word to their bigotry makes it all good.

And you are dedicated to ending liberty, once and for all - as your entire party is.

Exactly.

 

[eflatminor]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work?

Your comparison is beyond ridiculous. You're saying that if a company is allowed to choose a particular health insurance program for its employees, who are free to participate in that program or not, that means they can FORCE those employees to pray?

Are you fucking retarded?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So if you want to deny that conservatives are constantly citing 'liberty', or 'freedom', as the basis for their claims of businesses' supposed rights to discriminate in the areas of service, or hiring, etc., go ahead.

You of the leftist democratic party are engaged in a active, hot war to crush civil liberty. We speak of freedom, because you are dedicated to taking freedom away. You are part of the anti-civil rights party, and seek to crush liberty at every turn, so naturally people will speak of liberty and you assault it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

For the Right,

Liberty is the new Bigotry.

All of their longheld biases, prejudices - racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., etc., - and their desires to act on them,

all of that has been placed under a new banner of 'liberty', as if somehow attaching a favorable word to their bigotry makes it all good.

And you are dedicated to ending liberty, once and for all - as your entire party is.

Exactly.

Nice graphic but it means nothing. I just left Costco a free man.

 

[manifold]

If Hobby Lobby wins, the ACA is as good as toast, and that opens the door for a single-payer, public option healthcare reform bill.

Why do you think the HL case will have much impact? It seems a fairly fringe case.

And I'm still not seeing single payer percolating out of this mess. The entire thing is designed to avoid it - and I simply don't see Republicans touching it in any substantial way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

 

[dblack]

If Hobby Lobby wins, the ACA is as good as toast, and that opens the door for a single-payer, public option healthcare reform bill.

Why do you think the HL case will have much impact? It seems a fairly fringe case.

And I'm still not seeing single payer percolating out of this mess. The entire thing is designed to avoid it - and I simply don't see Republicans touching it in any substantial way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

I honestly haven't been studying it closely, but I'd assume it depends on how they strike it down - assuming they do. If they simply give religious opposition an opt-out then, obviously, the mandate would hold for everyone else. Or they could simply strike down the contraceptive mandate as a line-item. But again, I'm not sure. I was asking hoping to learn something.

 

[manifold]

Why do you think the HL case will have much impact? It seems a fairly fringe case.

And I'm still not seeing single payer percolating out of this mess. The entire thing is designed to avoid it - and I simply don't see Republicans touching it in any substantial way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

I honestly haven't been studying it closely, but I'd assume it depends on how they strike it down - assuming they do. If they simply give religious opposition an opt-out then, obviously, the mandate would hold for everyone else. Or they could simply strike down the contraceptive mandate as a line-item. But again, I'm not sure. I was asking hoping to learn something.

I haven't been following it that closely either, but IMO granting religious opposition an opt-out would be the worst possible outcome. It should either be struck down for everyone, or upheld for everyone.

 

[eflatminor]

If Hobby Lobby wins, the ACA is as good as toast, and that opens the door for a single-payer, public option healthcare reform bill.

Why do you think the HL case will have much impact? It seems a fairly fringe case.

And I'm still not seeing single payer percolating out of this mess. The entire thing is designed to avoid it - and I simply don't see Republicans touching it in any substantial way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

Perhaps. Depends on the specifics of their ruling. However, that in NO WAY opens the door for single payer...not without a Constitutional amendment.

Good luck with that.

When the SC ruled the individual mandate was Constitutional by calling it a tax (despite the government's insistence it wasn't), they effectively drew a line in the sand saying to the government "You can't go there" under the commerce or general welfare clause. You can tax, but you can't run the market for healthcare. Of course, the people could overrule that finding with an amendment to the constitution, which ain't gonna happen.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If Hobby Lobby wins, the ACA is as good as toast, and that opens the door for a single-payer, public option healthcare reform bill.

Be careful what you wish for Republicans, and don't forget that Obamacare is directly modeled after the Heritage Foundation's recommendation from a couple decades ago.

Given how very popular Fascist Care is, there is little doubt the public will flock to a new scheme by you leftists...

 

[manifold]

Why do you think the HL case will have much impact? It seems a fairly fringe case.

And I'm still not seeing single payer percolating out of this mess. The entire thing is designed to avoid it - and I simply don't see Republicans touching it in any substantial way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

Perhaps. Depends on the specifics of their ruling. However, that in NO WAY opens the door for single payer...not without a Constitutional amendment.

Good luck with that.

When the SC ruled the individual mandate was Constitutional by calling it a tax (despite the government's insistence it wasn't), they effectively drew a line in the sand saying to the government "You can't go there" under the commerce or general welfare clause. You can tax, but you can't run the market for healthcare. Of course, the people could overrule that finding with an amendment to the constitution, which ain't gonna happen.

I don't follow your logic at all.

There would be nothing unconstitutional about raising taxes to expand medicare for everyone.

 

[eflatminor]

If Hobby Lobby wins, the ACA is as good as toast, and that opens the door for a single-payer, public option healthcare reform bill.

Be careful what you wish for Republicans, and don't forget that Obamacare is directly modeled after the Heritage Foundation's recommendation from a couple decades ago.

Given how very popular Fascist Care is, there is little doubt the public will flock to a new scheme by you leftists...

Exactly. When central planners make the problems they propose to solve worse...why the answer is more central planning!

Yea...pass.

 

[eflatminor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

Perhaps. Depends on the specifics of their ruling. However, that in NO WAY opens the door for single payer...not without a Constitutional amendment.

Good luck with that.

When the SC ruled the individual mandate was Constitutional by calling it a tax (despite the government's insistence it wasn't), they effectively drew a line in the sand saying to the government "You can't go there" under the commerce or general welfare clause. You can tax, but you can't run the market for healthcare. Of course, the people could overrule that finding with an amendment to the constitution, which ain't gonna happen.

I don't follow your logic at all.

There would be nothing unconstitutional about raising taxes to expand medicare for everyone.

Setting aside the shear stupidity of that idea, no, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to raise taxes (though that ain't gonna happen either) but it sure as shit would be unconstitutional to attempt to grant medicare to everyone. The SC's ruling made that crystal clear.

 

[KNB]

This case makes perfect sense. For-profit corporations are entitled to the same rights and privileges as a church.

Just as the Founders envisioned.

 

[manifold]

Setting aside the shear stupidity of that idea, no, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to raise taxes (though that ain't gonna happen either) but it sure as shit would be unconstitutional to attempt to grant medicare to everyone. The SC's ruling made that crystal clear.

Bullshit

The constitutionality of medicare (or anything) is not tied to it's magnitude. That's patently retarded, no offense.

 

[dblack]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

I honestly haven't been studying it closely, but I'd assume it depends on how they strike it down - assuming they do. If they simply give religious opposition an opt-out then, obviously, the mandate would hold for everyone else. Or they could simply strike down the contraceptive mandate as a line-item. But again, I'm not sure. I was asking hoping to learn something.

I haven't been following it that closely either, but IMO granting religious opposition an opt-out would be the worst possible outcome. It should either be struck down for everyone, or upheld for everyone.

Agreed.

 

[Redfish]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

I honestly haven't been studying it closely, but I'd assume it depends on how they strike it down - assuming they do. If they simply give religious opposition an opt-out then, obviously, the mandate would hold for everyone else. Or they could simply strike down the contraceptive mandate as a line-item. But again, I'm not sure. I was asking hoping to learn something.

I haven't been following it that closely either, but IMO granting religious opposition an opt-out would be the worst possible outcome. It should either be struck down for everyone, or upheld for everyone.

the only opt out they are asking for is providing abortion causing drugs.

Is obamacare only about free abortions? I certainly hope not.

 

[Redfish]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they win doesn't that effectively strike down the entire employer mandate portion of the law?

Perhaps. Depends on the specifics of their ruling. However, that in NO WAY opens the door for single payer...not without a Constitutional amendment.

Good luck with that.

When the SC ruled the individual mandate was Constitutional by calling it a tax (despite the government's insistence it wasn't), they effectively drew a line in the sand saying to the government "You can't go there" under the commerce or general welfare clause. You can tax, but you can't run the market for healthcare. Of course, the people could overrule that finding with an amendment to the constitution, which ain't gonna happen.

I don't follow your logic at all.

There would be nothing unconstitutional about raising taxes to expand medicare for everyone.

ask the brits and canadians how they like that.

 

[eflatminor]

Setting aside the shear stupidity of that idea, no, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to raise taxes (though that ain't gonna happen either) but it sure as shit would be unconstitutional to attempt to grant medicare to everyone. The SC's ruling made that crystal clear.

Bullshit

The constitutionality of medicare (or anything) is not tied to it's magnitude. That's patently retarded, no offense.

You ought to read the Obamacare ruling...lest you look retarded.

However, you are free to try to raise taxes and expand that ever-so-efficient medicare system to everyone. Good luck!