Sandra Fluke's Testimony - Here it is. Watch so you will not look like such a fool~

[The T]

Actually, the Bill of Rights are absolute when another law that is NOT an inherent right infringes on it. Being supreme and all that.

I am sure there are a plethora of 'laws' out there that infringe on the BOR...it's just the laws haven't been challanged, and accepted as normal. This is where tyranny gets a foothold, and Liberty begins to dwindle.

This one WILL be challenged and the Church has the means and power to do so.

And, when the SCOTUS rules that a POTUS' pet law is unconstitutional, I can't imagine that is a positive. I hope the briefs are already written and ready to be filed with the SCOTUS.

Obama had no right to demand the Church do anything, nor did he in his backpeddling demand the Insurance companies had to.

You may bet that the SCOTUS is watching and listening to the backlash on this since ObamaCare is due for a decision come June of this year.

It doesn't look promising for Obama at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I doubt it.

You'd doubt the nose on your face if it said something that even slightly disagreed with you on anything.

On the other hand, I am sure they like charging people $10 bucks for what they can get at WalMart for $4. So, please, keep insisting they cover bandages, it only makes my point.

With the thoughts that you'd be thinking you could be another Lincoln if you only had a brain.

Walmart has prescription drugs for $4 a month or $10 for a 90 day supply. Do you think that would be affordable to most people, even students, or do you want to keep pretending you are smarter than other people by not answering questions? DO you think it makes more sense to pay an insurer 20 bucks a month to cover contraception than go to Walmart and get a 6 month supply for what you pay for a single month through the insurance company?

 

[Si modo]

I doubt it.

You'd doubt the nose on your face if it said something that even slightly disagreed with you on anything.

On the other hand, I am sure they like charging people $10 bucks for what they can get at WalMart for $4. So, please, keep insisting they cover bandages, it only makes my point.

With the thoughts that you'd be thinking you could be another Lincoln if you only had a brain.

Walmart has prescription drugs for $4 a month or $10 for a 90 day supply. Do you think that would be affordable to most people, even students, or do you want to keep pretending you are smarter than other people by not answering questions? DO you think it makes more sense to pay an insurer 20 bucks a month to cover contraception than go to Walmart and get a 6 month supply for what you pay for a single month through the insurance company?

Even though I have prescription coverage, if I can, I go to Walmart because it often ends up being cheaper than my co-pay, especially when the prescription drug is already in the generic pool.

 

[The T]

I doubt it.

You'd doubt the nose on your face if it said something that even slightly disagreed with you on anything.

On the other hand, I am sure they like charging people $10 bucks for what they can get at WalMart for $4. So, please, keep insisting they cover bandages, it only makes my point.

With the thoughts that you'd be thinking you could be another Lincoln if you only had a brain.

Walmart has prescription drugs for $4 a month or $10 for a 90 day supply. Do you think that would be affordable to most people, even students, or do you want to keep pretending you are smarter than other people by not answering questions? DO you think it makes more sense to pay an insurer 20 bucks a month to cover contraception than go to Walmart and get a 6 month supply for what you pay for a single month through the insurance company?

Any wonder the left loathes Walmart (other than the fact they refuse to unionize)?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's completely true. I understand that you don't have the first clue about this stuff. But that doesn't make it untrue. You're better not to wade into these waters. You don't know how any of this works. You haven't the first idea.

If I don't have the first idea why are you agreeing with me?

Oh, so things just got bad? Where have you been? The problems have been there for a very long time.

Never said they don't, and they are all a result of the same thing, government interference in the market. Instead of simply making sure that insurance companies actually have enough assets on hand to meet the potential demand and actually honor the policies they write, a perfectly reasonable use of government oversight, they started mandating that insurers cover all sorts of things as a result of contracts they negotiated with unions. That drove up the cost of medical care, and every ignorant idiot in the world wants to blame the insurance companies for that.

Yet, somehow, I am the one that doesn't know how things work.

Why can't you simply be honest about what people are saying, instead of misrepresenting their statements just so you can tear down the straw man? How about you address what I actually said, which is the fact that the insurance companies pay THEMSELVES for your health care, more than they pay to the doctor. If your policy covers $20,000 in health services, you'll only receive about $6,667 in services before they cut you off. It's like going to the grocery store to buy a gallon of milk, and the store taking back 2/3 of the gallon after you've paid for it. No wonder it's so damn expensive anymore.

Excuse me? Didn't I predict that the next thing you would be telling me is that insurance companies make money?

Funny thing, I have never had an insurance policy that cut me off before I reached there limit. Not once in my entire life. Not only that, I have never actually met anyone who has ever had that problem, yet people keep telling me it happens, and trot out stories about a friend of a friend who knows someone who met a guy who had a brother it happened to. In other words, you are full crap.

In the grand scheme of things, the amount of patients who either pay cash or are seen by a doctor free of charge is a miniscule minority. And these patients end up having limitations on the total care they can receive. Now, if we move on and actually address what I said, most patients will not have their health care needs met by a singular doctor. There will be times when their primary care physician needs to refer them to a specialist.

In the grand scheme of things the number of patients who have their insurance companies cut them off before they reach the limit of their insurance is a infinitesimal fraction of the number of people who pay cash, yet you have no trouble trotting out your lie in order to justify your position. The difference here is I was mocking your position that, if a doctor refuses to accept insurance, he does not exist, while you are trying to argue insurance companies are evil corporations because they do things that never happen.

Which one of us desperate?

Why does that matter? Well, I've already explained it, but I'll try one more time with a slightly different example. Let's say that you have catastrophic coverage, and you pay for primary care out of pocket. Your primary care doctor refers you to a specialist because you've developed an odd grown somewhere on your body. The specialist diagnoses you with cancer, and prescribes a treatment regimen, which is going to end up costing $100,000. But guess what? You think that your catastrophic coverage is going to cover it? Nope! You know why? Because the referral didn't come from a doctor that the insurance company does business with. So, they're going to reject your claim, and make you pay out of pocket for EVERYTHING. And if you try to go back to a different doctor to get the initial referral, do you know what they are going to say? They're going to REJECT your claim, as a pre-existing condition! Because now they have evidence that you knew you had cancer before you ever sought treatment.

Really? Catastrophic coverage covers all medical expenses over a certain amount, and has no restrictions on your primary care doctor or the specialists. The reason for that is rather simple, it is not an HMO.

Want to explain it again, because you are making even less sense now that you did before.

This is how the insurance companies essentially force doctors to do business with them. Because under such limitations a doctor cannot sustain his business. Would you go to a primary care doctor, if that's what was going to happen to you if you ever became seriously sick or injured? Of course not.

I know plenty of doctors that accept some plans, but not others. If the world worked the you claim they would all go out of business because they don't accept The A;might Conglomerate That Controls The Universe plan. Care to explain how that works, or does the fact that people have choices escape your notice again?

When have I ever said anything against people making profit? Point out one time. OTHERWISE SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH THAT I NEVER SAID, PAINTING ME WITH A FONT 7 SIZED BRUSH TO COMPLETELY TWIST AND MANIPULATE MY WORDS INTO SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT.

What was that? I have trouble reading little letters.

As to you having a problem with people making profits, didn't you just totally misrepresent how insurance companies make profits?

This is your favorite M.O. isn't it?

Mocking idiotic statements? Pretty much, does it bother you? One solution would be to stop making idiotic statements.

Actually, we've had this discussion already several times. The number one drag on the office's resources is THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. I see you've completely ignored how she spent nearly 48 hours just battling with them over one patient, who nearly died in the process. Medicare has nothing to do with this discussion.

She doesn't have to fill out all the Medicare compliant paperwork? They must farm it out to a claims specialist, how much does that run them?

By the way, I call bullshit on the story you just posted. Doctors treat patients first, then worry about insurance, especially if the problem is life threatening. Matter of fact, I am pretty sure there is a law that actually requires them to treat anything that is life threatening regardless of ability to pay.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And, there is no obligation that Georgetown accept her.

They did, and she accepted the terms.

So, that makes it somehow inappropriate for her to advocate for improvements in public policy? I don't get this "they don't have to, they don't have to" argument. No shit they don't have to. Nobody has said they do. Nobody has said that anyone has been denied something that the school is required to allow. The question is whether public policy is adequate, whether upcoming changes to public policy provide a benefit to the public.

Private insurance coverage is not public policy. That might explain your confusion though, tell me something, is the amount of money in your bank account also public policy? Can the government require people to have a savings account with a minimum balance on the threat of prison because some economist gets up and argues that people need to save money for the good of all?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm wondering where I said it was inappropriate.

That seems to be your implication. If it's not, then I'm confused. Are you saying that she should not have gone to Georgetown? I'm not sure what, exactly, your objection is here.

Actually, I am saying that the administration should respect the First Amendment. It's a higher law than Obamacare.

First of all, Congress passes laws, not the President. Second, the first amendment isn't being violated by the law. The only violation of the first amendment would be for religious entities to be given a magical exception to the law. The health care law is a law of general applicability, that does not have anything to do with any inherently religious activities. How can it be a violation of the first amendment?

There you go again. Have you actually explained why a school was given an exemption to the ADA because they claimed to be religious? Or are you still ignoring the fact that your position contradicts SCOTUS unanimous ruling?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nino put it well: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/207948-justice-scalia-does-not-agree.html

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

Yet he agreed with everyone else in Hosana Tabor v EEOC. Imagine that, you are wrong.

 

[The T]

You'd doubt the nose on your face if it said something that even slightly disagreed with you on anything.

With the thoughts that you'd be thinking you could be another Lincoln if you only had a brain.

Walmart has prescription drugs for $4 a month or $10 for a 90 day supply. Do you think that would be affordable to most people, even students, or do you want to keep pretending you are smarter than other people by not answering questions? DO you think it makes more sense to pay an insurer 20 bucks a month to cover contraception than go to Walmart and get a 6 month supply for what you pay for a single month through the insurance company?

Even though I have prescription coverage, if I can, I go to Walmart because it often ends up being cheaper than my co-pay, especially when the prescription drug is already in the generic pool.

You show that all people have to do is shed a little bit of shoe leather and find places where they get good deals. Not good enough for many on the left...only Government intrusion, dictating from on high will do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And, the Church is free to PRACTICE that belief.

So says the First Amendment an so affirms the SCOTUS.

Again, the first amendment does not create a carte blanche by which claims of religious practice can excuse anything whatsoever, or shield individuals or organizations from applicability from the law. And THAT is what the SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed. Did you read Scalia's opinion in Smith that I linked?

Did you know about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which requires the federal government to give wide latitude to religious freedom and specifically overturns the decision you cited? Are you aware that the court has held this law to be both constitutional and applicable to the federal government? Can you explain how you can fit a federal mandate that requires religious institutions to provide birth control into the RFRA? Are you going to continue to ignore questions that will force you to actually admit you are wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny thing is, I wasn't the one who said anything about carte blanche. You did.

What you're advocating comes down to making the first amendment a carte blanche. Please don't play word games here. Tomato/tomato, the rose will still prick you hand and draw blood.



Yes, we have already established that fact. However, what you are talking about is NOT part of the first amendment.

I've read Scalia's and several other opinions on this. There can be no law concerning a neutral issue that prohibits a religious organization or person from practicing their religious beliefs.

The Smith case was NOT about a neutral law. I suggest you read it and the citations therein.

Uh, yes it was about a neutral law. And that is why the appeal was lost. Smith tried to claim an exception to a neutral law, based on religious freedom. His arguments were rejected by the court.

Oh? So now the First Amendment is NOT about the free practice of religion.

And, my bad, I meant THIS is not a neutral law.

Doesn't matter if it is a neutral law, Smith is not the proper decision to examine federal law, it applies only to states that do not have additional protections for religion in their constitutions. Federal law actually has to meet a strict scrutiny test as outlined in Smith.

The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:


For the individual, the court must determine

• whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
• whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

• that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and
• that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

Sherbert v. Verner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can safely ignore Inthemiddle's misguided rants about Smith, keep hitting him with Sherbert instead, and ask him how the government can justify mandating religions cover health insurance as the least restrictive, or least burdensome, option available.

Don't actually expect an answer, but feel free to hammer him over the head with the way the law really works.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You'd doubt the nose on your face if it said something that even slightly disagreed with you on anything.

With the thoughts that you'd be thinking you could be another Lincoln if you only had a brain.

Walmart has prescription drugs for $4 a month or $10 for a 90 day supply. Do you think that would be affordable to most people, even students, or do you want to keep pretending you are smarter than other people by not answering questions? DO you think it makes more sense to pay an insurer 20 bucks a month to cover contraception than go to Walmart and get a 6 month supply for what you pay for a single month through the insurance company?

Any wonder the left loathes Walmart (other than the fact they refuse to unionize)?

I think mostly because they save people tons of money, making them less dependent on the government for handouts.

 

[Dr Grump]

Sure it does. The Church is vehemently opposed to BC because of their beliefs. Obamacare requires that they provide HC insurance which includes BC - that is against the beliefs of the Church.

The church is still free to believe that birth control is a sin. They are free to teach that. They are free to pray, to make the sign of the cross, or not. And individuals remain free to either use birth control or not. But the position you are taking would require that the first amendment be seen as an absolute right that creates a carte blanche for a person or organization to claim exception from any law whatsoever, by merely claiming religious scruples. That is not what the first amendment is about, it's not what the founders intended, it's not what the courts have ever recognized as being the nature of religious freedom. What you are looking for is, in fact, NOT part of the constitution.

And, the Church is free to PRACTICE that belief.

So says the First Amendment an so affirms the SCOTUS.

So if my religious belief is to urinate in public to my god of choice, I'm covered by the First Amendment? Cool..

 

[Seawytch]

A comprehensive public option would end the entire discussion.

 

[Seawytch]

The church is still free to believe that birth control is a sin. They are free to teach that. They are free to pray, to make the sign of the cross, or not. And individuals remain free to either use birth control or not. But the position you are taking would require that the first amendment be seen as an absolute right that creates a carte blanche for a person or organization to claim exception from any law whatsoever, by merely claiming religious scruples. That is not what the first amendment is about, it's not what the founders intended, it's not what the courts have ever recognized as being the nature of religious freedom. What you are looking for is, in fact, NOT part of the constitution.

And, the Church is free to PRACTICE that belief.

So says the First Amendment an so affirms the SCOTUS.

So if my religious belief is to urinate in public to my god of choice, I'm covered by the First Amendment? Cool..

Yeah...just imagine what other workplace laws we could get around by saying it goes against your religious beliefs.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Actually, the Bill of Rights are absolute when another law that is NOT an inherent right infringes on it. Being supreme and all that.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate this cordial discussion. All too often on this board people are unable to discuss things where they disagree, without it turning sour.

As for the Bill of Rights being absolute, that's simply untrue. I think you're confusing supremacy of law with absoluteness. In terms of rights, they are said to be absolute or not (actually, they are consistently said to be not absolute) in regards to what degree they may be limited. No right is absolute, not even the right to life. The government has the power to deprive you of even your life, under certain circumstances, hence why the death penalty is legal. The rights enshrined in the BOR are indeed limited, and centuries of case law have done a great deal to help outline what is and is not contained in those limits. This is why it is illegal to threaten the President, and why we have laws regarding libel and slander, why polygamy is illegal, etc. Because freedom of speech and religion are not absolute.

Supremacy is a different concept entirely, and deals with the hierarchy of differing levels of government. The laws of the United States are supreme to the laws of the states themselves. The constitution is supreme to the acts of the Congress. Supremacy of the constitution over acts of Congress does not create absoluteness in the rights the constitution protects.

The constitution guarantees certain rights, but does not guarantee them absolutely. That was never the intention of the framers. Inherent in the most stringent standard of judicial review of constitutionality of a law, strict scrutiny, is the understanding that government action can and will at times infringe upon rights. The constitutionality is not determined based on an infringement of a constitutional right, but whether the infringement is 1) justified by a compelling government interest, 2) narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal, and 3) the least restrictive means possible to accomplish that goal. Nowhere in all of the history of our country has the judiciary ever interpreted the constitution to guarantee absolute rights.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I am sure there are a plethora of 'laws' out there that infringe on the BOR...it's just the laws haven't been challanged, and accepted as normal. This is where tyranny gets a foothold, and Liberty begins to dwindle.

The constitution does not protect rights absolutely from any infringement whatsoever. That is why slander and libel laws are constitutional. And why it is permissible for the government to act against you for threatening the President. And why the the government can outlaw polygamy and gay marriage. Creating reasonable laws for an orderly society is not tyranny. Saying so is just foolishness.

 

[Si modo]

Actually, the Bill of Rights are absolute when another law that is NOT an inherent right infringes on it. Being supreme and all that.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate this cordial discussion. All too often on this board people are unable to discuss things where they disagree, without it turning sour.

As for the Bill of Rights being absolute, that's simply untrue. I think you're confusing supremacy of law with absoluteness. In terms of rights, they are said to be absolute or not (actually, they are consistently said to be not absolute) in regards to what degree they may be limited. No right is absolute, not even the right to life. The government has the power to deprive you of even your life, under certain circumstances, hence why the death penalty is legal. The rights enshrined in the BOR are indeed limited, and centuries of case law have done a great deal to help outline what is and is not contained in those limits. This is why it is illegal to threaten the President, and why we have laws regarding libel and slander, why polygamy is illegal, etc. Because freedom of speech and religion are not absolute.

Supremacy is a different concept entirely, and deals with the hierarchy of differing levels of government. The laws of the United States are supreme to the laws of the states themselves. The constitution is supreme to the acts of the Congress. Supremacy of the constitution over acts of Congress does not create absoluteness in the rights the constitution protects.

The constitution guarantees certain rights, but does not guarantee them absolutely. That was never the intention of the framers. Inherent in the most stringent standard of judicial review of constitutionality of a law, strict scrutiny, is the understanding that government action can and will at times infringe upon rights. The constitutionality is not determined based on an infringement of a constitutional right, but whether the infringement is 1) justified by a compelling government interest, 2) narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal, and 3) the least restrictive means possible to accomplish that goal. Nowhere in all of the history of our country has the judiciary ever interpreted the constitution to guarantee absolute rights.

Ah, I see your distinction.

Regardless, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled in favor of protection of First Amendment rights.

You and I disagree on this. I am a huge proponent of First Amendment rights because I am of the belief that without that few other inherent rights are possible.

So, if Obama really pushes this, he will lose a lot of Catholic support (and they supported him), but he will also lose a lot of us who value the Constitution. Not saying you don't, but I am baffled at how so many are willing to budge so willingly on these rights.

If Obama goes for this, this WILL be challenged. Hopefully, Congress will come to their senses and fix it. They should.

They all took an oath to defend the Constitution. All of them - defend above any party or any election.

 

[code1211]

In other words, after a well thought out statement, you aren't able to come up with anything better to rebuke her position. So, you'll just write it off, calling it "stupid," which gives you an excuse to ignore it outright an refuse to address it, while continuing to inspect your own prostate up close for its own cysts.

Her statement did seem to be well thought out, but, seriously, she wants something that she wants. Does she also want a Mercedes Benz? If she can't afford one, am I also obliged to get one of those for her?

I have no problem at all with her exercising right to have whatever birth control she needs for whatever end she chooses.

I also have no problem with allowing her to exercise her responsibility to pay for the stuff.

Why in the world should she think that I need to pay for her birth control. What's in it for me?

Again, you find it very palatable for people to be MANDATED to PURCHASE an insurance policy that promotes a religious agenda! Keen!

Where in this statement or in any statement did I say that?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Regardless, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled in favor of protection of First Amendment rights.

Of course they have. That's their job. But they have also maintained that first amendment rights are indeed limited, and that many claims are not entitled to first amendment protections.

You and I disagree on this. I am a huge proponent of First Amendment rights because I am of the belief that without that few other inherent rights are possible.

So, if Obama really pushes this, he will lose a lot of Catholic support (and they supported him), but he will also lose a lot of us who value the Constitution. Not saying you don't, but I am baffled at how so many are willing to budge so willingly on these rights.

Personally, it's just that I subscribe to Scalia's arguments, as described in Smith, and those in all the other previous cases, about the limits of the first amendment. I don't think that acknowledging limits on freedoms means that one is in any way less of a proponent of those freedoms. I'm also a strong proponent of gun ownership rights and firmly support responsible gun ownership. But I don't object to the limits on those rights that allow states to regulate gun ownership, either, so long as those regulations don't encroach on as much of that right as the constitution does protect.

If Obama goes for this, this WILL be challenged. Hopefully, Congress will come to their senses and fix it. They should.

The health care law is already signed, and is already being challenged. Personally, I do not support the law. I wish it had not been passed, and I would like to see it repealed. But it's not going to happen though the courts. And I have no interest in seeing the Congress craft law that pacifies one religious group over another.