Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[Seawytch]

This cracks me up. It's a "horrible idea", and you're fine with forcing everyone into it. Dumb on top of dumb.

No, I'm not "fine with it", but I also don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I've found that life is a lot easier if you deal with the world as it is, not the way you'd like it to be.

There is still a lot to fix with our healthcare system. For me, the "perfect" would be Medicare for all, but that isn't going to happen in today's political climate. A nice "fix" to the ACA would be the inclusion of a Public Option on the Exchange. It would be easy to do, just put Medicare as an option for purchase which would also bolster Medicare by getting more young, healthy people paying for it.

Again, not possible in today's political climate.

The ACA is working as it was designed. It's not perfect, but it's doing good.

Right-------------the VA for all americans. Get on the list, you may get an appointment in 6 months--------if you live that long.

careful what you wish for, wytchey. Do you really think the govt can do anything efficiently?

No, Medicare for all Americans. Yes, I do believe that the government can do things efficiently and effectively...when people put in charge believe it can. When you elect teabaggers that don't believe in the government they are serving, you're creating a self fulfilling prophecy don't you think?

Do you know which two healthcare systems are consistently rated the highest for patient satisfaction? Can you guess?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I'm not "fine with it", but I also don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I've found that life is a lot easier if you deal with the world as it is, not the way you'd like it to be.

There is still a lot to fix with our healthcare system. For me, the "perfect" would be Medicare for all, but that isn't going to happen in today's political climate. A nice "fix" to the ACA would be the inclusion of a Public Option on the Exchange. It would be easy to do, just put Medicare as an option for purchase which would also bolster Medicare by getting more young, healthy people paying for it.

Again, not possible in today's political climate.

The ACA is working as it was designed. It's not perfect, but it's doing good.

Right-------------the VA for all americans. Get on the list, you may get an appointment in 6 months--------if you live that long.

careful what you wish for, wytchey. Do you really think the govt can do anything efficiently?

No, Medicare for all Americans. Yes, I do believe that the government can do things efficiently and effectively...when people put in charge believe it can. When you elect teabaggers that don't believe in the government they are serving, you're creating a self fulfilling prophecy don't you think?

Do you know which two healthcare systems are consistently rated the highest for patient satisfaction? Can you guess?

You believe that. You believe in the SF Giants. No surprise.
Medicare is bankrupt. The VA is a morass. If we have proven anything it is that government is incapable of efficiently doing anything.

 

[Seawytch]

You believe that. You believe in the SF Giants. No surprise.
Medicare is bankrupt. The VA is a morass. If we have proven anything it is that government is incapable of efficiently doing anything.

The problems with the VA have to do mostly with funding. Not enough doctors and staff for the patients the wars have wrought. It will get fixed.

Yes, I believe in the 46-36 SF Giants....also the 51-31 Oakland A's. Yeah, baby!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You believe that. You believe in the SF Giants. No surprise.
Medicare is bankrupt. The VA is a morass. If we have proven anything it is that government is incapable of efficiently doing anything.

The problems with the VA have to do mostly with funding. Not enough doctors and staff for the patients the wars have wrought. It will get fixed.

Yes, I believe in the 46-36 SF Giants....also the 51-31 Oakland A's. Yeah, baby!

What's the definition of insanity? The answer to a broken government bureaucracy is more government bureaucracy??

 

[Meister]

You believe that. You believe in the SF Giants. No surprise.
Medicare is bankrupt. The VA is a morass. If we have proven anything it is that government is incapable of efficiently doing anything.

The problems with the VA have to do mostly with funding. Not enough doctors and staff for the patients the wars have wrought. It will get fixed.

Yes, I believe in the 46-36 SF Giants....also the 51-31 Oakland A's. Yeah, baby!

Funding? Really? They had a surplus of funding.

 

[Meister]

No, I'm not "fine with it", but I also don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I've found that life is a lot easier if you deal with the world as it is, not the way you'd like it to be.

There is still a lot to fix with our healthcare system. For me, the "perfect" would be Medicare for all, but that isn't going to happen in today's political climate. A nice "fix" to the ACA would be the inclusion of a Public Option on the Exchange. It would be easy to do, just put Medicare as an option for purchase which would also bolster Medicare by getting more young, healthy people paying for it.

Again, not possible in today's political climate.

The ACA is working as it was designed. It's not perfect, but it's doing good.

Right-------------the VA for all americans. Get on the list, you may get an appointment in 6 months--------if you live that long.

careful what you wish for, wytchey. Do you really think the govt can do anything efficiently?

No, Medicare for all Americans. Yes, I do believe that the government can do things efficiently and effectively...when people put in charge believe it can. When you elect teabaggers that don't believe in the government they are serving, you're creating a self fulfilling prophecy don't you think?

Do you know which two healthcare systems are consistently rated the highest for patient satisfaction? Can you guess?

Just what gives you that belief that they can do it efficiently and effectively?
S/S? Medicare? Medicaid? Welfare?

If our government is so efficient and effective why are we 17 trillion in debt?

 

[hazlnut]

That's a profoundly terrible ruling.

No, the terrible ruling was the one that said the federal government could fine us for NOT buying a product.

You just want to take it for free at the Emergency Room.

Freeloader.

 

[Silhouette]

That's a profoundly terrible ruling.

No, the terrible ruling was the one that said the federal government could fine us for NOT buying a product.

You just want to take it for free at the Emergency Room.

Freeloader.

Easily remedied by creating universal healthcare which would siphon money from sales taxes on sugars, tobacco and booze to fund a pool along with small co-pays so that nobody would be a burden upon anyone else.

And businesses could use all that money freed up to hire more people. People currently paying the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage privately for insurance would instantly have that wad as disposable and would pump that immediately back into the economy and stimulate it even more...more jobs...and the upward spiral would begin...instead of the downward one we're in now..

And that trickles up to the rich classes.

 

[Meister]

No, the terrible ruling was the one that said the federal government could fine us for NOT buying a product.

You just want to take it for free at the Emergency Room.

Freeloader.

Easily remedied by creating universal healthcare which would siphon money from sales taxes on sugars, tobacco and booze to fund a pool along with small co-pays so that nobody would be a burden upon anyone else.

And businesses could use all that money freed up to hire more people. People currently paying the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage privately for insurance would instantly have that wad as disposable and would pump that immediately back into the economy and stimulate it even more...more jobs...and the upward spiral would begin...instead of the downward one we're in now..

And that trickles up to the rich classes.

That wouldn't be enough to fund UHS. Taxes would have to increase dramatically probably opening a door for a VAT. That would be the beginning of taxes going wild with our government in charge. Look at other countries and see how their taxes started small and just kept increasing. just sayin'

 

[PeoplePower]

I think this decision was a defeat for religious freedom.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You must blurt a lot.

Only when it's the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Coyote]

Have to see what the scope of the ruling is

On the surface, it can go well beyond birth control

It makes me wonder. Suppose they have a religious objection to homsexuality. Can they refuse to cover drugs to treat aids?

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

 

[Coyote]

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous.

Doesn't matter

Why can't Hobby Lobby refuse to cover drugs that treat AIDS? They can have religious convictions against sexually transmitted disease

What if they firmly believe AIDS is gods punishment?

Sounds like it would have to go to the SC again, because this ruling wouldn't begin to cover that.

Perhaps...the decision seems to be attempting to make the scope very narrow, but what often happens is it can set a precedent for widening that scope further.

 

[Spoonman]

It makes me wonder. Suppose they have a religious objection to homsexuality. Can they refuse to cover drugs to treat aids?

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

or someone from coming in carrying a gun and refusing them service. oh wait, they already do that and people are fine with it.

 

[Coyote]

...which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision...

 

[Ibentoken]

It makes me wonder. Suppose they have a religious objection to homsexuality. Can they refuse to cover drugs to treat aids?

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

It makes me wonder. Suppose they have a religious objection to homsexuality. Can they refuse to cover drugs to treat aids?

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Stop implying that IUDs are the only effective treatment for severe PMS, and other causes.. Birth control pills are routinely used for that also.. ANY OF THOSE choices are readily available and for FREE @ Planned Parenthood Clinics as well as The Dept. Of Health, Social Services.. Get off of your lazy liberal asses and go get it.. otherwise STFU. Planned Parenthood gets HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of the taxpayers dollars.

 

[Spoonman]

...which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision...

but if we are going to be basing an argument on someones rights being infringed we best keep all rights in mind.

 

[Ibentoken]

...which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision...

but if we are going to be basing an argument on someones rights being infringed we best keep all rights in mind.

This case is about religious rights. Period.

 

[dblack]

...which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision...

but if we are going to be basing an argument on someones rights being infringed we best keep all rights in mind.

This case is about religious rights. Period.

Rights are universal. This decision merely grants special privilege, extended only to people who hold government approved religious beliefs. If an employer, for example, refused to offer contraception coverage because they thought it was a stupid way to compensate employment, they'd be denied their right to make that decision. Or, if an employer maintained religious views that the government found specious or without sufficient tradition or gravitas, they'd also be denied their rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, guess its time to start my own religion and claim that religious freedom allows my business to ignore laws.

[MENTION=29956]Wacky Quacky[/MENTION]
Many corporations have been set up for bypassing laws.

In this case, had the politicians listened and respected INDIVIDUAL citizens who argued about religious liberty,
violated by ACA, it would not take a "large corporation with legal resources" to sue to make that argument in court.

This same argument was and has always been made in the public sector
by individuals like me and others here
OPPOSING ACA and insurance mandates as violating "religious freedom."

If supporters had respected religious liberty and freedom of choice
without relying on GOVT to decide that, it would never have to go to court
because it would never have passed as a law through Congress with those flaws in it.