What is more "immoral": Free choice in Abortion or free choice in Health Care?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

False dilemma fallacy, Emily.

Is this better wording JakeStarkey

(A) how is that if free choice is threatened with govt mandates because of prolife arguments,
that is considered "violating church and state" and imposing beliefs about aboriton
on the FREE CHOICE of individuals who should not be under govt mandates restricting FREE CHOICE.

This is because women are to be trusted and not penalized for the choice of abortion.

(B) but when it comes to paying and providing for health care,
suddenly the idea of "free choice" is NOT to be trusted to the public.
The GOVT and federal mandates on health insurance
is the "only way" to ensure that people will have access to affordable health care.
This is SO IMPORTANT it necessitate imposing a mandate that penalizes all citizens
unless we COMPLY and lose our freedom whether or when to buy health insurance.

The need for health care OVERRIDES any other possible choice for providing it.

Why is B argued as necessary, even at the expense of freedom of choice,
but in the case of A, it is more important to defend free choice, even if it means choosing abortion.

How is choosing abortion not to be restricted regulated or penalized by govt,
but choosing to pay for health care other ways besides insurance is penalized?

Why isn't the freedom of choice of individuals respected equally in both cases?

It's still a false dilemma fallacy, regardless its wording.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why does the left kid themselves into thinking that the U.S. Supreme Court is just another stop in the litigation procedure? The Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of laws.

According to their interpretation of the Constitution. But, the Constitution doesn't cover everything.

The Constitution does indeed "cover everything". It's a shame that the Bill of Rights sometimes get's in the way of left wing progressive agenda but that's the way it goes and you have to accept it.

Actually the Bill of Rights safeguards citizens' civil rights from you and most other conservatives hostile to diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty, and your efforts to disadvantage through force of law those whom you fear, such as gay Americans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“Why isn't the freedom of choice of individuals respected equally in both cases?”

They are.

A woman is free to decide whether to have a child or not, and all Americans are free to decide whether to have health insurance or not.

This has been explained to you countless times in scores of similar threads – yet you exercise your choice to remain willfully ignorant and propagate the ridiculous lie that Americans are 'forced' have health insurance, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[occupied]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Hi G.T. and occupied
How would you reword the question to compare these two choices:

(A) federal govt mandates, regulations or penalties on the choice of abortion
versus on the choice of whether or not to buy insurance or to rely on federal exchanges and subsidies
instead of allowing INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to fund health care through OTHER means besides federal programs

(B) or if you want to stick to the Subsidies question:
How about comparing the right NOT to fund abortion if THAT is "against someone's beliefs"
with the right NOT to fund health care through federal govt if THAT is "against someone's beliefs"

In both the case of abortion and with health care,
why can't individuals have the freedom to fund their own programs FREE of govt mandates on these choices.

Why this insistence on going through GOVT to make decisions on health care,
especially when this is REJECTED to go through courts or legislatures to make decisions about abortion
that is argued as a personal private choice between people and their doctors.
So why isn't health care open to free choice in how to pay for and provide this
and not REQUIRED to go through federal mandates as the ONLY CHOICE in how to manage health care.

On abortion it seems you want the government to police women's wombs and deny them a choice.

On health care you want the government to let people suffer illness simply because they lack the income to afford medical care.

These seemingly contradictory issues can be tied together, you didn't do it so allow me.

Both your opinions involve making people powerless in the face of unwanted pregnancy or unforeseen illness. Both involve forcing people into enduring a horrible situation. Both are known pathways to life-long poverty or worse. Both end up costing the country more money.

You want to talk morality? Is not the choice that causes the least prolonged misery the moral choice?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Why does the left kid themselves into thinking that the U.S. Supreme Court is just another stop in the litigation procedure? The Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of laws.

According to their interpretation of the Constitution. But, the Constitution doesn't cover everything.

The Constitution does indeed "cover everything". It's a shame that the Bill of Rights sometimes get's in the way of left wing progressive agenda but that's the way it goes and you have to accept it.

I disagree. The Constitution does not cover everything. The Constitution does not cover mandated health care, prosecution under circumstantial evidence cases, police brutality, unfair, unjust and unequal taxation, unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies, polluting the air, river, streams, lakes, and oceans, exploring the far reaches of the universe, looking for water in the surface of Mars, subsidizing Wall Street and big oil, senseless deadly costly wars, the off-shore out-sourcing of jobs, the care of the elderly, the care of our Vets, no-bid government contracts, the care and support of illegal immigrants, campaign financing, and many other issues.

If you disagree, please show me exactly where in the Constitution all of the above mentioned are covered. Thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, the comparison of ACA mandates and a women's right to reproductive control of their lives are a fallacy of kind not degree.

 

[G.T.]

Emily lost her fucking shit a long time ago.

 

[The Irish Ram]

There's nothing immoral about having "free choice."

You are right. You can choose birth control, condoms or God forbid, abstinence.

Nutley I don't know where the illegal alien crap came from but no. My family has been here since the late 1600's.
Did you know Obama just decided to take the IRS tax credits and throw them at his fake healthcare scam?
When the Obomb handed his health care extravaganza off to the CBO to crunch the numbers, they said, "But where are the numbers?" He said we'll fill 'em in later. The only way he's going to keep this charade going is to tax us to death.

 

[emilynghiem]

WHOA WHOA WHOA CAMEL WHOA!!!

NO, occupied I am prochoice about both abortion AND this health care mandate stuff.
I am saying the policy of defending free choice is NOT consistent in both cases.

If people have different beliefs, govt policy cannot be based on one person/group's beliefs imposed on others! That should be true for both "right to life" AND 'right to health' and NOT impose on people's free choice who believe otherwise. Why is "right to health" being
imposed through govt against people's free choice, but "right to life" is slammed for violating Constitutional freedoms if that is imposed through govt. Why allow one to be imposed if they are both faith-based beliefs that are NOT shared by the public, how is this constitutional to impose?

That's why I am so at odds with this health care mandate that punishes people over the choice of providing for health care by REQUIRING the purchase of insurance.

That's anti-choice to punish people for wanting to CHOOSE other ways to pay for health care.

So it makes NO SENSE to me that on one hand
the prochoice advocates demand free choice, and with NO PENALTIES on the choice of abortion,
but then TURN AROUND and hand over choice of buying insurance to federal mandates to fine people if they don't.

The same people who wouldn't fine or penalize the choice of abortion are FINING and PENALIZING the choice of buying insurance? WHY?

Insurance is NOT the only way to cover health care.
in fact, it DOES NOT build facilities or train doctors, nurses or health care providers; Insurance does not help with preventing diseases or cutting the NEED for treatment.

Yet this "choice" is being REQUIRED as the only way to pay for health care to avoid a FINE from federal govt.

occupied can we start this conversation there

How is the ACA mandates "prochoice" if they impose tax penalties so people no longer have free choice in how to pay for health care.

isn't that ANTI CHOICE by forcing govt mandates on all citizens under tax penalties costs 1, 2 % and up of people's salaries each year.

If you wouldn't fine the choice of abortion
why are we fining the choice of buying insurance
when that doesn't cover all people, all costs or cases,
and is not the only way to provide health care. Since we still need OTHER means of providing health care to cover the rest, why are we FINING those other ways?

When these are required anyway?
That's like saying if people need to drive cars anyway,
and buses are not going to cover all the transportation,
they WHY fine people for wanting to drive cars instead of taking the bus? Why abuse tax penalties to force everyone to purchase bus service if there are other means that serve them better? Why not let people keep their free choice, why this need to control and manage it through federal govt to the point of penalizing people's choices?

======================================

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Hi G.T. and occupied
How would you reword the question to compare these two choices:

(A) federal govt mandates, regulations or penalties on the choice of abortion
versus on the choice of whether or not to buy insurance or to rely on federal exchanges and subsidies
instead of allowing INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to fund health care through OTHER means besides federal programs

(B) or if you want to stick to the Subsidies question:
How about comparing the right NOT to fund abortion if THAT is "against someone's beliefs"
with the right NOT to fund health care through federal govt if THAT is "against someone's beliefs"

In both the case of abortion and with health care,
why can't individuals have the freedom to fund their own programs FREE of govt mandates on these choices.

Why this insistence on going through GOVT to make decisions on health care,
especially when this is REJECTED to go through courts or legislatures to make decisions about abortion
that is argued as a personal private choice between people and their doctors.
So why isn't health care open to free choice in how to pay for and provide this
and not REQUIRED to go through federal mandates as the ONLY CHOICE in how to manage health care.

On abortion it seems you want the government to police women's wombs and deny them a choice.

On health care you want the government to let people suffer illness simply because they lack the income to afford medical care.

These seemingly contradictory issues can be tied together, you didn't do it so allow me.

Both your opinions involve making people powerless in the face of unwanted pregnancy or unforeseen illness. Both involve forcing people into enduring a horrible situation. Both are known pathways to life-long poverty or worse. Both end up costing the country more money.

You want to talk morality? Is not the choice that causes the least prolonged misery the moral choice?

 

[emilynghiem]

The Constitution does indeed "cover everything". It's a shame that the Bill of Rights sometimes get's in the way of left wing progressive agenda but that's the way it goes and you have to accept it.
--------------
Actually the Bill of Rights safeguards citizens' civil rights from you and most other conservatives hostile to diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty, and your efforts to disadvantage through force of law those whom you fear, such as gay Americans.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
And how are the federal mandates REQUIRING buying insurance "as the ONLY way to pay for health care" or else face penalties, respecting individual liberty, diversity of beliefs, and free choice?

Why is the belief in health care as a right through govt
allowed to be mandated for the entire nation, and exclude all other beliefs and traditions about providing health care other ways besides going through federal govt. How is this not imposing "one way" or "one belief" and penalizing any other creed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Sonny Clark

One's faith can not, and does not trump common sense issues, and basic moral and ethical principles.

^ Why doesn't this statement about "one's faith" apply to your faith that health care is a right that must require federal mandates.

This is faith based, many people do not believe that this is either required for federal govt, or that it is authorized!

Since this is an expression of beliefs, why doesn't your statement apply to it?

Do you make exceptions if you happen to share that belief?

So if you AGREE with a faith-based belief, then it's OKAY to impose it unconstitutionally and PENALIZE people of other creeds who are discriminated against by this bill.

Just because you happen to AGREE with that belief?
And only if you DISAGREE with a belief, then it's not right to impose through govt.

Is this what you are saying?

 

[occupied]

WHOA WHOA WHOA CAMEL WHOA!!!

NO, occupied I am prochoice about both abortion AND this health care mandate stuff.
I am saying the policy of defending free choice is NOT consistent in both cases.

If people have different beliefs, govt policy cannot be based on one person/group's beliefs imposed on others! That should be true for both "right to life" AND 'right to health' and NOT impose on people's free choice who believe otherwise. Why is "right to health" being
imposed through govt against people's free choice, but "right to life" is slammed for violating Constitutional freedoms if that is imposed through govt. Why allow one to be imposed if they are both faith-based beliefs that are NOT shared by the public, how is this constitutional to impose?

That's why I am so at odds with this health care mandate that punishes people over the choice of providing for health care by REQUIRING the purchase of insurance.

That's anti-choice to punish people for wanting to CHOOSE other ways to pay for health care.

So it makes NO SENSE to me that on one hand
the prochoice advocates demand free choice, and with NO PENALTIES on the choice of abortion,
but then TURN AROUND and hand over choice of buying insurance to federal mandates to fine people if they don't.

The same people who wouldn't fine or penalize the choice of abortion are FINING and PENALIZING the choice of buying insurance? WHY?

Insurance is NOT the only way to cover health care.
in fact, it DOES NOT build facilities or train doctors, nurses or health care providers; Insurance does not help with preventing diseases or cutting the NEED for treatment.

Yet this "choice" is being REQUIRED as the only way to pay for health care to avoid a FINE from federal govt.

occupied can we start this conversation there

How is the ACA mandates "prochoice" if they impose tax penalties so people no longer have free choice in how to pay for health care.

isn't that ANTI CHOICE by forcing govt mandates on all citizens under tax penalties costs 1, 2 % and up of people's salaries each year.

If you wouldn't fine the choice of abortion
why are we fining the choice of buying insurance
when that doesn't cover all people, all costs or cases,
and is not the only way to provide health care. Since we still need OTHER means of providing health care to cover the rest, why are we FINING those other ways?

When these are required anyway?
That's like saying if people need to drive cars anyway,
and buses are not going to cover all the transportation,
they WHY fine people for wanting to drive cars instead of taking the bus? Why abuse tax penalties to force everyone to purchase bus service if there are other means that serve them better? Why not let people keep their free choice, why this need to control and manage it through federal govt to the point of penalizing people's choices?

======================================

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Hi G.T. and occupied
How would you reword the question to compare these two choices:

(A) federal govt mandates, regulations or penalties on the choice of abortion
versus on the choice of whether or not to buy insurance or to rely on federal exchanges and subsidies
instead of allowing INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to fund health care through OTHER means besides federal programs

(B) or if you want to stick to the Subsidies question:
How about comparing the right NOT to fund abortion if THAT is "against someone's beliefs"
with the right NOT to fund health care through federal govt if THAT is "against someone's beliefs"

In both the case of abortion and with health care,
why can't individuals have the freedom to fund their own programs FREE of govt mandates on these choices.

Why this insistence on going through GOVT to make decisions on health care,
especially when this is REJECTED to go through courts or legislatures to make decisions about abortion
that is argued as a personal private choice between people and their doctors.
So why isn't health care open to free choice in how to pay for and provide this
and not REQUIRED to go through federal mandates as the ONLY CHOICE in how to manage health care.

On abortion it seems you want the government to police women's wombs and deny them a choice.

On health care you want the government to let people suffer illness simply because they lack the income to afford medical care.

These seemingly contradictory issues can be tied together, you didn't do it so allow me.

Both your opinions involve making people powerless in the face of unwanted pregnancy or unforeseen illness. Both involve forcing people into enduring a horrible situation. Both are known pathways to life-long poverty or worse. Both end up costing the country more money.

You want to talk morality? Is not the choice that causes the least prolonged misery the moral choice?

No one except the insurance companies wanted a mandate, progressives wanted a single payer plan that actually eliminated much of the unnecessary overhead and creative billing that makes health care too expensive for any working class individual to buy. Republicans simply wanted tort reform and the ability to sell insurance across state lines, ineffectual band-aids on a hemorrhage. The sad truth is that health care is being priced in a way that makes insurance essential. I did not like the mandate either but it's the best our political process, over burdened with special interests, could do to stem the rising tide of costs and the uninsured. I know it sucks but the "free market" can only do so much when profits are put before patients, you want to talk immoral then attack that. Americans had to settle for less just so a bunch of suits who have nothing to do with patient outcomes could continue to be filthy rich.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Hi Sonny Clark

One's faith can not, and does not trump common sense issues, and basic moral and ethical principles.

^ Why doesn't this statement about "one's faith" apply to your faith that health care is a right that must require federal mandates.

This is faith based, many people do not believe that this is either required for federal govt, or that it is authorized!

Since this is an expression of beliefs, why doesn't your statement apply to it?

Do you make exceptions if you happen to share that belief?

So if you AGREE with a faith-based belief, then it's OKAY to impose it unconstitutionally and PENALIZE people of other creeds who are discriminated against by this bill.

Just because you happen to AGREE with that belief?
And only if you DISAGREE with a belief, then it's not right to impose through govt.

Is this what you are saying?

I've never said nor implied such nonsense.

 

[hadit]

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

Please quote the provision in the law which explicitly forbids the subsidies.

Thanks.

In order to do that, we have to, as is usual when dealing with lawyer speak, reference several sections of the document. Section 1311 defines a health insurance exchange as a "governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a state." Section 1321 allows the federal government to set up exchanges in states that don't do it themselves. Section 1401 is the key. It specifies who can receive a federal subsidy for health insurance. It says (bold by me),

(2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance
amount determined under this subsection with respect to any
coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or
more qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such
month for the applicable second lowest cost silver
plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product
of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's
household income for the taxable year.

That's the piece in play here, and that's the piece Obama's lawyers have to argue doesn't say what it says. It's the whole "Today it's a tax, tomorrow it's a fee" argument on steroids.

you haven't a clue what was argued.[/QUOTE]
Roberts had to help them make the "it's a tax" argument.