Supreme Court debates the future of Obamacare

reply to post by greencmp


You didn't mention Amish businesses, you said The Amish. But I'm also willing to bet that the Amish enjoy certain liberties of the law because of their beliefs and community that most Americans don't enjoy, like not having to provide electricity to the homes in their community. So I'd wager that your example, no matter how it was worded was a poor one.

beezzer
reply to post by Flatfish

 

So it is okay for government to impose a set standard and have people obey it, but companies (based on religious principle) are denied that same aspect?

Companies aren't denying rights. Companies aren't imposing a set of rules for their employees to obey based on religious principle.

Companies simply don't want to PAY for something that they disagree with.

The employees are still free to purchase and pursue any type of abortion options they see fit.

If precedent is set that corporations can chose what they want to pay for or not due to belief, and if corporations are legally viewed as "people", what is to stop the common person from doing the same with something other than ACA?

I can imagine a roomful of lawyers salivating over that...

reply to post by dawnstar


No. I don't tell women what to do at all. Consenting to marriage is consenting to an active sexual life.

God made us with a brain and our own DNA and all that makes us as human as unborn children or a man. No one can tell us what to do without our consent. We will win this fight just like we won the vote, when we were 3/5ths human by christians.

the owlbear

beezzer
reply to post by Flatfish

 

So it is okay for government to impose a set standard and have people obey it, but companies (based on religious principle) are denied that same aspect?

Companies aren't denying rights. Companies aren't imposing a set of rules for their employees to obey based on religious principle.

Companies simply don't want to PAY for something that they disagree with.

The employees are still free to purchase and pursue any type of abortion options they see fit.

If precedent is set that corporations can chose what they want to pay for or not due to belief, and if corporations are legally viewed as "people", what is to stop the common person from doing the same with something other than ACA?

I can imagine a roomful of lawyers salivating over that...

OMG!

Why. . . why. . . why that might be an indicator of. . . . freedom!

Krazysh0t
reply to post by greencmp

 

You didn't mention Amish businesses, you said The Amish. But I'm also willing to bet that the Amish enjoy certain liberties of the law because of their beliefs and community that most Americans don't enjoy, like not having to provide electricity to the homes in their community. So I'd wager that your example, no matter how it was worded was a poor one.

I wouldn't say that, I thought my example is about as pure as could be with respect to hypothetical comparisons which test both the spirit and letter of a law.

The part of the Constitution that reserves all rights to the States and the People respectively unless specifically enumerated covers this quite well for me - IMHO it also covers the entirety of the ACA.

Just as in so many other things the federal government has no business in matters not enumerated - either for or against those items not given as a responsibility/power by the Constitution.

Box of condoms = $8.99 for premium brand

RU-486 (morning after pill) $0.00 @ planned parenthood for uninsured, $30.00 to $50.00 for self-payers.

What I'm seeing here is many who are willing to give up rights of self determination to the Federal government for a measly $50 bucks!

Average cost of a date night $104.29 - if you can afford to play, you can afford to pay.

How about repealing healthcare industry exceptions to the Sherman Act instead.

727Sky

I think the hooks are in and to get this behemoth to change directions..... it is gonna take more than evidence it is not working and is unconstitutional.... it is a tax dummy, which makes everything nice a legal!

Hooks or no, you can't (shouldn't) use the word "legal" and "obamacare" or "government" in the same sentence.

First, if Hobby Lobby lobby did not want to comply with forced insurance, they should have paid a little bribe or sought out some politically connected types to obtain an "exemption". The list of these corporate exemptions grows every day.

Second, obamacare has been passed as ok by the supremes before when Chief Justice Roberts swung his vote for it. But .... what is the status of that racketeering case where police confiscated the political slush funds at the Vatican Bank? Was is Chief Justice John Roberts that had one of the biggest secret accounts? How many others on the Supreme Court have secret slush funds?

seeker401.wordpress.com... legatus-split/


Third, the government is colluding with the Central Banks and Wall Street to loot this country. What makes you believe that this is any form of legitimate government? Does "too big to fail" and "too big to prosecute" ring any bells?

Forth, a police investigation has said that obama's credentials are fakes. They are getting ready to shine yet another spotlight on this joker soon. It appears that they have some "earth shattering" info to release.

So; don't talk to me about legalities when there is nothing above board in this entire damn government!

reply to post by greencmp


I'd say no. As I said, the Amish enjoy certain liberties that others do not, these liberties were probably grandfathered in for them as well.

But in either case, YES the Amish business should provide the car if the government made such a silly law. It is up to the employee whether or not they will drive it or not. The employer doesn't determine the employee's religious beliefs. If the law you hypothesized existed and there exists an Amish business that doesn't just employ Amish people, I'm sure they would be mighty upset if that business didn't provide them with the car that says they should get as per the law, forcing them to buy their own (and a car is a HELL of a lot more expensive than the morning after pill).

Look I don't have to agree with the law, but I damn sure want to see it implemented fairly. That is all I am getting at.

reply to post by MOMof3


well as far as I know that religion Hobby Lobby is claiming to believe in clearly states that the women is to obey the husband in all things!! Maybe one of those supreme court justices should ask Hobby Lobby the question I asked you!!
To me it is kind of weird when those who proclaim that they should have the right to believe in their religion then turn around and say that well if a women doesn't want to have sex she shouldn't!!! Their danged religion has tried to prevent the women from doing just that for ages!

Flatfish


How about they rule against Hobby Lobby simply because of the fact that this has nothing to do with religious freedoms?

I despise religion and religious people. In fact, I think it takes a special kind of mental illness to believe religious bs.

That being said, if government is forcing them to pay for something, and it impacts their belief system, then by all means it has to do with religious freedom.

Cyprian
reply to post by doubletap

 

Didn't you get the memo the Tea Part sent out? the one that says blindly hate anyone not "conservative" enough, Big Business is good, rights are for the elite and hate the President. Oh yeah, and obey us at all kosts.

Somewhere waiting for corporations to be declared people so I can pants Walmart...

There are extremely large numbers of people who arent tea partiers and hate the president.

What rights do the "elite" have that the non elites do not?

Can you list specific ones?

beezzer
reply to post by Flatfish

 

So it is okay for government to impose a set standard and have people obey it, but companies (based on religious principle) are denied that same aspect?

Companies aren't denying rights. Companies aren't imposing a set of rules for their employees to obey based on religious principle.

Companies simply don't want to PAY for something that they disagree with.

The employees are still free to purchase and pursue any type of abortion options they see fit.

The company is fighting for the right to deny coverage for accepted, legal, medical procedures and they're using their religious beliefs as the foundation for their argument. This case just happens to be about birth control, the next will be about blood transfusions, etc., etc.,etc..

All the government is saying, is that if you're going to provide insurance coverage, it has to be comprehensive and not some "pick and choose" policy based on religion.

I remember hearing numerous Republicans proposing that legislation be adopted to allow for buying healthcare insurance across state lines, as an alternative to ObamaCare.

The very same Republicans who rant on and on about state's rights.

Well the very reason you couldn't purchase those policies across state lines in the past was due to the fact that the different states had different standards and they wouldn't allow the substandard policies to be sold in their states. So in essence, those politicians advocating for inter-state purchasing were actually advocating to subvert the wishes and authority of the states with higher standards. Double-talk, anyone?

Under ObamaCare, in order to facilitate the various insurance exchanges selling coverage nationwide and in order to insure some kind of uniformity to the comprehensive nature of the various policies, some kind of universal minimum standards had to be set.

Otherwise, just like Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg pointed out, we'd have every kind of willy-nilly policy imaginable out there where people end up thinking they have coverage for something, just find out during bankruptcy proceedings that they didn't.

This is about healthcare, not religion.

reply to post by Phoenix

where in that constitution does it give the gov't the right to take my money so that my neighbor's kids eat when mine go to be hungry??
Where does it give the gov't the right to demand that I send what little money I have to some insurance company and then endure the cries of those children when they are even hungrier???

Obamacare; it just the attempt to solve other unconstitutional policies that the population has accepted for generations!!!
Anyone who is unwilling to give up those other unconstitutional policies or is in some way profiting from them has nothing to stand on when opposing obamacare!

Flatfish


This is about healthcare, not religion.

This is about government dictating healthcare contrary to religious principles.

buster2010
[
It would also help if you were to pull your cranial orb out of your rectal cavity and listen to why Hobby Lobby wants to deny birth control from their employees. They say it's because it is against our religion. That is forcing their religious views on their employees.

Maybe I missed that part of the court case, but where did Hobby Lobby deny bc to their employees? They arent saying employees cant take BC, they just have to pay for themselves.

It's part of being a responsible adult, which given the ridiculous statements Obamacare supporters have made, responsibility isnt exactly important to them.

reply to post by doubletap


Hobby Lobby, the company, doesn't believe in anything. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church on Sunday. Hobby Lobby doesn't quote scripture on a regular basis. Hobby Lobby doesn't pray to god. The owners believe and do all those things. There is a key difference here, the difference being that the owners are allowed to push their religious views onto their employees by using their company to claim religious prosecution. This allows the owners to muddy the water (by claiming that Hobby Lobby is being religiously persecuted), when in reality if you strip the company from the picture, the reality of who is really religiously persecuting who surfaces.

beezzer

Flatfish


This is about healthcare, not religion.

This is about government dictating healthcare contrary to religious principles.

Good!!!!! I'm glad to know that my government is not bound by your religious principles! I wouldn't want it any other way.

first and foremost, a employer should not be forced to provide insurance for anyone, other than work related injury coverage ie workmens comp. it should be looked at as it always was, a benefit, not a requirement. a benefit that helps to draw employees to your company if employer so desires, if not then you may lose out on quality employes. not gonna go into what is happening in that area already and will get worse as time goes on.

second, if they do provide insurance, they should only have to provide insurance that pertains to general health. not extra curricular activities, or family planning. they hired the individual, not the family ( if the family is covered then it should fall on the employee's not the employers part) or lack thereof, future or non wanted. it is the responsibility of the person, male or female to insure a not wanted pregnancy, is prevented. in other words keep your thang to yourself or your legs crossed. and if you do bump ___ies, use preventive measures, bought and paid for out of your own pocket.

third, if this kind of coverage is wanted, it should be a option and should be paid for by the employee on their part not the employer.
the employer didn't take youon to raise, expand or limit the size of your family. they pay you to work. all other parts of your life are your business, and not theirs, so long as it does not effect your job performance or ability to do said job. if you can't afford to get pregnant, don't do the things that causes it, like sitting on a toilet seat, getting hammered and going home with some one, or just not being able to control yourself.

part of having freedom is being responsible for your actions, and not wanting others to pay for your mistakes.

reply to post by doubletap


let's start with forging mortgage documents and go from there...

Krazysh0t
reply to post by greencmp

 

I'd say no. As I said, the Amish enjoy certain liberties that others do not, these liberties were probably grandfathered in for them as well.

But in either case, YES the Amish business should provide the car if the government made such a silly law. It is up to the employee whether or not they will drive it or not. The employer doesn't determine the employee's religious beliefs. If the law you hypothesized existed and there exists an Amish business that doesn't just employ Amish people, I'm sure they would be mighty upset if that business didn't provide them with the car that says they should get as per the law, forcing them to buy their own (and a car is a HELL of a lot more expensive than the morning after pill).

Look I don't have to agree with the law, but I damn sure want to see it implemented fairly. That is all I am getting at.

edit on 26-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

I disagree that health insurance is a right but, having conceded that it is a right, you are appreciating and upholding the idea that a right is not conditional which I can agree with in principal for sure.

If you don't think insurance is a right then you are conferring the unique importance and value of a right to an arbitrary legislation.

In other words, the fact that something is law does not make it a right.

I think the disparity here is evidence of insurance not being a right since it is in conflict with another right.

That distinction may be the rosetta stone which might allow us to decipher or, at least, arrive at an understanding as to what is a right and what is not.