We're $17T upside down; probably $20T by the time he's finished.Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890
We're $17T upside down; probably $20T by the time he's finished.
We should have just made health insurance like all other types of insurance. Cost and delivery are much more efficient, and participation (auto) is near universal.
That wasn't the plan, no.
Yeah, a legal mandate to buy insurance. Who knew.
Auto has an individual mandate for drivers. The individual mandate is not the problem, nor are many of the consumer protections (that were necessary).
I don't really think this case is about the ACA as much as it is about RFRA and the meaning of corporate personhood.
Corporate personhood is an amusing concept.
Looked for a few minutes and didn't find anything specific but is this the first time the SCOTUS has granted religious rights to a corporation?
Found a couple sources saying the 10th Circuit decision was one of the first of its kind, so I would imagine this was likely near the first one of its kind at the SCOTUS level.
I'm all for single-payer, but does anyone think that could get by with Republicans?
Serious question, is Wrangor a graduate of Wake Forest?
i still can't believe all these "just move" or "just get a new job" people are Wake grads.
Just ask him about dinosaurs.
Of course it couldn't get through, that's part of the "implementation" stage of the process rather than Obama's idea stage. That's why all of this is so comical. Conservatives blasting a bill for "not just going all the way" and being a total failure when it's not the bill that anybody wanted, it's just the bill we got because of what was politically feasible.
Sure but corporate personhood isn't a new concept and I'm not sure you definitively need RFRA as footing to mount a religious claim as a corporation. Although perhaps you do, that requires some thought/research.
But the ACA was passed without any Republican support. If Democrats wanted, or were able, to pass single payer, they could have done so.
The 9th Circuit has held that a corporation has standing to assert the free exercise rights of its owners but did not answer whether the corporation itself had free exercise rights apart from its owners and shareholders. Both cases involved closely held family corporations.
...
Stepping away for a moment from the legal minutiae of this decision, this Jezebel opinion piece pretty much sums up the way I feel about it emotionally and morally. http://jezebel.com/why-women-arent-p...are-1598061808
This opens up a very slippery slope. The majority can paint the decision as "narrow," but sometimes the hardest cases make for the worst decisions. Of course, no one has to work at Hobby Lobby, particularly if they want health care coverage for contraceptives (however defined by HL's owner), but unfortunately, this will lead to further lawsuits to test the parameters of the Court's logic. Those pushing back against alleged religious discrimination in the short-term might find themselves on the very ugly end of it down the road if they achieve their short-term goals.
“We will work with Congress to make sure that any women affected by this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as everyone else.” - White House press secretary Josh Earnest
Agreed.
The five men also agreed that their ruling only applies to corporations (people) with "sincerely held" religious beliefs. You know, the kind of religious beliefs that are so sincerely anti-birth control that they invest in and profit from companies that manufacture birth control. The kind of religious beliefs that cite as justification for their beliefs a series of religious texts written before Western Medicine as we know it existed.
one of the five men behind the majority ruling have have ever suffered from endometriosis, painful periods, dangerous pregnancies, or simply risked becoming pregnant at a time that they weren't mentally, fiscally, or physically prepared for a pregnancy. They bought Hobby Lobby's "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY!" argument despite the fact that Hobby Lobby doesn't personally object to covering vasectomies for men; their religion only applies slut panic to women.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote