Page 13 of 134 FirstFirst ... 3891011121314151617182363113 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 2675

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Yeah it's almost as if Obama was actually in favor of single payer and then his plan got neutered somewhere between the idea stage and the implementation stage.

    "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. "

    Crazy coincidence
    We're $17T upside down; probably $20T by the time he's finished.

  2. #242
    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.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by The Mangler View Post
    So the plan was to pass and implement a law that we knew wouldn't work during an already horrendous economy. I feel much better now. (I know I'm off topic so I'm done on this line of thought.)
    That wasn't the plan, no.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by awaken View Post
    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.
    Yeah, a legal mandate to buy insurance. Who knew.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by awaken View Post
    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.
    Auto has an individual mandate for drivers. The individual mandate is not the problem, nor are many of the consumer protections (that were necessary).

  6. #246
    I don't really think this case is about the ACA as much as it is about RFRA and the meaning of corporate personhood.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    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.

  8. #248
    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.

  9. #249
    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?

  10. #250
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    42,125
    i still can't believe all these "just move" or "just get a new job" people are Wake grads.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by meandmyuncleDeac View Post
    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?
    Just ask him about dinosaurs.

  12. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by meandmyuncleDeac View Post
    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?
    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.

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    That's not surprising; RFRA is a relatively new statute.
    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.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    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.
    But the ACA was passed without any Republican support. If Democrats wanted, or were able, to pass single payer, they could have done so.

  15. #255
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    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.
    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.

  16. #256
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Yes, I agreed that it has opened the door for other exemptions. I've said that several times.

    It does not put the health of employed women at risk because the government will offer these people contraceptives.

    Then you disagree with the POTUS, and many others. The lead comment on this subject at the daily briefing was the Press Secretary saying this.

    I didn't say anything about you until you continued to say that the the door was open for religious exemptions for single women and gay people.
    ...

  17. #257
    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

  18. #258
    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.

  19. #259
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Yes, I agreed that it has opened the door for other exemptions. I've said that several times.

    It does not put the health of employed women at risk because the government will offer these people contraceptives.

    I didn't say anything about you until you continued to say that the the door was open for religious exemptions for single women and gay people.
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    ...
    “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

  20. #260
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon923 View Post
    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
    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.



Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •