• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

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

...
 
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.
 
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.


“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
 
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-people-but-corporations-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.


 
Back
Top