• 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!

Supreme Court to hear ACA case mandatory contraception

RJKarl said:
ACA is established law as well.
Click to expand...

If a law runs afoul of Constitutional protections, as employment discrimination based on religious grounds most assuredly would, it doesn't matter.

That having been said, the ACA is law, but this particular challenge is to an administrative rule created by the administration. In other words, it is policy and not law that is being challenged here. Nobody is saying the admin doesn't have a right to create policy. To implement the law in this case. They are saying the admin can't implement and enforce this particular policy.


----------
Tapatalk.
 
They would be choosing one religion over another here unless they also granted the Christian Science Monitor and all other corporations the right not to follow this law or any other law if they simply say,"my religion opposes this law".
 
RJKarl said:
Then a company should be allowed women, blacks and non-Christians less for the same job than it pays white, male Christians.

If a company doesn't have to follow this law, why should they have to follow any law?
Click to expand...

So if Congress mandated 8 weeks PTO, 12 months maternity leave, or 5% matching 401k, then that would totally be acceptable? Sorry, people have to decide for themselves what stuff they will accept and won't accept.
 
Many other countries have mandated laws about things like that. It hasn't hurt Germany much.

Hell in Germany if you haven't paid your license fee for your car, the government can take it out of your bank account.
 
Bottom line is that you choose what company you work for. You are not entitled to a set of benefits. If the company doesn't provide what you need/want, then move on.
 
ddeacs98 said:
Bottom line is that you choose what company you work for. You are not entitled to a set of benefits. If the company doesn't provide what you need/want, then move on.
Click to expand...

Sure, in a world with plenty of jobs for everyone. In 2013 America, for most people, it's take what the company gives you and shut up because there aren't any other jobs available. But more to the point, your post highlights exactly what is wrong with the American system of delivering healthcare through the intermediary of employment. Most modern countries do not allow the availability of healthcare, or the availability of particular types of health care, to be contingent upon the whims or religious scruples of employers, or require employers to deal with the expense and administrative hassle of being the health payor for their employees. There is no reason why it should be done this way and a lot of reasons why it shouldn't.

This goes beyond your post and is somewhat off topic, but I find it interesting that that many countries that have written or rewritten their constitutions in the 20th century have included healthcare as a fundamental right. Our constitution was written in an era when "healthcare" meant leeches and being dosed with lead. Most modern countries recognize that the availability of lifesaving or life-improving medical care should be recognized as a fundamental right today. In my experience, people who say things like "there is no right to health care" and pretend to be idolatrous constitution-worshipers really mean "I don't want to pay for other people's health care".
 
Deacon923 said:
In my experience, people who say things like "there is no right to health care" and pretend to be idolatrous constitution-worshipers really mean "I don't want to pay for other people's health care".
Click to expand...

I would add a caveat to that statement. I think people who who disclaim a right to healthcare are perfectly fine paying for other people's healthcare through insurance where everyone is paying into the overall system via policy premiums. I think a more accurate underlying statement would be "I don't want to pay for other people's health care if they are not going to have to pay a corresponding amount for mine."
 
If healthcare were truly a right, then we wouldn't have to pay for it. Even countries proclaiming it as a right make you pay for it, as they should.

Good luck in this day and age taking 10% out of a poor man's paycheck to pay for their healthcare (or a rich or middle class man's for that matter) in a single payer system. The reason people don't jump on board to that idea is they know it won't happen (everybody paying into the system), they don't want to pay that much into a system they know is going to be fleeced for other govt projects, they don't want to pay that much into an inept govt system, and they don't want to see the quality of care decline (which it will if the govt is the only option and under-reimburses docs for their services).


----------
Tapatalk.
 
Then you don't want to live in a modern industrialized society or you to have income regulated. Those are the two options for your me, me , me society.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
If healthcare were truly a right, then we wouldn't have to pay for it. Even countries proclaiming it as a right make you pay for it, as they should.

Good luck in this day and age taking 10% out of a poor man's paycheck to pay for their healthcare (or a rich or middle class man's for that matter) in a single payer system. The reason people don't jump on board to that idea is they know it won't happen (everybody paying into the system), they don't want to pay that much into a system they know is going to be fleeced for other govt projects, they don't want to pay that much into an inept govt system, and they don't want to see the quality of care decline (which it will if the govt is the only option and under-reimburses docs for their services).


----------
Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph makes no sense at all. Many of the fundamental rights listed in our Constitution require money and are not "free". Amendments III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, for starters, all require the government to spend money to secure those rights to the people. Juries and judges aren't free.

The second paragraph I'm sure is a true summary of your feelings on the subject. The only thing I will note is that this part: "and they don't want to see the quality of care decline (which it will if the govt is the only option and under-reimburses docs for their services)" is pretty funny given that our country spends more on care and gets worse health outcomes than pretty much any industrialized country, including the single payer countries. There isn't much correlation between single payer and low quality care - just the opposite, in fact.

If you are interested in learning about the quality issue, I suggest this excellent series. I have linked to the introduction, which links to the other entries in the series. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/how-do-we-rate-the-quality-of-the-us-health-care-system-introduction/
 
Last edited:
EatLeadCommie said:
If healthcare were truly a right, then we wouldn't have to pay for it. Even countries proclaiming it as a right make you pay for it, as they should.

Good luck in this day and age taking 10% out of a poor man's paycheck to pay for their healthcare (or a rich or middle class man's for that matter) in a single payer system. The reason people don't jump on board to that idea is they know it won't happen (everybody paying into the system), they don't want to pay that much into a system they know is going to be fleeced for other govt projects, they don't want to pay that much into an inept govt system, and they don't want to see the quality of care decline (which it will if the govt is the only option and under-reimburses docs for their services).


----------
Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

Nearly everyone who makes less than $150,000 (maybe singles who make less than $100,000) would jump on a system where the employer pays 5% of your gross and you pay 5% of your gross to give you full insurance coverage.

Only crazy extremists and insurance companies would oppose such a system. It would save tens of millions millions people thousands of dollars a year.
 
RJKarl said:
Nearly everyone who makes less than $150,000 (maybe singles who make less than $100,000) would jump on a system where the employer pays 5% of your gross and you pay 5% of your gross to give you full insurance coverage.

Only crazy extremists and insurance companies would oppose such a system. It would save tens of millions millions people thousands of dollars a year.
Click to expand...

Uh, you basically just described most HDHP/HSAs that you have been otherwise saying won't work, and which of course Obamacare is trying to destroy (or at least not promote).
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Uh, you basically just described most HDHP/HSAs that you have been otherwise saying won't work, and which of course Obamacare is trying to destroy (or at least not promote).
Click to expand...

It's not at all like HSAs. In my situation, you'd be buying insurance to protect yourself. With HSAs, if you have an illness, condition or accident that costs more than you have in the bank, you are shit out of luck.

HSAs work for rich, healthy people. They would be a disaster to young couple or a growing family. Or for people with ongoing conditions.

A perfect example was my friend's GF went into the hospital for four days (no operations) and the bill was over $34,000. Let's say she was 30 yo and $15,000 in an HSA. She'd be on the hook for another $19,000+. Then every penny for the foreseeable future would come out of her pocket.

HSAs will lead to massive numbers of personal bankruptcies.

This is much like privatizing SS. That works those with means but would destroy low and lower-middle income earners.

These two policies are typical RW brainwashing events. They help the rich and destroy most of the rest of the public.
 
RJKarl said:
It's not at all like HSAs. In my situation, you'd be buying insurance to protect yourself. With HSAs, if you have an illness, condition or accident that costs more than you have in the bank, you are shit out of luck.

HSAs work for rich, healthy people. They would be a disaster to young couple or a growing family. Or for people with ongoing conditions.

A perfect example was my friend's GF went into the hospital for four days (no operations) and the bill was over $34,000. Let's say she was 30 yo and $15,000 in an HSA. She'd be on the hook for another $19,000+. Then every penny for the foreseeable future would come out of her pocket.

HSAs will lead to massive numbers of personal bankruptcies.

This is much like privatizing SS. That works those with means but would destroy low and lower-middle income earners.

These two policies are typical RW brainwashing events. They help the rich and destroy most of the rest of the public.
Click to expand...

WTF? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? None of this is even remotely correct.
 
RJKarl said:
It's not at all like HSAs. In my situation, you'd be buying insurance to protect yourself. With HSAs, if you have an illness, condition or accident that costs more than you have in the bank, you are shit out of luck.

HSAs work for rich, healthy people. They would be a disaster to young couple or a growing family. Or for people with ongoing conditions.

A perfect example was my friend's GF went into the hospital for four days (no operations) and the bill was over $34,000. Let's say she was 30 yo and $15,000 in an HSA. She'd be on the hook for another $19,000+. Then every penny for the foreseeable future would come out of her pocket.

HSAs will lead to massive numbers of personal bankruptcies.

This is much like privatizing SS. That works those with means but would destroy low and lower-middle income earners.

These two policies are typical RW brainwashing events. They help the rich and destroy most of the rest of the public.
Click to expand...

This is literally the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
 
Deacon923 said:
The first paragraph makes no sense at all. Many of the fundamental rights listed in our Constitution require money and are not "free". Amendments III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, for starters, all require the government to spend money to secure those rights to the people. Juries and judges aren't free.

The second paragraph I'm sure is a true summary of your feelings on the subject. The only thing I will note is that this part: "and they don't want to see the quality of care decline (which it will if the govt is the only option and under-reimburses docs for their services)" is pretty funny given that our country spends more on care and gets worse health outcomes than pretty much any industrialized country, including the single payer countries. There isn't much correlation between single payer and low quality care - just the opposite, in fact.

If you are interested in learning about the quality issue, I suggest this excellent series. I have linked to the introduction, which links to the other entries in the series. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/how-do-we-rate-the-quality-of-the-us-health-care-system-introduction/
Click to expand...

I will check out the link when I get home. However, I would assert that comparisons to other countries are likely to be greatly off since the US has loads of fat people eating at mcdonalds and a very different ethnic makeup than the rest of the world.

It is a stretch to say that due process laws require money to secure. These are fundamental rights. Yes, they are tested in courts of law, but so is just about everything, to include rights of speech and religion. If you want to say that something like abortion is a right that we pay for, I'd submit that it is a right (cough cough) that one has the choice to exercise and thus pay for.

Anyway, the debate over whether HC should be a right or not is a healthy one. I happen to think that even if one were to think that it is, it is not on par with those so-called god given rights our founders gave much thought to 220+ years ago.


----------
Tapatalk.
 
RJKarl said:
It's not at all like HSAs. In my situation, you'd be buying insurance to protect yourself. With HSAs, if you have an illness, condition or accident that costs more than you have in the bank, you are shit out of luck.

HSAs work for rich, healthy people. They would be a disaster to young couple or a growing family. Or for people with ongoing conditions.

A perfect example was my friend's GF went into the hospital for four days (no operations) and the bill was over $34,000. Let's say she was 30 yo and $15,000 in an HSA. She'd be on the hook for another $19,000+. Then every penny for the foreseeable future would come out of her pocket.

HSAs will lead to massive numbers of personal bankruptcies.

This is much like privatizing SS. That works those with means but would destroy low and lower-middle income earners.

These two policies are typical RW brainwashing events. They help the rich and destroy most of the rest of the public.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? That is not how HSA plans work at all.
 
RJKarl said:
A perfect example was my friend's GF went into the hospital for four days (no operations) and the bill was over $34,000. Let's say she was 30 yo and $15,000 in an HSA. She'd be on the hook for another $19,000+. Then every penny for the foreseeable future would come out of her pocket.
Click to expand...

Is this your friend Roger who hurt his foot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top