No. It has been Religious organizations telling Government what they will or won't provide for far too long. They've been hiding behind the "religion" tag and getting the breaks for it.... sorry.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, as far as I know, there is NO challenge to the legitimacy of laws that say that first marriages and second marriages have to be treated equally by employers, either on the state OR federal level - but legally a marriage is a marriage, and if an employer's health care plan says that it includes spouses, that plan has to include ALL legally recognized marriages. If I understand your point, you are arguing that since marriage (as it relates to insurance SPECIFICALLY) is RECOGNIZED by the federal government, but LICENSED by states, it is completely different from birth control coverage, which is mandated by federal order under Obamacare. Okay, fine. But the first amendment applies EQUALLY to state AND federal laws, and since a religious group can ONLY claim that their religious rights are infringed upon UNDER the first amendment, if religious liberty is the problem with the regulation, it does not matter if the regulation comes from the federal government or from a state government. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Irony and coincidence are some of my favorite themes...
Given this discussion THIS week, we also have: National Condom Week 2012 Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
According to the Supreme Court, since the 14th Amendment, the states are prevented from doing anything that the 1st Amendment would prevent the Federal government from doing. A = The First Amendment prevents the Federal Government from enforcing this rule. B = The First Amendment prevents the states from enforcing this rule. Many states require insurance to cover birth control, therefore (not B). (not B) implies (not A) Therefore, the First Amendment does NOT prevent the Federal Government from enforcing this rule. |
Sorry for the long long long quote-post, but I think this sums up my position pretty well, save the over-the-top slavery rhetoric. Underlines are MY emphasis, Bold is as in article.
Quote:
|
|
Whoops! I thought I popped it in the header. Thanks!
|
Quote:
|
I was thinking about this again the other day and realized that to me, the idea of health INSURANCE is not the right way to frame the health care debate.
Insurance is a "gamble" that a private company can earn enough in premiums across its customer base to offset the costs of individuals who get ill. What the left, as well as much of the developed world, has decided is that, well, "insurance" isn't enough. The societal social contract that frames a developed society, to people of my mindset, says that "we care for the sick". We as a society can afford that. We already do for the uninsured who still get care in emergency rooms - but if we build our system of health care to include those costs as part of a broad tax, roughly equivalent to what everyone is already paying in inflated health care costs, and then guarantee at least basic preventative and curative health care to all citizens, in a unified system, health care costs for EVERYONE will go down just on administrative streamlining alone. Instead of a for-profit cost-benefit, health coverage becomes a civil right. We all pay into a BIG insurance pot (either included or separate from income tax) - instead of under Obamacare, into a bunch of separate private mandated insurance pots - and then ALL get out of it what we need. Personally, I trust a single-payer system staffed by doctors and civil servants to have the best interest of patients in mind more than I trust a for-profit company to do so, and thus I believe that healthcare through employers is just as broken as insurance purchased on the open market. I think that single-payer is by far the ideal system for health care. |
First off, this debate belongs in the Healthcare thread, but ...
I'll play the devil's advocate here ... Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ibram and Happy Monkey, you speak well. I understand your arguments and analogies. I also agree with your complaints and your conclusions. One way of saying the main reason I'm unhappy with the whole argument about infringing on the religious freedom of .. heh.. an institution? They have freedoms? anyway... it is this.
I feel it is ****** inconsistent for such organizations to claim a religious freedom exemption for one subject and to overlook different subjects that are of comparable importance. Picking and choosing which of your religious sensibilites are offended strikes me as ... insincere. You gave good examples with marrried versus divorced employees, and with straight versus gay employees. Additionally, claiming to be a religious institution for this topic, but not for other aspects of the law (tax exempt status anyone?) seems just plain opportunistic. It seems insincere. |
Quote:
Marriage issue, states issue, marriage not specifically described in the Constitution and not being challenged from that respect. Pretty clear to me. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.