The proper role and scope of government

[TheMercenary]

Ok, look at it like this..

There are issues concerning the BCP edict by King Obama which involve a number of Amendments as well as Section 2 of the constitution. It was MHO that it at least violated the First Amendment. There may be an argument that Obama does not have an enumerated power to even make such an edict. We will have have to see where it goes from here. But to drag the issue of Gay Marriage and now Obamacare into it will not allow you to see the BCP issue more clearly. Each one will be measured differently and alone.

[classicman]

This law simply puts the FREEDOM in the hands of the people, NOT the healthcare provider.
Whats the church so worried about?
(insert stats of Catholic women who use BC here)
Next!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

This law simply puts the FREEDOM in the hands of the people, NOT the healthcare provider.
Whats the church so worried about?
(insert stats of Catholic women who use BC here)
Next!

Like I said I am not against BC or the governments desire to provide it. I just don't think they have the Constitutional Right to make Religious organizations to go against their beliefs.

[classicman]

Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?

Yeh, this kinda pisses me off. Apparently I have to get an annulment now.
Talked to the church about it ... $$$$$$$$ makes it all OK.

[classicman]

I don't think the Church should have EVER had the right to not offer it to patients.
Its the PEOPLE who are being given the choice, as it should be.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

I don't think the Church should have EVER had the right to not offer it to patients.
Its the PEOPLE who are being given the choice, as it should be.

No. It is Big Government telling Religious organizations what they MUST provide by Presidential edict. And that goes against everything we stand for. Like I said, let them set up a free BCP stand across the street and give the shit out for free, I would support that, the more people on BC the better, they have no Right or Power to mandate that they have to do it and this action is not supported either by enumerated powers of the Office of the President and is prohibited by the Constitution. It really is black and white. I would guess it will go to the courts.

[classicman]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

What do you care about what they do? Your statement is exactly why this government is out of control. What? Now we need someone to come tell us what we have to think, believe and if we don't tow the Obama Marxist Party Line we are going to be dragged to court or off to the gas chamber? Maybe just re-education camps. I think they are going to tell Obama and the rest of them to "fuck off, see you in court".

[Ibby]

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.

There's a basic, historical misunderstanding at the root of modern Republican philosophy. A little fact that seems to get overlooked. It's not their insistence that the road to fascism begins with good health care. It's not even the pretense that President Obama somehow masterminded an economic collapse, bank bailout, and massive deficit weeks, months or years before he came into office. No, the incident that the GOP has let slip is a little more basic.
The South lost. [...]

It's easy to see how employers might be confused, considering all the love being lavished on them by both parties, and with the paeans being sung to them as magical "job creators." And hey, we already pretty much handed over that fourth amendment to them, what with peeing in a cup or being able to fire people because of an old photo on Facebook. Republicans have been busy reinforcing that lesson by insisting that anyone who collects so much as an unemployment check should be subject to any rules they want to set. It's no wonder that the line between handing someone a paycheck, and holding someone's title, should have gotten blurred.

So consider this a primer to the confused American business owners and executives who might have listened just a little to long to all that sweet praise.

As an employer, you have the absolute right to religious freedom. Attend any church, temple, synagogue or reading room you like. Give as you feel obligated. Worship as you please. Place on yourself any restriction in diet, activity or anything else that you feel is in keeping with your beliefs ... but only on yourself. You don't get to impose these restrictions on your employees.

Your employees are separate from you. Not only that, they are equal to you in rights, no matter how unequal you may be in income. You do not get to tell them who to vote for. You do not get to tell them who they can love. You do not get to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to limit their health care.

No matter how strong your personal faith, your employees are not obligated to live according to those beliefs, expressly because they are personal. You may find it frustrating, but your employees have just as much right to their own beliefs as you do to yours, and whether you pay them pittance on an assembly line or six figures as a manager, you have zero right to carve off a slice of their freedom. The direction of the pay arrow has no effect on who gets to dictate to who.

If the government was telling you, as an individual, that you had to use birth control, that would be a violation of your rights. That's not happening. They're just saying that you don't get to make that decision for the people who work for your company. Because, really, you don't own them.

If you're still mad; if you're upset that healthcare has to be funneled through employers at all ... there's a cure for that. It's called "single payer."

[classicman]

Link for Ibs posted quote

[Ibby]

Whoops! I thought I popped it in the header. Thanks!

[Clodfobble]

If you're still mad; if you're upset that healthcare has to be funneled through employers at all ... there's a cure for that. It's called "single payer."

I'm not mad, but yes, I am upset that healthcare is funneled through employers.

[Ibby]

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.

[classicman]

First off, this debate belongs in the Healthcare thread, but ...
I'll play the devil's advocate here ...

include those costs as part of a broad tax, roughly equivalent to what everyone is already paying in inflated health care costs

Do you have any data to back that up?

in a unified system, health care costs for EVERYONE will go down just on administrative streamlining alone.

Virtual impossibility. Perhaps overall, but when those who cannot afford are added, the cost will/must come from others.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by classicman

Virtual impossibility. Perhaps overall, but when those who cannot afford are added, the cost will/must come from others.

They already do. Caring for an insured person, with both preventative and curative care, reduces health care costs throughout the system, and additionally, in the current system, curative care is already available for all but chronic diseases for the poor and uninsured, ostensibly for free, at great cost to the system. If we include caring for the currently-uninsured under the same umbrella as those that are currently insured, on top of the administrative savings for having one insurance framework to work under as opposed to a wide range of companies to deal with. I'm not saying that the ONLY reason healthcare costs so much more in the US than in the rest of the developed world is that our insurance system is broken, but it's a major driver of increased health care costs in America.