Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Obama Admin Can Force Hobby Lobby to Obey HHS Mandate
Life News ^ | November 20, 2012 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 11/20/2012 1:12:51 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last
To: NYer

The First Amendment places no restrictions on the actions, behavior, or beliefs of individuals or business owners.

100% of the restrictions imposed by the First Amendment are placed on the Congress of the United States of America.


101 posted on 11/20/2012 3:25:59 PM PST by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“But I’m all for moving away from an employer/insurance model and for going directly to a single-payer system supported by tax revenues. “

I’m for breaking away from employer based pools as well but not so sure about single payer. I would pool people by zip code or something and pay for it by subscription, just like we do cable tv, gas, water, etc.

For now though, employer based is what we have and don’t think having comparable plans across employers for legal procedures is too much to ask. We are a secular nation, not Christian (anymore) and at some point will probably be muslim. A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on. If a business owner does not want to purchase something, that is fine, but if a business is incorporated and seen by the gov as a separate person, and if the gov is saying that incorporated person needs to offer x coverage, then so be it. It is the law and if it is not liked, go to congress to have it changed.


102 posted on 11/20/2012 3:29:17 PM PST by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Good. I hope millions of employees all over the country get hurt.

Then maybe they’ll pull their heads out of their butts.


103 posted on 11/20/2012 3:31:59 PM PST by Fledermaus (The Republic is Dead: Collapse the system. Let the Dems destroy the economy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ksen; No Socialist
Ksen, your reference to Savita is not wellfounded on facts. There is nothing either in Irish law nor in Catholic morality which would have prevented these doctors in Galway treating this woman appropriately. Although abortion is not a cure for septicemia (!), nothing would have them from removing the body of a miscarried baby. I am astounded that they didn't do a simple blood test and put her on an antibiotic drip from Day One, which is how you're supposed to treat septicemia.

But then, all persons resident in Ireland are entitled to receive health care through the public health care system, which is managed by the Health Service Executive and funded by general taxation. It's, sadly, not at all surprising that they declined to treat her on her first visit. Such under-treatment is all to common with this kind of system. Savita was a victim of medical malpractice, not ethics.

104 posted on 11/20/2012 3:33:43 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
with liberty neither for the employer, the health provider, nor the health consumer.

I think it would be very liberating for the employer and the health consumers. For the employers because they wouldn't have to worry about providing health insurance for their employees and could spend more time focused on their business. For the health consumer because he would no longer have to worry about medical bankruptcy.

And that’s what you say you “hope” for?

Yes.

105 posted on 11/20/2012 3:45:40 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Forcing Christians to pay for abortions seems a real priority with these people.

Muslims will get a pass.

FUBO

106 posted on 11/20/2012 3:46:27 PM PST by Gabrial (The nightmare will continue as long as the nightmare is in the Whitehouse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased
GOD bless you and your family. I will pray for you all. I can't afford to keep spending money to keep employees working when there is no improvement in the business climate for the foreseeable future.

LLS

107 posted on 11/20/2012 3:46:54 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
"For now though, employer based is what we have and don’t think having comparable plans across employers for legal procedures is too much to ask. We are a secular nation, not Christian (anymore) and at some point will probably be muslim. A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on."

That is a fascinatingly stupid statement given Muslims are exempted from Bobocare...

108 posted on 11/20/2012 3:49:26 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

They are exempted, but they are not making decisions that effect your healthcare, but they eventually will be.


109 posted on 11/20/2012 3:50:34 PM PST by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: major1971

Simply discontinue employer-sponsored insurance.


110 posted on 11/20/2012 3:52:29 PM PST by des
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
We are a secular nation, not Christian (anymore) and at some point will probably be muslim. A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on.

Are you insane? Off your meds? You acknowledge that we might be majority muslim someday and still don't see the problem in allowing muslims to force on every other religion their own dictates? You don't want a religious exemption to be available so youre future female descendants aren't mandated to have female circumcision? Being forced to practice someone else's religious beliefs, as the abortion mandate does, is as unamerican as it gets.

111 posted on 11/20/2012 3:53:53 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; ksen; No Socialist

Savita is just the latest victim of the poor quality care inherent to socialized medicine.


112 posted on 11/20/2012 3:55:23 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
You're not slick. You said, "A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on" -- that is completely asinine given Muslims are able to opt out completely from unconscionable Bobocare regulations that Catholics cannot.
113 posted on 11/20/2012 3:56:01 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Go back and read what I said. We do not want religious dictates, Christina or muslim, do be defining what our healthcare looks like.


114 posted on 11/20/2012 3:56:18 PM PST by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

I think if I was in Hobby Lobby’s situation I would change employees by attrition. Let them go and rehire people over the age of 50. That would eliminate paying for any abortions for employees and most of their daughters. Older folks make good employees. Any heavy lifting needed could be done by temp workers.


115 posted on 11/20/2012 3:56:54 PM PST by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
You're not slick. You said, "A precedent of limiting coverage on religious grounds is dangerous ground to be on" -- that is completely asinine given Muslims are able to opt out completely from unconscionable Bobocare regulations that Catholics cannot.
116 posted on 11/20/2012 3:57:17 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ksen
I think it would be very liberating for the employer and the health consumers. For the employers because they wouldn't have to worry about providing health insurance for their employees and could spend more time focused on their business. For the health consumer because he would no longer have to worry about medical bankruptcy.

What is "liberating" about having the government confiscate an ever-increasing portion of the fruits of your labor to redistribute to people who stay home and sit on their butts all day? This is a lot closer to the definition of slavery than liberty. The modern working man is already a tax slave.

You won't have to worry about medical bankruptcy, because there won't be any quality health care services around for you to pay for. You'll have the right to stand in line alongside the local welfare bum for poor quality care. At least until you're old enough where care will be denied in favor of euthanasia, or if you prefer a slow death of natural causes.

117 posted on 11/20/2012 3:59:48 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

A muslim barber shop refused to cut the hair of a woman last week. She is suing them for discrimination.

Love it when a plan comes together! (George Peppard). I miss him.


118 posted on 11/20/2012 4:00:10 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

Don’t be surprised if it happens.


119 posted on 11/20/2012 4:01:06 PM PST by OKSooner ("I will bless those who bless thee, and I will curse those who curse thee.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Wait until everything is Obamacare & we find out that every single medical loction has to have a staff of female doctors, anesthesiologists, etc, because no Muslim woman can be treated by a male.......


120 posted on 11/20/2012 4:01:55 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
Go back and read what I said. We do not want religious dictates, Christina or muslim, do be defining what our healthcare looks like.

I read it correctly the first time. You want atheists to be able to force their beliefs on the rest of us by demanding us non-atheists pay for their preferred social customs, in this case abortifacents. That's no different than a muslim majority demanding we pay for female circumcision, one of the preferred social customs of many muslims.

121 posted on 11/20/2012 4:02:46 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: WVNan
Let them go and rehire people over the age of 50. That would eliminate paying for any abortions for employees and most of their daughters.

Unless they still have children age 27 or younger, who Obamacare forces to be covered on their parents' plan.

122 posted on 11/20/2012 4:04:05 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
What is "liberating" about having the government confiscate an ever-increasing portion of the fruits of your labor to redistribute to people who stay home and sit on their butts all day? This is a lot closer to the definition of slavery than liberty. The modern working man is already a tax slave.

We already spend upwards of 18% of GDP on healthcare. What is the difference if that money is spent through private insurers or to a single-payer system? In the former scenario 18% of GDP is spent on healthcare and in the latter scenario 18% of GDP would be spent on healthcare.

You won't have to worry about medical bankruptcy, because there won't be any quality health care services around for you to pay for. You'll have the right to stand in line alongside the local welfare bum for poor quality care. At least until you're old enough where care will be denied in favor of euthanasia, or if you prefer a slow death of natural causes.

Typical GOP fearmongering not rooted in reality.

123 posted on 11/20/2012 4:05:21 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Sadly, more of this is what most Americans voted for in 2012.


124 posted on 11/20/2012 4:05:46 PM PST by TwelveOfTwenty (Ho, ho, hey, hey, I'm BUYcotting Chick-Fil-A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Unless they still have children age 27 or younger, who Obamacare forces to be covered on their parents' plan.

That's a lie. Obamacare does not force parents to keep their adult children on their health plans. It just allows that to happen if the parents want to keep paying for it. Now who is trying to restrict liberty?

125 posted on 11/20/2012 4:08:46 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

As a life-long bookkeeper, I am thinking you should shut down before midnight Dec 31. I am worried that any immersion into any part of Obamacare will come with penalties for then withdrawing.

In other words—don’t go near the quicksand.

We still haven’t seen every page of the 2700+++ pages.


126 posted on 11/20/2012 4:10:33 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,” the ruling said.”

What???


127 posted on 11/20/2012 4:12:44 PM PST by ElayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

“the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Marcel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion”

What about a case concluding that individuals have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion? Pretty sure there’re some of them. Now ask yourself who are the proprietors of these stores. Dogs? Chickens? Robots? No, it’s those same rights bearing entities known as humans. What happened to their rights? Or is forming and running a business according to your religious beliefs not a constitutionally approved “exercise”? What is? Whispering the Lords name in your basement with the lights off and door shut, maybe.

Hey, ask a judge if it’d be okay if we banned all news sites and tv stations from reporting on events of the day without a license, and licenses were granted on the basis of conformity with whatever the State happens to be doing. Sounds like a violation of freedom of the press, but I never read anything about tv, or the Internet in the Constitution. Individuals are still free to print and chant things on street corners while ringing a bell. No one ever heard of for-profit corporations having freedom of the press./s


128 posted on 11/20/2012 4:12:57 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Would you be as incensed if this business owner was a Jehovah’s Witness and required to offer health insurance policies to his employees that covered blood transfusions?

I would. I can find no place in the Constitution that mandates that a business, or the state, must provide health insurance at all, ever. It is unConstitutional to compel a business to provide benefits beyond an agreed-upon wage. The requirement for health insurance was just recently pulled out of Obama's well-traveled backside and has no historical or legal basis.

129 posted on 11/20/2012 4:15:08 PM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

corporations are people

therefore they have religious freedom

they don’t need to buy contraceptives for employees


130 posted on 11/20/2012 4:15:31 PM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ksen
We already spend upwards of 18% of GDP on healthcare. What is the difference if that money is spent through private insurers or to a single-payer system?

Then why don't we stop private production of food and instead send our food budget money directly to the government? Food inflation is out of control! The government can deliver your alloted monthly, Michelle-approved, sensible portions directly to your doorstep along with the U.S. mail.

Let's stop private production of cars as well. Government Motors can handle it. The government can deny automobiles to those who have adequate public transportation so we can lesson carbon emissions. That's good for everybody, right? You'll never have to live in fear of being without transportation again.

We should also stop the independent production of news and entertainment. The government can do it better. Just look at PBS and NPR, with happy cartoon characters for children to enjoy and responsible journalists who don't engage in "fearmongering" like those aggressive malcontents over on FOX News.

And what about housing? It's not fair how some people get evicted from their homes when they can't afford it while others get to live in massive mansions. If the government gets to control the housing market, there will never be another homeless person again. Everyone will be alloted an appropriately-sized apartment in public housing.

/SARCASM OFF

You, my friend, are the one who isn't dealing in reality. You are demonstrating an astonishing depth of ignorance by saying that government can spend our money as efficiently as individual citizens can. You are a useful idiot who believes a perfect utopia is achievable and is willing to give up your rights and your property to the first smooth-talking shyster who promises it to you. I assume you voted for Obama?

131 posted on 11/20/2012 4:18:20 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ksen
It is not very liberating for the employer, because the sclerotic micro-regulation and burgeoning bureaucracy of a NHS-style system has a macro effect of (among other things) huge taxes which suck the air out of all economic activity.

And it's not very liberating for the employee, because he can't reduce his costs by living as healthily as he can and opting for cheaper coverage to prevent catastrophic losses, such as a Major Medical plan or a Health Share plan, or no coverage it all. (The latter has heretofore been common for Americans who are in low-risk groups, e.g. young unmarried employed men ages 20 - 30, who choose to take that $nK a year and put it into something they want more, i.e. a business start-up.)(We call this "choice".)

It also results in a sharp reduction in the number of providers, since doctors will get out of a system which micro-manages their professional and ethical judgments and triples their paperwork. Most potential medical students won't bust their butts to go through all those years of schooling, internship, residency, etc. just to be put in the shackles of a system "with all the efficiency of the U.S. Postal Service and all the compassion of the IRS".

Thus you'll get a lot of foreign doctors (like in Britain), a lot of less-competent doctors, and a lot of medical tasks being shifted into the hands of nurse-practitioners, physicians' assistants, and other non-MD's, with the consequent loss of professional training and expertise.

And at last --- the ultimate cost-effectiveness measure --- you get the Adios treatment: the Liverpool Care Path, a.k.a. mandatory terminal sedation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html

Adios!

132 posted on 11/20/2012 4:20:04 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ksen
That's a lie. Obamacare does not force parents to keep their adult children on their health plans. It just allows that to happen if the parents want to keep paying for it. Now who is trying to restrict liberty?

I didn't say it did. I said Obamacare forces the plans to cover children up to age 27. Obviously that coverage doesn't have to be accepted. Obviously the child might have their own health insurance through their own job. The point is the parents CAN'T avoid paying for abortions if they want to cover their kids on their plan, and their kid chooses to have an abortion.

133 posted on 11/20/2012 4:22:01 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Its just a cleaning business that we run but people are cutting back and quite honestly they will clean thier own homes and businesses... I still have gainful employment but this extra is really great supplemental income and it is enough to keep the girls going.

Thank you for the Blessing; and we pray the same for your family Business and your home.

I do believe we are seeing what is going to happen to many more businesses especially those that do not want to succomb to government oversight.


134 posted on 11/20/2012 4:22:50 PM PST by Rightly Biased (Avenge me Girls AVENEGE ME!!!! ( I don't have any son's))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

“people were defending white only businesses with the same argument.”

They might have been, but I’ve never heard it. The popular argument was for the right to run white, black, or whatever-only businesses based on freedom of association, which is similar to the constitutional right to peaceably assemble, among others. That’s at least debatable, as it involves 9th amendment reasoning. Religious freedom less so, because it’s there in black and white.

Also, the reason you bring up segregation to buttress a “move on” aegument is because most people have moved on from racism, at least in such a blatant form. I haven’t moved on from freedom of association and property rights, but don’t comment on the Civil Rights Act unless it comes up. Most people aren’t like me in that sense, though they are in the sense that they still believe in the freedom of religion. It may eventually go the way of racism. Not yet.


135 posted on 11/20/2012 4:23:41 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
A plan which matches the preferences of the seller and the buyer of the plan is not "conformed to religious dictates." It's a plan that recognizes the just liberty of the seller and the buyer. That's what we're arguing for.

Otherwise the State can force sellers to sell, and buyers to buy, services and products which neither the seller nor the buyer want. That is a dictate--- and that's what you're arguing for.

136 posted on 11/20/2012 4:26:00 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Stone cold sober, as a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

That’s the 16th amendment. Though it is paid for through a tax on income—not an income tax persay, as in my opinion it is a direct tax on insurance status—Obamacare gets most of its juice from the “general welfare” clause of the tax and spend section.


137 posted on 11/20/2012 4:28:36 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Savita's death had nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with the fact that for some reason connected to their basic incompetence, her physicians did not administer the necessary antibiotics. Once she had developed septicemia, an abortion would not have saved her life unless she was also given antibiotics.

None of us are quite sure what your issue is. You want an abortion? It's the law of the land; you can have one any old time you want, right up until the day a child is due to be born. Have as many as you'd like. No one can stop you. If you want to run a company and pay for abortions, contraceptives, sterilizations, sex-change operations, abortifacient drugs, and anything else you'd like to pay for, you can do that, too. Nothing prevents you. But pay for it yourself. Don't ask me to pay for your sex life, your sexual choices, or your employees' sex lives. Kindly do not attempt to compel me and my coreligionists to violate our beliefs just to make things cheaper or more convenient for you or for your employees.

Here's a basic conservative principle: pay for your own stuff. Take responsibility for your own life. Don't force other people to pick up the tab for your decisions.

138 posted on 11/20/2012 4:32:25 PM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ksen

I realize employer provided health insurance has been the norm. But that in no way means that employers have a moral or social obligation to provide health insurance. They don’t. Traditionally, companies offered insurance and other benefits, such as paid vacations, to recruit and attract people to work for them,to be able to compete for the best qualified people and to inspire employee loyalty and a work ethic beneficial to the company.

Further, I don’t believe any employer has the obligation to pay employees enough money to pay for their own health insurance. Just as a company charges what the market will bear for their product, a company can only pay an employee what his service is worth in the market.


139 posted on 11/20/2012 4:35:06 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

“Here’s a basic conservative principle: pay for your own stuff. Take responsibility for your own life. Don’t force other people to pick up the tab for your decisions. “

I consider myself fairly conservative and somewhat agree with your statement and tried to use it on my ultralib friends. but as they keep reminding me, your argument above is also counter to the whole purpose of insurance, the spreading of burdensome costs. Where’s the compassion! LOL


140 posted on 11/20/2012 4:37:45 PM PST by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Is there no limit to your First Amendment rights when they start adversely affecting the lives of other people?

First Amendment rights are limited when there is a direct adverse effect on other people - like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The choice of a business owner to offer or not offer specific employment benefits should not even require First Amendment protection. Note that there is no discrimination in the particular example of whether or not a health insurance plan covers abortion related medications. If anything, the plan discriminates against men since they don't get the same benefit.

Private health insurance plans have a variety of limitations and covered and non-covered items. Why is the government involved in this at all? There is no harm to the employee from not getting many particular benefits, since they may never even use it, and in this particular example the cost of the medicine in question is minimal, and the "benefit" not being offered to the employees is, taken over the whole of the employees, negligible. Nobody that is employed needs insurance to protect themselves from a $50.00 risk.

Put another way, the government is proposing millions of dollars of fines because the employer won't agree to pay for a $50.00 pill that some small percentage of its 13,000 employees may rarely buy. Assuming half of its employees are men, 6,500 employees could potentially use a morning after pill. But of the women, no doubt some are too old to need such a thing, and many are married and also not as likely to be interested in a morning after pill. Some women of course are already using birth control. So for the men, the benefit being "denied" is of no personal value. For the women, it is the probability that they need or want the morning after pill times its cost. Overall I doubt you can show any harm to any employee from the lack of the benefit, and hence logically there is no reason to compel insurance for it.

But that's not the logic behind the law. The goal of the law is to force acceptance of a particular political viewpoint advocated by liberal Democrats, using huge fines as the hammer to force people to give up their values and viewpoint.

141 posted on 11/20/2012 4:42:02 PM PST by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

Donald, neither insurance nor charity are contradictory to conservatism. EXCESSIVE TAXATION is contradictory to conservatism because it is INVOLUNTARY. Conservatism is defined by free people who are free to make their own decisions on how they run their own life.

Ask your liberal friends why health care should be the only industry funded by taxation and a single-payer system. Why not do the same with food, clothing, housing, education, transporation, news, entertainment, etc.? If the government is so good that they can give us better health care through single-payer than through any other economic system, why should we not entrust everything else we consume to their perfectly fair, efficient and effective central planning?


142 posted on 11/20/2012 4:49:28 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“if the employer doesn’t provide health insurance he should at least pay his employees enough so they can purchase their own”

He will, or he won’t have employees, or at least not not valuable employees. That’s how the labor market works. Unless it’s a crap job, in which case traditionally young and healthy people work them.

“I’m all for moving away from an employer/insurance model and for going directly to a single-payer system supported by tax revenues”

Why, on earth? That’s like curing a headache by hitting yourself in the head with a sledgehammer.


143 posted on 11/20/2012 4:49:28 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: NYer
So, Muhammad Ali, who I very much liked as a boxer, is granted conscientious objector status in the middle of a war in which over 50,000 thousand young Americans died, but no exemption here. None of this will change unless and until our side is marching in the streets.
144 posted on 11/20/2012 5:01:19 PM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

“as (my ultralib friends) keep reminding me, your argument above is also counter to the whole purpose of insurance, the spreading of burdensome costs.”

A lib would say that. In what world is voluntarily entering a scheme whereby you may end up paying for other people’s misfortunes or them yours counter to taking responsibility for your own life? Only an adolescent mind could see no difference between private risk hedging and burden spreading and the State stealing money from Peter to pay for Paul’s cancer.


145 posted on 11/20/2012 5:02:05 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: NYer

There is something very wrong with the education and mental state of a man/judge who rules that organizations and probably by his rules individuals are now in the USA no longer allowed to follow their consciences as to established and inherent religious conscience. Something about all these status/power seeking people to become judges is becoming apparent. The USA would be better off with less judges who feel driven to shape society instead of wanting to abide by the limits granted supposedly by the people. Our sports ‘judges’ have more common sense than our ‘legal’ judges as to the job they are paid for.


146 posted on 11/20/2012 5:02:49 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
I smelled some roadkill the other day..and it stunk.

Your logic is worse than that stink.

147 posted on 11/20/2012 5:03:40 PM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

“Why not do the same with food, clothing, housing, education, transportation, news, entertainment, etc.?”

We already do it with education and to a certain extent all the rest. Nevertheless, shhh. Don’t give them ideas.


148 posted on 11/20/2012 5:06:15 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
We are a secular nation, not Christian (anymore) and at some point will probably be muslim.

Okay....let's cut to the chase. You are nuts!!

149 posted on 11/20/2012 5:06:25 PM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ksen

OK, this is funny. My sister is a JW and believe me when I tell you, they are so cheap you’d be lucky to get any kind of insurance in the first place.


150 posted on 11/20/2012 5:11:31 PM PST by CityCenter (Presidential terms are 4 years, eternity is forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson