Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Two More Wins For Freedom...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by NormATive View Post
    What? This has nothing to do with freedom. Why do you conflate the two? This is about providing healthcare benefits. If your company is going to entice employees and promise healthcare, you should be equitable and fair in what you cover. You can't play doctor. Who is Hobby Lobby to determine what is good for their female patients? Weren't you guys making the same argument AGAINST ACA? That "government bureaucrats" (i.e.; non-medical people) shouldn't be making medical decisions? A position I happen to agree with.

    With all the wacky religious beliefs out there, allowing people to pick and choose what's good for employees based on their "religious views" is very shaky ground.
    Norm, you are mixing up two different things. The argument against ACA was not particularly against non medical people, but specifically against big government. Because I want the federal government to be out of this issue does not in any way mean that I do not want private companies to be free to select what they are willing to pay for. The two issues you don't want to conflate are being conflated by you in the opposite way.

    ACA has so many draw backs beyond this particular one it is well beyond the scope of this discussion.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by NormATive View Post
      Actually, it was in the dissenting opinion by Justice Ginsburg. I think I'm in good company. But, thanks!
      Yes, she used it too.


      What? This has nothing to do with freedom. Why do you conflate the two? This is about providing healthcare benefits. If your company is going to entice employees and promise healthcare, you should be equitable and fair in what you cover. You can't play doctor. Who is Hobby Lobby to determine what is good for their female patients? Weren't you guys making the same argument AGAINST ACA? That "government bureaucrats" (i.e.; non-medical people) shouldn't be making medical decisions? A position I happen to agree with.
      Again Norm, do you believe that private companies should be forced by law to provide healthcare? See, this is why I say that liberals hate freedom. And BTW Norm, Hobby Lobby does offer 16 forms of birth control in their health plan - they objected to 4 that could be used as abortifacients. Was that really so outrageous that they couldn't be accommodated under the ACA?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #48
        I noticed there arent't any comments about the ruling against the union. So we're all agreed on that I guess?
        Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
          I noticed there arent't any comments about the ruling against the union. So we're all agreed on that I guess?
          Bashing Christians is more fun apparently...
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
            I noticed there arent't any comments about the ruling against the union. So we're all agreed on that I guess?
            Yes, and it is great, my state had that law.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
              It seems to me as though too much of the commentary on this topic has ignored the test set up by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states that a generally applicable law which violates religious freedom may be enforced given that:
              1. the law is pursuing a compelling state interest
              2. the state is pursuing the means which is least restrictive with respect to religious liberty
              This is a precedent that I think is terrible. Around 1960 (from what I can tell) the Supreme Court decided that the government may violate the constitution if it has a "compelling interest" in doing so--which, as far as I can tell means "if it really, really wants to." Which seems to amount to a virtual coup--an overthrowing of all Constitutional protections (allowing the government to insert exceptions where it really wants to). It has been used to insert (non-existing) exceptions to most of the Bill of Rights.

              Essentially, the decision was made on the grounds that there were less restrictive means available to the government if it wanted to make contraceptives widely available. It doesn't have to impose on the religious consciences of a certain category of businesses in order to accomplish that aim.

              Providing a life-saving procedure could easily be judged to be a more compelling interest than providing contraception, such that a transfusion can be mandated as part of uniform coverage and contraception be provided for only through, for example, government vouchers... or, in some cases, simply the same system (insufficient though it is) which the Obama administration already set up for religious non-profits.
              I don't think the life-saving procedure makes much of a difference, regarding less restrictive means.
              Here is a far better, less-restrictive means: Get rid of the tax penalty for employers to just give their employees the cash with which to purchase their own insurance (or whatever it is they most need to purchase), and don't force any employers to purchase any benefits for the employees.

              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
              Hobby Lobby wants to provide generous pay and health care coverage to its employees as part of the same religious mission that leads them to object to abortifacients. Complaining about the insurance mandate generally in the context of this discussion seems silly-- but maybe that's just me.
              It's relevant (not silly) because of its logical implications. If Hobby Lobby's owners were not forced to provide any benefits at all, then that would imply that they are free to decide to offer as much or as little benefits of whatever kind(s) they happen to choose.

              Originally posted by NormATive View Post
              What? This has nothing to do with freedom. Why do you conflate the two?
              How does forcing people to pay for things for other people not have to do with freedom?

              With all the wacky religious beliefs out there, allowing people to pick and choose what's good for employees based on their "religious views" is very shaky ground.
              It should have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Any reason should be good enough: e.g., "It's the best business decision", "It's what the two parties contractually agreed on", or even "Just because I feel like it."
              At least, that's the way it would be in a free country.

              Comment


              • #52
                Here is an even-handed analysis that concludes that it is unlikely that any insurer would agree to exclude vaccinations/etc.:

                http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ing-affect-co/

                Before the Affordable Care Act, employers were free to drop blood transfusions or any other medical procedures from policies they provided (as long as the state didn’t mandate coverage). In 40 years working in the employee benefit business, Laszewski said he has "never heard of an employer who ever did anything like not cover vaccines or blood transfusions."

                Insurance companies, too, might be very hesitant to even allow a company to make those exemptions on a policy.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Joel View Post
                  This is a precedent that I think is terrible. Around 1960 (from what I can tell) the Supreme Court decided that the government may violate the constitution if it has a "compelling interest" in doing so--which, as far as I can tell means "if it really, really wants to." Which seems to amount to a virtual coup--an overthrowing of all Constitutional protections (allowing the government to insert exceptions where it really wants to). It has been used to insert (non-existing) exceptions to most of the Bill of Rights.
                  I've studied the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment in depth; the Founders did not see, for instance, the 1st Amendment as providing protection from the draft to Quakers. Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause, in its original context, is actually very rigorous or restrictive.

                  I don't think the life-saving procedure makes much of a difference, regarding less restrictive means.
                  Here is a far better, less-restrictive means: Get rid of the tax penalty for employers to just give their employees the cash with which to purchase their own insurance (or whatever it is they most need to purchase), and don't force any employers to purchase any benefits for the employees.
                  Even better, use this as a reason to strike down Obamacare and clear the way for a single-payer system.

                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    I've studied the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment in depth; the Founders did not see, for instance, the 1st Amendment as providing protection from the draft to Quakers. Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause, in its original context, is actually very rigorous or restrictive.
                    For perhaps a clearer example, the Supreme Court has before invented exceptions to your 5th Amendment right to not be compelled to testify against yourself, e.g., based on the reasoning that the government really, really wants to find out if you are a communist. ("state interest")

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      I've studied the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment in depth; the Founders did not see, for instance, the 1st Amendment as providing protection from the draft to Quakers. Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause, in its original context, is actually very rigorous or restrictive.
                      ...

                      Since they also didn't apply to the states at the time, kinda hard to say that.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Since they also didn't apply to the states at the time, kinda hard to say that.
                        Not only did they not apply to the states, but the establishment clause was phrased in such a way as to only ever be applicable to the federal government.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          Here is an even-handed analysis that concludes that it is unlikely that any insurer would agree to exclude vaccinations/etc.:

                          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ing-affect-co/
                          I'm dubious, myself but an employer could use the argument to not offer coverage at all if there were no alternative. I'm not sure there are many JH closely held corporations that have 50+ employees in the first place so the actual impact is likely to be very, very small.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            Not only did they not apply to the states, but the establishment clause was phrased in such a way as to only ever be applicable to the federal government.
                            Tell the Warren Court - I agree with Thomas about the incorporation.
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Tell the Warren Court - I agree with Thomas about the incorporation.
                              And Thomas cited my constitutional law professor in his opinion in Greece v. Galloway
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Coolness!
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                291 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X