|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 08 2020 03:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 03:52 IgnE wrote:
The best thing to do would be to sever health insurance from employment. Don't take the Catholic employers to court. Just stop making healthcare dependent on the employer. yes. But employers will fight that tooth and nail because supplying healthcare is a big bargaining chip they currently hold in attracting workers.
Businesses generally also pay a portion of the healthcare, so operating expenses would go down. Many business owners opposed Obamacare for that reason.
|
On August 08 2020 03:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 03:55 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2020 03:52 IgnE wrote:
The best thing to do would be to sever health insurance from employment. Don't take the Catholic employers to court. Just stop making healthcare dependent on the employer. yes. But employers will fight that tooth and nail because supplying healthcare is a big bargaining chip they currently hold in attracting workers. Businesses generally also pay a portion of the healthcare, so operating expenses would go down. Many business owners opposed Obamacare for that reason.
I would be very curious to see if it’s possible to math out the operating costs with wage savings, I wonder if that’s been done.
|
On August 08 2020 04:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 03:59 IgnE wrote:On August 08 2020 03:55 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2020 03:52 IgnE wrote:
The best thing to do would be to sever health insurance from employment. Don't take the Catholic employers to court. Just stop making healthcare dependent on the employer. yes. But employers will fight that tooth and nail because supplying healthcare is a big bargaining chip they currently hold in attracting workers. Businesses generally also pay a portion of the healthcare, so operating expenses would go down. Many business owners opposed Obamacare for that reason. I would be very curious to see if it’s possible to math out the operating costs with wage savings, I wonder if that’s been done.
That article I linked isn't the greatest but you get the idea. Look at this editing:
"In the meantime, to rein in costs, business owners are opting to buy high-premium policies or self-insure.
Genia Gore, for instance, has become an expert at reigning in healthcare costs at family run Gore Travel Plaza — a large gas station in Seiling, Oklahoma — and Gore Nitrogen, a company that delivers nitrogen to oil wells."
|
On August 08 2020 03:52 IgnE wrote:
The best thing to do would be to sever health insurance from employment. Don't take the Catholic employers to court. Just stop making healthcare dependent on the employer.
Yes please. I bet democrats would be all for that. In fact they've tried. But there's too much pushback from corporate interests, and some of them are corrupt as all politicians are.
|
On August 08 2020 04:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 03:59 IgnE wrote:On August 08 2020 03:55 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2020 03:52 IgnE wrote:
The best thing to do would be to sever health insurance from employment. Don't take the Catholic employers to court. Just stop making healthcare dependent on the employer. yes. But employers will fight that tooth and nail because supplying healthcare is a big bargaining chip they currently hold in attracting workers. Businesses generally also pay a portion of the healthcare, so operating expenses would go down. Many business owners opposed Obamacare for that reason. I would be very curious to see if it’s possible to math out the operating costs with wage savings, I wonder if that’s been done.
It's so complex that anyone can get any result they want out of the math, iirc. (Wages go up 500% Cost of living rises 50%! Heath care costs rise and fall, simultaneously!)
|
On August 08 2020 03:36 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 03:10 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 02:59 Fleetfeet wrote:On August 08 2020 02:44 Danglars wrote:
They were facing fines for noncompliance/violation. You're not dead wrong here, just mostly wrong.
I think the government should have very little say in the operation of religious organizations, and prefer a strong first amendment to protect their rights. They were facing fines for noncompliance and violation because being able to provide contraceptives from an alternate source for health care wasn't -good enough- for them. They were facing fines if they chose to ignore the law.They are not being forced to use the contraceptives personally, have been provided the means to choose their own health care provider for said contraceptives, and are facing fines as the alternative to ignoring these options. We'll agree to disagree on the last bit. I trust the governance of a large overruling body a lot more than I do the smaller religious organizations contained within it, even in the case of the US. They were still being forced to offer plans to employees including abortifacients. That's why their case returned to the Supreme Court, and justices ruled in favor of them 7-2. And their detractors had kinda a bad piece of information against them. They failed to find a single woman who lacks this type of coverage with the current religious exemption. And with changing times, the govt's treatment of Title X means they can receive contraceptive coverage covered by the Fed. And that's kinda a big deal if the purported reason is healthcare for women, when the lawyers arguing that it amounts to denying healthcare to women can't find a single one unable to receive subsidized coverage. I would think this would be an obstacle to people claiming this case is about healthcare, but I'm always surprised in this regard. The Supreme Court ruled that Little Sisters of the Poor don't have to offer contraceptive coverage, and nobody lost their coverage as a result. Hmm. See WSJ. (For the record, I do think that states who consider abortifacients as mandatory health care, may subsidize the drugs for members of religious organizations who have a well-founded exemption. Both sides can win here, the nuns aren't forced to violate their religious conscience, and the state can make sure employees can find them free elsewhere) That's what laws do, though - they force people to do, or not do, a thing. I'll repost something I snuck in on an edit in a previous post as my final thoughts on the subject : I don't see the Little Sisters of the Poor as victims in this case, because I believe fighting for the right to not provide contraceptives to their employees is a stupidly minor thing to fight for, and not a relevant violation of religious freedom. It does make for good media, though, if you have Biden the evil trying to stop the Little Sisters of the Poor in their fight to help the elderly... which is why we've heard about it at all, even though it has nothing to do with helping the elderly. This feels like a partisan case of "Evil Biden and his war on the Little Nuns of Good and Poverty" and it being represented as such feels disingenuous, albeit catching. I very much appreciate that your views on the subject are deeper than that, and understand where we fundamentally disagree. Religious freedoms are all well and good, but I have no trust of religion to be good overall, and much more trust in an overarching structure designed (theoretically) to govern a populace to do just that.
I’m satisfied having been heard and understood. I do get to share society with people that disagree with me and undervalue religious concerns. When compromise is possible, compromise, and when it is impossible, vote (or sue or protest). I certainly wouldn’t waste so much time and energy on the subject if Biden had made an alternative statement (IE I respect the decision of the court and consider it settled law) or if I had disingenuous intent (Why argue on a lefty political thread where basically everybody thinks I’m wrong?) I linked the WSJ thread, whose better prose may also convince you that these concerns (it isn’t really about healthcare, it’s about eroding religious exemptions) are faithfully held.
|
On August 08 2020 03:52 IgnE wrote:
The best thing to do would be to sever health insurance from employment. Don't take the Catholic employers to court. Just stop making healthcare dependent on the employer.
A truly market system would never have health insurance decisions ironed out between employers, insurer, and a hospital system/providers, leaving out the actual consumer of healthcare, the employer. But we don’t have a private market system, it’s some kind of monstrous mix getting the worst of several systems.
So the compromises here include reforming the insurance system and state taxpayers voting to subsidize things they want everyone to have for free*.
I don’t like the prospect of the status quo continuing under Biden, and the nuns go to the Supreme Court a third time for something that should’ve been instantly gained the first time they asked for a religious exemption.
|
On August 08 2020 04:15 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 04:01 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2020 03:59 IgnE wrote:On August 08 2020 03:55 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2020 03:52 IgnE wrote:
The best thing to do would be to sever health insurance from employment. Don't take the Catholic employers to court. Just stop making healthcare dependent on the employer. yes. But employers will fight that tooth and nail because supplying healthcare is a big bargaining chip they currently hold in attracting workers. Businesses generally also pay a portion of the healthcare, so operating expenses would go down. Many business owners opposed Obamacare for that reason. I would be very curious to see if it’s possible to math out the operating costs with wage savings, I wonder if that’s been done. It's so complex that anyone can get any result they want out of the math, iirc. (Wages go up 500% Cost of living rises 50%! Heath care costs rise and fall, simultaneously!)
Makes sense that it’s a black box of sorts, there’s a lot of good scholarship being done on how the complexity of systems like finance and healthcare is a feature, rather than a bug. A professor named Frank Pasquale did a swell presentation on that issue in a summer class I’m taking.
|
On August 08 2020 03:59 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 01:40 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why? You are applauding a religious entity rejecting law, because of their religious belief. Why is that different to another religious entity rejecting Healthcare because of lack of leech therapy? Can the sisters of whatever fire their employees because they are gay? Should they be allowed? I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier. They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me. It's really funny to see you keep on talking every time about the little sisters of the poor as if religious freedom was the issue here. The issue is health care, and employers, WHOEVER they are, having the ability to deny some sort of health care to their employees, when the system deems that employers should be the ones to provide health care. Hiring and firing based on religious grounds sounds fine, health care is something else. As long as the employers must provide health care, there should be NO exemptions. The ones at issue here are not the poor little sisters that might have employees use contraceptives or get an abortion and get their feelings hurt, it's the employees being denied the same coverage as somewhere else. And if you say "but they can choose another employer, no problem", it just doesn't work like that, especially in a crisis and you know it. Their "willing" employees could just as well usually choose NOT to use that abortion benefit and nobody's feeling would be hurt. And then if someone suffered a rape, then they could get an abortion without paying dozens of thousands due to stupid health care laws. Boohooo poor little sisters only trying to help. Fuck their employees then I guess. If you insist on arguing about the other companies that have those exemptions, I agree with you. They shouldn't either.
As I’ve already pointed out, the issue was not health care, and the government failed to point out a single instance where nuns couldn’t obtain abortifacients because their health plan didn’t offer them for free. In the olden years, you could pick plans that make them free, pick plans where it was cost subsidized, or pick plans where you pay out of pocket. I still cannot see how forcing the nuns to offer these plans has such a big impact on health care, when the state can just as well subsidize it themselves without forcing the nuns to do it on their behalf. You can’t refuse taxes just because some of it will fund abortions, after all.
The government was forced to admit that the government possessed other ways of getting free abortifacients to “nuns who need it” without forcing the nuns to participate in it themselves. Is it really about health care? Really? It sounds more like telling the nuns “it must be you, no really screw your religious beliefs and mission, it must come from you only”
|
On August 08 2020 04:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 03:59 Nouar wrote:On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 01:40 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why? You are applauding a religious entity rejecting law, because of their religious belief. Why is that different to another religious entity rejecting Healthcare because of lack of leech therapy? Can the sisters of whatever fire their employees because they are gay? Should they be allowed? I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier. They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me. It's really funny to see you keep on talking every time about the little sisters of the poor as if religious freedom was the issue here. The issue is health care, and employers, WHOEVER they are, having the ability to deny some sort of health care to their employees, when the system deems that employers should be the ones to provide health care. Hiring and firing based on religious grounds sounds fine, health care is something else. As long as the employers must provide health care, there should be NO exemptions. The ones at issue here are not the poor little sisters that might have employees use contraceptives or get an abortion and get their feelings hurt, it's the employees being denied the same coverage as somewhere else. And if you say "but they can choose another employer, no problem", it just doesn't work like that, especially in a crisis and you know it. Their "willing" employees could just as well usually choose NOT to use that abortion benefit and nobody's feeling would be hurt. And then if someone suffered a rape, then they could get an abortion without paying dozens of thousands due to stupid health care laws. Boohooo poor little sisters only trying to help. Fuck their employees then I guess. If you insist on arguing about the other companies that have those exemptions, I agree with you. They shouldn't either. As I’ve already pointed out, the issue was not health care, and the government failed to point out a single instance where nuns couldn’t obtain abortifacients because their health plan didn’t offer them for free. In the olden years, you could pick plans that make them free, pick plans where it was cost subsidized, or pick plans where you pay out of pocket. I still cannot see how forcing the nuns to offer these plans has such a big impact on health care, when the state can just as well subsidize it themselves without forcing the nuns to do it on their behalf. You can’t refuse taxes just because some of it will fund abortions, after all. The government was forced to admit that the government possessed other ways of getting free abortifacients to “nuns who need it” without forcing the nuns to participate in it themselves. Is it really about health care? Really? It sounds more like telling the nuns “it must be you, no really screw your religious beliefs and mission, it must come from you only”
Don't you think it would be so much easier if the government was the only one providing health care then ? Because looking at your argumentation there, it sure looks like it. I do.
It's the root of the issue to me. "As long as employers are in charge of health care". And poof, the religious freedom issue with providing healthcare just disappears.
|
On August 08 2020 04:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 03:59 Nouar wrote:On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 01:40 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why? You are applauding a religious entity rejecting law, because of their religious belief. Why is that different to another religious entity rejecting Healthcare because of lack of leech therapy? Can the sisters of whatever fire their employees because they are gay? Should they be allowed? I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier. They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me. It's really funny to see you keep on talking every time about the little sisters of the poor as if religious freedom was the issue here. The issue is health care, and employers, WHOEVER they are, having the ability to deny some sort of health care to their employees, when the system deems that employers should be the ones to provide health care. Hiring and firing based on religious grounds sounds fine, health care is something else. As long as the employers must provide health care, there should be NO exemptions. The ones at issue here are not the poor little sisters that might have employees use contraceptives or get an abortion and get their feelings hurt, it's the employees being denied the same coverage as somewhere else. And if you say "but they can choose another employer, no problem", it just doesn't work like that, especially in a crisis and you know it. Their "willing" employees could just as well usually choose NOT to use that abortion benefit and nobody's feeling would be hurt. And then if someone suffered a rape, then they could get an abortion without paying dozens of thousands due to stupid health care laws. Boohooo poor little sisters only trying to help. Fuck their employees then I guess. If you insist on arguing about the other companies that have those exemptions, I agree with you. They shouldn't either. As I’ve already pointed out, the issue was not health care, and the government failed to point out a single instance where nuns couldn’t obtain abortifacients because their health plan didn’t offer them for free. In the olden years, you could pick plans that make them free, pick plans where it was cost subsidized, or pick plans where you pay out of pocket. I still cannot see how forcing the nuns to offer these plans has such a big impact on health care, when the state can just as well subsidize it themselves without forcing the nuns to do it on their behalf. You can’t refuse taxes just because some of it will fund abortions, after all. The government was forced to admit that the government possessed other ways of getting free abortifacients to “nuns who need it” without forcing the nuns to participate in it themselves. Is it really about health care? Really? It sounds more like telling the nuns “it must be you, no really screw your religious beliefs and mission, it must come from you only”
So, do i read this correctly that you are in favor of a general healthcare solution which provides good healthcare to everyone in the country?
This would solve this problem very neatly.
|
On August 08 2020 04:36 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 04:30 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 03:59 Nouar wrote:On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 01:40 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why? You are applauding a religious entity rejecting law, because of their religious belief. Why is that different to another religious entity rejecting Healthcare because of lack of leech therapy? Can the sisters of whatever fire their employees because they are gay? Should they be allowed? I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier. They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me. It's really funny to see you keep on talking every time about the little sisters of the poor as if religious freedom was the issue here. The issue is health care, and employers, WHOEVER they are, having the ability to deny some sort of health care to their employees, when the system deems that employers should be the ones to provide health care. Hiring and firing based on religious grounds sounds fine, health care is something else. As long as the employers must provide health care, there should be NO exemptions. The ones at issue here are not the poor little sisters that might have employees use contraceptives or get an abortion and get their feelings hurt, it's the employees being denied the same coverage as somewhere else. And if you say "but they can choose another employer, no problem", it just doesn't work like that, especially in a crisis and you know it. Their "willing" employees could just as well usually choose NOT to use that abortion benefit and nobody's feeling would be hurt. And then if someone suffered a rape, then they could get an abortion without paying dozens of thousands due to stupid health care laws. Boohooo poor little sisters only trying to help. Fuck their employees then I guess. If you insist on arguing about the other companies that have those exemptions, I agree with you. They shouldn't either. As I’ve already pointed out, the issue was not health care, and the government failed to point out a single instance where nuns couldn’t obtain abortifacients because their health plan didn’t offer them for free. In the olden years, you could pick plans that make them free, pick plans where it was cost subsidized, or pick plans where you pay out of pocket. I still cannot see how forcing the nuns to offer these plans has such a big impact on health care, when the state can just as well subsidize it themselves without forcing the nuns to do it on their behalf. You can’t refuse taxes just because some of it will fund abortions, after all. The government was forced to admit that the government possessed other ways of getting free abortifacients to “nuns who need it” without forcing the nuns to participate in it themselves. Is it really about health care? Really? It sounds more like telling the nuns “it must be you, no really screw your religious beliefs and mission, it must come from you only” Don't you think it would be so much easier if the government was the only one providing health care then ? Because looking at your argumentation there, it sure looks like it. I do. It's the root of the issue to me. "As long as employers are in charge of health care". And poof, the religious freedom issue with providing healthcare just disappears.
If they’re going to come down and say certain health plans are illegal, and compel them to contain certain products free of charge, then they better pay attention to allowing people of religious conscience to seek and obtain reasonable exemptions. I’d be perfectly happy if the fed concerned itself just with possibly fraudulent plans, and if states subsidized things they think should be free themselves. This whole expansive view of telling companies what can and can’t be offered as insurance doesn’t make much sense to me.
But sure, make people responsible for choosing their own health plans, and make them (and not the employer) the center of the insurance scheme. I’d love for the government to stop making it so tax-advantaged for part of a persons pay to be instead routed towards no wage benefits. Pay them. This thing is a sad legacy from decades-ago government pay regulations and should be done away with.
|
On August 08 2020 04:37 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 04:30 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 03:59 Nouar wrote:On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 01:40 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why? You are applauding a religious entity rejecting law, because of their religious belief. Why is that different to another religious entity rejecting Healthcare because of lack of leech therapy? Can the sisters of whatever fire their employees because they are gay? Should they be allowed? I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier. They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me. It's really funny to see you keep on talking every time about the little sisters of the poor as if religious freedom was the issue here. The issue is health care, and employers, WHOEVER they are, having the ability to deny some sort of health care to their employees, when the system deems that employers should be the ones to provide health care. Hiring and firing based on religious grounds sounds fine, health care is something else. As long as the employers must provide health care, there should be NO exemptions. The ones at issue here are not the poor little sisters that might have employees use contraceptives or get an abortion and get their feelings hurt, it's the employees being denied the same coverage as somewhere else. And if you say "but they can choose another employer, no problem", it just doesn't work like that, especially in a crisis and you know it. Their "willing" employees could just as well usually choose NOT to use that abortion benefit and nobody's feeling would be hurt. And then if someone suffered a rape, then they could get an abortion without paying dozens of thousands due to stupid health care laws. Boohooo poor little sisters only trying to help. Fuck their employees then I guess. If you insist on arguing about the other companies that have those exemptions, I agree with you. They shouldn't either. As I’ve already pointed out, the issue was not health care, and the government failed to point out a single instance where nuns couldn’t obtain abortifacients because their health plan didn’t offer them for free. In the olden years, you could pick plans that make them free, pick plans where it was cost subsidized, or pick plans where you pay out of pocket. I still cannot see how forcing the nuns to offer these plans has such a big impact on health care, when the state can just as well subsidize it themselves without forcing the nuns to do it on their behalf. You can’t refuse taxes just because some of it will fund abortions, after all. The government was forced to admit that the government possessed other ways of getting free abortifacients to “nuns who need it” without forcing the nuns to participate in it themselves. Is it really about health care? Really? It sounds more like telling the nuns “it must be you, no really screw your religious beliefs and mission, it must come from you only” So, do i read this correctly that you are in favor of a general healthcare solution which provides good healthcare to everyone in the country? This would solve this problem very neatly.
As much as this constitutes a minor admission that it’s not really about health care, but about forcing the nuns, and an insult to the system, I’m happy. Yes, I’m not a big fan of the present system, and spent a long time composing giant walls of text for principles of a replacement system in this video game forums political threads a while ago.
|
On August 08 2020 04:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 04:37 Simberto wrote:On August 08 2020 04:30 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 03:59 Nouar wrote:On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 01:40 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why? You are applauding a religious entity rejecting law, because of their religious belief. Why is that different to another religious entity rejecting Healthcare because of lack of leech therapy? Can the sisters of whatever fire their employees because they are gay? Should they be allowed? I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier. They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me. It's really funny to see you keep on talking every time about the little sisters of the poor as if religious freedom was the issue here. The issue is health care, and employers, WHOEVER they are, having the ability to deny some sort of health care to their employees, when the system deems that employers should be the ones to provide health care. Hiring and firing based on religious grounds sounds fine, health care is something else. As long as the employers must provide health care, there should be NO exemptions. The ones at issue here are not the poor little sisters that might have employees use contraceptives or get an abortion and get their feelings hurt, it's the employees being denied the same coverage as somewhere else. And if you say "but they can choose another employer, no problem", it just doesn't work like that, especially in a crisis and you know it. Their "willing" employees could just as well usually choose NOT to use that abortion benefit and nobody's feeling would be hurt. And then if someone suffered a rape, then they could get an abortion without paying dozens of thousands due to stupid health care laws. Boohooo poor little sisters only trying to help. Fuck their employees then I guess. If you insist on arguing about the other companies that have those exemptions, I agree with you. They shouldn't either. As I’ve already pointed out, the issue was not health care, and the government failed to point out a single instance where nuns couldn’t obtain abortifacients because their health plan didn’t offer them for free. In the olden years, you could pick plans that make them free, pick plans where it was cost subsidized, or pick plans where you pay out of pocket. I still cannot see how forcing the nuns to offer these plans has such a big impact on health care, when the state can just as well subsidize it themselves without forcing the nuns to do it on their behalf. You can’t refuse taxes just because some of it will fund abortions, after all. The government was forced to admit that the government possessed other ways of getting free abortifacients to “nuns who need it” without forcing the nuns to participate in it themselves. Is it really about health care? Really? It sounds more like telling the nuns “it must be you, no really screw your religious beliefs and mission, it must come from you only” So, do i read this correctly that you are in favor of a general healthcare solution which provides good healthcare to everyone in the country? This would solve this problem very neatly. As much as this constitutes a minor admission that it’s not really about health care, but about forcing the nuns, and an insult to the system, I’m happy. Yes, I’m not a big fan of the present system, and spent a long time composing giant walls of text for principles of a replacement system in this video game forums political threads a while ago.
Nuns or whatever else, this is completely about health care to me. Republicans usually doing everything they can to deny people access to things that have been voted legal because it doesn't suit them (lots of examples about abortions restrictions as much as possible), and democrats trying to enforce things sometimes a bit too much to make a point.
Nuns are just caught in the crossfire. Instead of trying to solve a thousand bad issues, solving the elephant in the room would be so much better. But...
|
On August 08 2020 02:29 Simberto wrote:
Religious freedom is something for yourself. Not a sword to hit other people with. You are free to be of any religion you choose, but you may not use that freedom to hurt other people with. (As is the case with any freedom.)
I think this is a particularly salient point in the conversation. Any discussion about the rights and freedoms of the practitioners of any religion needs to first make sure to address this point, or else it's trying to talk about something altogether different from freedom. The ability to take healthcare options away from your workers on the basis of religion isn't a right for yourself, it's a privilege that comes at the expense of others.
But I also agree with all points made so far about our generally abusive healthcare network in this country too. It's one more reason we shouldn't need to have this discussion. If employers didn't have a lock on healthcare options that don't bankrupt people who need it, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
|
On August 08 2020 05:06 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 04:56 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 04:37 Simberto wrote:On August 08 2020 04:30 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 03:59 Nouar wrote:On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2020 01:40 Broetchenholer wrote:
Why? You are applauding a religious entity rejecting law, because of their religious belief. Why is that different to another religious entity rejecting Healthcare because of lack of leech therapy? Can the sisters of whatever fire their employees because they are gay? Should they be allowed? I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier. They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me. It's really funny to see you keep on talking every time about the little sisters of the poor as if religious freedom was the issue here. The issue is health care, and employers, WHOEVER they are, having the ability to deny some sort of health care to their employees, when the system deems that employers should be the ones to provide health care. Hiring and firing based on religious grounds sounds fine, health care is something else. As long as the employers must provide health care, there should be NO exemptions. The ones at issue here are not the poor little sisters that might have employees use contraceptives or get an abortion and get their feelings hurt, it's the employees being denied the same coverage as somewhere else. And if you say "but they can choose another employer, no problem", it just doesn't work like that, especially in a crisis and you know it. Their "willing" employees could just as well usually choose NOT to use that abortion benefit and nobody's feeling would be hurt. And then if someone suffered a rape, then they could get an abortion without paying dozens of thousands due to stupid health care laws. Boohooo poor little sisters only trying to help. Fuck their employees then I guess. If you insist on arguing about the other companies that have those exemptions, I agree with you. They shouldn't either. As I’ve already pointed out, the issue was not health care, and the government failed to point out a single instance where nuns couldn’t obtain abortifacients because their health plan didn’t offer them for free. In the olden years, you could pick plans that make them free, pick plans where it was cost subsidized, or pick plans where you pay out of pocket. I still cannot see how forcing the nuns to offer these plans has such a big impact on health care, when the state can just as well subsidize it themselves without forcing the nuns to do it on their behalf. You can’t refuse taxes just because some of it will fund abortions, after all. The government was forced to admit that the government possessed other ways of getting free abortifacients to “nuns who need it” without forcing the nuns to participate in it themselves. Is it really about health care? Really? It sounds more like telling the nuns “it must be you, no really screw your religious beliefs and mission, it must come from you only” So, do i read this correctly that you are in favor of a general healthcare solution which provides good healthcare to everyone in the country? This would solve this problem very neatly. As much as this constitutes a minor admission that it’s not really about health care, but about forcing the nuns, and an insult to the system, I’m happy. Yes, I’m not a big fan of the present system, and spent a long time composing giant walls of text for principles of a replacement system in this video game forums political threads a while ago. Nuns or whatever else, this is completely about health care to me. Republicans usually doing everything they can to deny people access to things that have been voted legal because it doesn't suit them (lots of examples about abortions restrictions as much as possible), and democrats trying to enforce things sometimes a bit too much to make a point. Nuns are just caught in the crossfire. Instead of trying to solve a thousand bad issues, solving the elephant in the room would be so much better. But...
Yeah we’re pretty much opposites on who’s being denied their rights, who’s caught in the crossfire, and who’s the evil men with black hats. But to be more conciliatory, Republicans have not done enough persuading and action on selling plans to the country and holding tough votes. The same system that goes “oops” when it sticks it to the nuns, doesn’t really care about reform or healthcare itself. It’s basically only really good in demonizing and politicizing any attempts to solve problems.
|
If giving your employees a choice for a normal healthcare is denying the corporation/church's rights, then i'm afraid you'll never see eye to eye with most of the people here on that.
|
Trump just held a press conference where he said he'll take executive action if dems don't come to the table, specifying deferring payroll tax from July 1st to the end of the year.
That's a pathetically weak measure, and I'm not sure what else he can do other than trying to get the fed to print trillion dollar coins.
(The other items were deferring student loans and extending eviction moratoriums . Both better, but not a substitute for a trillion dollar relief bill)
|
Power of the Purse lies with the House. I imagine Trump might run into some issues trying to give money via EO.
|
Well, he's illegally allocated money to build the wall, and while it's tied up in the courts, it's still being built even though it was completely denied by the house. Granted, that's billions rather than trillions
So he may be able force through some insanely illegal, obviously temporary measure that will last for a couple months before courts punt it down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
