Well, what do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us...s-awaited.html
Printable View
Well, what do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us...s-awaited.html
Should only be 4-8 years from now when corporations are given the right to vote. ~:rolleyes:
I agree with the majority decision. Providing some form of compensation to employees equivalent to that which would have been spent on this aspect of a healthcare package, thus allowing them to purchase their own coverage for this seems a more reasonable route. Employees retain the option to vote with their feet and work for firms that do not so restrict coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I don’t see the need for that. They already have the right to buy their very own members of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
What will voting get them?
Cheaper politicians. Why spend so much inQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
bribescampaign funds when you can just vote in a guy that will do your bidding for less.
Something about China and hypocrisy, but that's not really a strong case unless - what's China's legislation, if any, on healthcare vis-a-vis local employees and foreign employers?
A corporation already does vote via it's members. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
No, the members have one discrete vote each. But think of the glorious possibilities when the board/shareholders can cast a vote as a whole for the corporation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
A business should not pay a dime for health insurance. They should be taxed.
We always talk about how deep "big business" has sunk its claws in to our decision making process. Tell them the government will tax them less than what they currently pay in health costs.
Remember kids, socialized medicine only works if your a veteran (well maybe not) or a senator. Other than that, you are an affront to America and a probably lesbian.
How about we give everyone, individual and corporation alike, the suffrage....but we base the value of your on your taxes paid. Each $1k gets you one vote. Wonder if corporations would tax dodge less....Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Just a thought
I, of course, agree with the decision. Like 20-30% of SCOTUS decisions; One law in conflict with another, one side emerges victorious as a result of Anthony Kennedy.
I should probably read it myself as supreme court decisions are notorious for being vague and settling very little.
****, Strike beat me to this. Stop giving corporations all these responsibilities over health care so we don't have to deal with this obnoxious effort to cut down costs by granting the company every individual exemption under the sun.
I would think companies would rather be done with the notion that have to provide health care at all. It is only insurance companies that are at risk from a universal health care system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I agree with this completely. That's why I am hopeful that these emerging anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC's gain momentum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Not a good analogy, as it's an actual firefighting technique.Quote:
Fight fire with fire, and all you get is a burning forest.
It's a little more complicated than that GC. Most Americans hear UHC or "Single-payer" and they flinch... government rationing of healthcare...
What most of us fail to take into account is that there is always rationing of healthcare. The question is "who is doing the rationing and what are their heuristics".
If I was President Obama, I would have done anything I could have to shut down the VA scandal discussion months ago. Instead, the best example we have of "single-payer", the VA, which he trotted around in 2010 as the example of what was to come for the rest of the US, has been shown to be the worst of everything the average American always feared it to be.
Before the invectives, I KNOW that single-payer systems are capable of much better. I'm saying that there is a lot of "play to the fear" in the messaging in American politics. Giving credence to it was a tragic mistake.
I think both you and I are familiar that in life, you must work with what you have, not what you want. Can you think of anything that can convince me otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
If we were at the point that the public could truly just walk to the polling place and vote away these problems, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
"I could vote for restrictions on money in politics, but when I get rich I dont want to be held back, so I say nay." Repeat once for every voting man alive.Quote:
I can't help but shake my head and wonder why people thought it was a good idea to give the rich so much power in the first place.
I used to think that was my rationale, but I don't anymore. I majored in History and don't make reckless enough decisions to succeed or fail in a way that could lead me to that place. Plus i'm nice to people and don't want to hurt them (other than on these boards).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Now, I think that it is the general principle that we are all here to make our own universe. That no paternal or dictatorial power should be able to stop us, unless we try to stop the same in others. The older I get the more I realize that nobody has any idea as to "what or why in the hell - we're all going to die and even if we weren't". So I err on the side of the individual in the face of tyranny.
F**k your world, I do what I want.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b).
"The court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest."
So how many of the female Supreme Court judges ruled in favour?
Zero, none, nada.
Maybe when it comes to women's health women should have the say...
technically, this verdict was about "closely-held corporation" owners health, so women were more than adequately represented.
But isn't this verdict discrimanting who should uphold what laws based on their religion?
Shouldn't the laws apply to all equally regardless of race or creed?
Could I as a Ratasfarian business owner sell cannabis as it fulfills my religious obligations? If not why not?
http://minneapoliscriminallawyer.lib...tafarian-case/Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I say yes, so long as you are selling only to those with a religious interest in cannabis.
Interesting recent appellate case - for a 15 year old.
Why do you hate liberty?
Seriously, legalize everything, compel nothing.
And the burden then moves to the state to show if it is a public safety issue or not.
So with respect to the male Supreme Court is woman's health not a feature of public safety?
Those closely-held coporations involve Cargill and Kosh Industries, so it's not exactly a few mom-and dad store with 2 more employees we're talking about here.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Edit: Closely-held coperations employs about 50% of the American workforce.
So, the verdict applies to only certain corporations, would not be applied to the States were they to require it, extends an exemption that already exists for religious organizations and uses as rationale the expansion of 1st amendment protections under RFRA that was drafted, passed and signed into law by a Democratic legislature and President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Hardly a windfall for either side. Yet, people have to feign despair at the ruling, otherwise they wouldn't be adequately defending women in the culture war. BS.
The discriminating factor is whether the mandate is in the public interest and whether that interest can be equally well provided in a non-infringing manner. That is where the Obama birth control mandate failed. Covering abortifacients under their medical plans caused the owners of Hobby Lobby to go against their religious beliefs. And certainly, you workplace insurance is far from the only way one has access to these drugs- they're widely available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The hypocrisy of the left over this case has been nothing short of astonishing. Activists marched around the Supreme Court chanting tired slogans like "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" or claiming that birth control choices should only be between a woman and her doctor. Hobby Lobby wanted nothing more than to stay out of their employees personal choices- it was a government decree that put them in the middle of it. Birth control is our personal choice! .....but you have to pay for it for me. :dizzy2:
So your employer should have final decision on your health plan based on their personal choices not yours?
The better question is "why are employers mandated to have anything to do with your health insurance?"
Employers should voluntarily be allowed to offer insurance to their employees with no discrimination or chose not to have any insurance for anyone. That gives a transparent choice to the employees.
I would as a government have it on all contracts that employees and subcontractors for work need to be fully insured for both liability and health insurance so that it doesn't come out of the governments dime.
I would also mandate paid maternity leave for employees of companies that do not cover birth control.
That's too restrictive for companies, to the point where even I feel bad for companies that have to either leave employees die or cater to every whim and medical condition under the sun. Big companies could take the brunt of it, but they are too callous and powerful to think they need to provide anything, and anyone smaller than them would struggle to remain competitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Thus, I say again. Nationalize health care, stop this absolutely ******* stupid system that puts the responsibility on companies in the first place.
I'm not sure what you would count as a windfall victory. It gives corporations religious rights that triumph federal law. The only restriction is because you do not have a state religion nor are a theocracy, making it impossible for public corporations and states to have an official religion. As it stands, a Jehova's vitness company can refuse to fund blood transfusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
The money involved isn't that much in this specific case, the symbolic value of women being specifically targeted (Hobby Lobby targeted what they call abortifacients, the Supreme Court gave the right to all contraptions) and the extension of rights for companies are quite a bit larger.
Because you made a system out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Just think about that. We have gone from bad to worse but National Health Care could be even worse yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Government Hospitals staffed with government doctors, overseen by government bureaucrats and bean counters deciding how to cut expenses at your expense. And I bet you think the DMV can be bad…
I'm not sure how it would differ from now. It's not like the companies barely making a profit, so they have to have very efficient bean counters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Good god even by some american standards that's ignorant. I could be making the same accusations about your privatized medicare: private doctors, overseen by private CEO's and bean counters deciding how to cut hospital bugets and raise operation prices to maximize profits at your expense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
You do realize that the only reason that expense cutting has to be a problem in National health services is because your free market keeps tanking the economy like clockwork every 15-20 years? Even taking that into account they provides a better service to the majority of the population than the free market.
The current system allows insurance providers to decide if a procedure is necessary or not which is almost as bad. Even before this there was a decline in quality of medical care.
M.D.s and people have less and less say in the matter of treatment. That has to change.
The verbiage was they were going to model it after the Swiss system. They didn’t! At least in any recognizable form.
This system is only to the benefit of large insurers and maybe large healthcare providers who’s main interest is to limit compatation and limit costs.
A system more like the Swiss or German systems would be much better for the individual and the Drs who would have more say in what gets done.
Fearmongering. Give me facts about how terrible other countries are or be quiet. if it wasn't for Obamacare, some of my favorite entertainers could very well have died recently from an illness they were born with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Yet around the world we pay less, have more choices, more people have access and better results on average. All citizens treated equally with dignity. Of course the rich can pay for more but the poor are t left in the cold or given a massive debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
It is not about other countries. It is about the US Government and its love of bureaucratic red tape to discourage participation and Congresses love to dole out money to their friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I think I explained my position in the post just above yours.
see above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Congress loves to dole out money because the right supports the notion that money is free speech and public financing of officials is a terrible idea. The right has normalized the idea that corruption is speech and now you wonder why everything the government touches is toxic. Governments are not inherently bureaucratic, they are not inherently inefficient, they are what we make them to be with our policies and political structure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Again, don't tell me that the current situation could be worse with government. Without government, people would be literally left to die by private companies who think Crohn's disease or a heart defect is too costly to take care off. Damn the humanity of it all, we need to look at the bottom line. After all, the right has cemented in our legal system that the bottom line is our only moral and legal responsibility as a company.
**** the free market of healthcare. It's anything but. (cue the tired argument that it would be a good little market if only that pesky government had not stepped in)
That's a function of size and age. Deal with any big business and you will find the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I see that you have all gone to great lengths to misunderstand what I said. Congratulations! You positively succeeded.
I hope you feel smug and self-congratulatory.
You have proven you are the product of government education.
:tongue:
Oh, and I see @Husar thanked a post. Does this mean you would exchange your health coverage for what the US Government would offer you? :rolleyes:
It means that I sincerely believe that when you pay e.g. 100 million a year as a country for healthcare, you can get more for your money from someone who pays the healthcare bills from that amount than from someone who starts by taking 10% of that as a profit, takes another 10% to pay it out to shareholders and then sub-contracts someone to do the actual work, where the sub-contractor takes 10% of those 80% to use as a profit, takes another 10% to pay the shareholders and so on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
There can be mismanagement in both systems.
Was that your point?
Don’t worry. The US would hand it over to contractors anyway to run. They won’t miss any corporate chance of profit.
Cant attack the point and now are attacking the man, hmm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Obviously you have some difficulty with reading comprehension also.
I didn’t attack the concept of health coverage but only its poor implementation.
I alluded that the basic statements about the roots of the law were a political lie and that had it been true it would have been much better.
My question to Husar was a question wondering why he favored, or thought he favored the US plan over the German one.
I favor the German plan and see very few downsides to it. The US plan was one written to favor pharmaceuticals and large insurance corporations, as I see it, and I believe it is a general lowering of the general quality of health care, raises rates, and actually reduces the amount of people who will have coverage.
But don’t take my word for it! Read it: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text
I am sure you will find a number of things that will make your hair stand on end. I am not sure anyone in Congress did.
The german plan involves private corporations but there is a heavy government regulation with a few loopholes that get exploited now and then. I would say our system is okay, but there are still quite a few things that should be fixed, such as:
1. People in wheelchairs (and other disabled people) who can work have to hand over their earnings above a certain point so that they are artificially kept relatively poor.
2. There was recently a medication taken from the market that cost somewhere around 20€ or so per bottle, they found out it can be used for another illness and released the exact same medication under a different name and for a different purpose for somewhere around 800€ a bottle... This is a legal loophole and the people with the first illness who used to pay 20€ now have to pay 800€ while the corporation just claims the additional benefitsjustify a price increase...
Number two is one of the reasons I do not think a purely corporate based system would be all that great because people cannot really choose to buy another medication in this case. Also some rare diseases are never getting a treatment because it's not feasible to try and find one for the 80 people or so who have it. In some cases you get a specialist and everyone travels to that guy to get help but profit and help just don't always mix too well.
There are also enough conspiracy theories about the cancer industry trying to prevent a cure because so many people work in it currently that a simple cure like a pill would completely destroy a huge industry that is built around the ineffective treatments and care cancer patients currently receive. It's a very evil claim but I honestly wouldn't put it entirely beyond corporations to do that.
What's good for corporate America is good for the Muslims?:
http://america.aljazeera.com/article...uantanamo.html