Hobby Lobby Case decided

[Papewaio]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Employers should voluntarily be allowed to offer insurance to their employees with no discrimination or chose not to have any insurance for anyone.

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.

Thus, I say again. Nationalize health care, stop this absolutely ******* stupid system that puts the responsibility on companies in the first place.

[Ironside]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The better question is "why are employers mandated to have anything to do with your health insurance?"

Because you made a system out of it.

[Fisherking]

...
Thus, I say again. Nationalize health care, stop this absolutely ******* stupid system that puts the responsibility on companies in the first place.

Just think about that. We have gone from bad to worse but National Health Care could be even worse yet.

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…

[Ironside]

Just think about that. We have gone from bad to worse but National Health Care could be even worse yet.

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.

[Greyblades]

Just think about that. We have gone from bad to worse but National Health Care could be even worse yet.

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…

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.

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.

[Fisherking]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just think about that. We have gone from bad to worse but National Health Care could be even worse yet.

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.

[Papewaio]

Just think about that. We have gone from bad to worse but National Health Care could be even worse yet.

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…

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.

[Fisherking]

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.

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.

I think I explained my position in the post just above yours.

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.

see above.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

I think I explained my position in the post just above yours.

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.

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)

[Papewaio]

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.

I think I explained my position in the post just above yours.




see above.

That's a function of size and age. Deal with any big business and you will find the same.

[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.



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?

[Husar]

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?

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...

There can be mismanagement in both systems.

[Fisherking]

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.

[Greyblades]

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.



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?

Cant attack the point and now are attacking the man, hmm?

[Fisherking]

Cant attack the point and now are attacking the man, hmm?

LOL

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.

[Husar]

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.

[HopAlongBunny]

What's good for corporate America is good for the Muslims?:

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...uantanamo.html