America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by pdxstogieman. 84 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Supreme Court rules on health insurance coverage for contraceptives
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
stogiefan Offline
#51 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:21 AM EST
Joined: 10-23-2012
Posts: 80
teedubbya wrote:
Iud as well. In the end probably depo and others. It's not just the day after pills.


Didn't say it was only morning after. I believe it amounted to four different kinds of abortifacient drugs.
teedubbya Offline
#52 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:34 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I didn't say you did. It included iud as well but opens it up to much more than suggested.
teedubbya Offline
#53 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:36 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The morning arter pills are somewhat a fringe thing that most folks won't care about. Iud is not.
Buckwheat Offline
#54 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:52 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
cacman wrote:
NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO BUY ANYTHING THEY DON'T WANT TO - including health insurance. PERIOD!
It should remain a freedom of choice - ESPECIALLY when it comes to buying any type of insurance.

What's next… we're all going to be forced to buy a Chevy? What about Life Insurance too?


Most states require that you have to have Auto Insurance to be able to drive a car and you have to have home owners insurance to get a home loan. A little different but still in the same ball park.
teedubbya Offline
#55 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 8:01 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
That's a states rights issue. Don't go there or many in here will begin to lament the end of slavery. It's not right that the Feds took away their property.
HockeyDad Offline
#56 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 8:02 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,160
Buckwheat wrote:
Most states require that you have to have Auto Insurance to be able to drive a car and you have to have home owners insurance to get a home loan. A little different but still in the same ball park.



nope
teedubbya Offline
#57 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 8:14 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I'm ok with folks not getting insurance. I think it should be highly suggested but give them the option. Then if they don't they come up with cash up front or no care. Get cancer? You made your choice. Pay or die.

The problem is we don't have that in us.
cacman Offline
#58 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Buckwheat wrote:
Most states require that you have to have Auto Insurance to be able to drive a car and you have to have home owners insurance to get a home loan. A little different but still in the same ball park.

Driving a car and buying auto insurance is a BIG difference.
You can CHOOSE not to drive a car or not to buy a home without being forced to pay a fine.

Not even in the same ball park, unless you also agree with forcing every American to buy a Chevy or pay a fine.
victor809 Offline
#59 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 11:45 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I kind of agree with cacman here.

The difference is that auto insurance requirements are to ensure you can cover other individuals on the road who you may hurt while operating a large chunk of metal at high speeds. Otherwise poor people on the road would be a much greater hazard than rich people.

I don't know the reason behind homeowners insurance being a state requirement. I know banks require it before lending, but that's to protect their interests and ensure that if the place burns down you aren't going to skip out on the loan. Perhaps the state laws surrounding lending are in place to ensure investors in a bank are covered.

Anyway, there's a liability difference between a car, or a home-loan where your liability extends beyond your person. this is different than health insurance where your liability doesn't really extend beyond yourself (except in the case of vaccinations).
gryphonms Offline
#60 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 12:21 PM EST
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
I think the real issue has been mentioned here. Should corporations be extended the same rights as a individual? Since there is no constitutional guarantee of this the ruling is a bad 1 based on constitutional law. My opinion that this is based on freedom of religion is invalid because a corporation is not an individual.

I need to separate the fact that I think Obama care is seriously flawed from the idea that it can be changed through constitutional challenges.
TMCTLT Offline
#61 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 12:30 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
TMC TL T



Rick, when you can show the REST of us that deranged individuals or people who just like to use force

to get what they want in society aren't carrying " hidden guns " perhaps we'll take you a bit more seriously!

i don't believe carrying a gun makes you a gun nut or even paranoia

when i decide to go some where that i suspect might be dangerous and

i should probably carry a gun toby and i don't go there




What a load of crap!! Evil rears it's head EVERYWHERE, if you know exactly where it's going to occur though and when........by ALL means let the rest of us know there Carnac the Magnificent
ZRX1200 Offline
#62 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 3:08 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
Do you pick and choose which streets you carry car insurance on or do you have A auto insurance plan?
victor809 Offline
#63 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 3:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
ZRX1200 wrote:
Do you pick and choose which streets you carry car insurance on or do you have A auto insurance plan?


There's the people who don't get insurance...
There's the people who get insurance... just in case.

Then there's the people who get insurance and use it as an excuse to drive recklessly and put everyone else on the road at risk.
ZRX1200 Offline
#64 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 3:50 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
Your ability to focus really is breathtaking.
victor809 Offline
#65 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 3:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
ZRX1200 wrote:
Your ability to focus really is breathtaking.



Just expanding your analogy.
fiddler898 Offline
#66 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 4:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
I think it's a mistake to assume this is a narrow interpretation of the clause. It can now be used as a precedent for other companies seeking protection through the lower courts. And if you think refusing to pay for blood transfusions is an outlying case, it's probably only a matter of time.

IMHO, of course.
jetblasted Offline
#67 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 4:18 PM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
teedubbya wrote:
That's a states rights issue. Don't go there or many in here will begin to lament the end of slavery. It's not right that the Feds took away their property.


States rights ended in 1865 . . .

Besides, I'm more pissed off that they poisoned the water wells of women and children . . .

ram27bat
Abrignac Offline
#68 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 4:22 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,313
gryphonms wrote:
I think the real issue has been mentioned here. Should corporations be extended the same rights as a individual? Since there is no constitutional guarantee of this the ruling is a bad 1 based on constitutional law. My opinion that this is based on freedom of religion is invalid because a corporation is not an individual.

I need to separate the fact that I think Obama care is seriously flawed from the idea that it can be changed through constitutional challenges.



The ruling, I think, has been misinterpreted as granting corporations rights. It really does not. Though it could be argued that other rulings have done so. The way I see it, the court ruled that since the law ran afoul of one's religious beliefs, Congress in essence created a law that infringed on the rights of stockholders, who are people, to freely exercise their religion.

1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
victor809 Offline
#69 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 4:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
The ruling, I think, has been misinterpreted as granting corporations rights. It really does not. Though it could be argued that other rulings have done so. The way I see it, the court ruled that since the law ran afoul of one's religious beliefs, Congress in essence created a law that infringed on the rights of stockholders, who are people, to freely exercise their religion.



I think you're correct in that's what the court thought they were doing. But there is something deeper here. The court has done a couple other things:

- It has ruled that people express their religion through their business practices. I think this is pretty key and a bit of a misstep. This goes against a lot of anti-discrimination rulings which have popped up recently.

- It's allowing ones religious beliefs to take precedent over any medical or scientific discussion. There is no discussion in the ruling over whether Plan B pills or the IUD are actually "abortifacients", as the HobbyLobby group claimed, the ruling accepts that because they believe they are abortifacients they don't have to pay for them. This is particularly disturbing to me, as it allows religions to create a false reality, and then absolve themselves of any laws that may interfere. Now, don't misunderstand me, in this case I do agree that the drugs and devices in question do what the HobbyLobby group is discussing (disrupt implantation of a fertilized egg) but the ruling is allowing this random group to draw the line as to what constitutes an abortion. It is dangerous.
jetblasted Offline
#70 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 4:52 PM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
y'all are making me hungry.

I think I'll go get a Chik-fil-A . . .
Abrignac Offline
#71 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 5:42 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,313
victor809 wrote:
I think you're correct in that's what the court thought they were doing. But there is something deeper here. The court has done a couple other things:

- It has ruled that people express their religion through their business practices. I think this is pretty key and a bit of a misstep. This goes against a lot of anti-discrimination rulings which have popped up recently.

- It's allowing ones religious beliefs to take precedent over any medical or scientific discussion. There is no discussion in the ruling over whether Plan B pills or the IUD are actually "abortifacients", as the HobbyLobby group claimed, the ruling accepts that because they believe they are abortifacients they don't have to pay for them. This is particularly disturbing to me, as it allows religions to create a false reality, and then absolve themselves of any laws that may interfere. Now, don't misunderstand me, in this case I do agree that the drugs and devices in question do what the HobbyLobby group is discussing (disrupt implantation of a fertilized egg) but the ruling is allowing this random group to draw the line as to what constitutes an abortion. It is dangerous.


It basically allows any person, or group, to challenge any law which they feel infringes on their right to practice religion as they see fit. At some point, there will be a successful challenge of mandatory vaccinations which IMHO should be a matter of choice and not a requirement for school enrollment and healthcare jobs.

Once the door is opened, where does it close?
Abrignac Offline
#72 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 5:52 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,313
victor809 wrote:
I think you're correct in that's what the court thought they were doing. But there is something deeper here. The court has done a couple other things:

- It has ruled that people express their religion through their business practices. I think this is pretty key and a bit of a misstep. This goes against a lot of anti-discrimination rulings which have popped up recently.


Pretty spot on. But, in the purest sense the constitution does not make mention of any point in which one's religious freedom ends.


victor809 wrote:
- It's allowing ones religious beliefs to take precedent over any medical or scientific discussion.


Pretty much.
victor809 Offline
#73 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 6:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
It basically allows any person, or group, to challenge any law which they feel infringes on their right to practice religion as they see fit. At some point, there will be a successful challenge of mandatory vaccinations which IMHO should be a matter of choice and not a requirement for school enrollment and healthcare jobs.

Once the door is opened, where does it close?

Person, group OR Corporation representing said person or group.

I've seen some suggest this would put the corporation/individual barrier in jeopardy. If your corporation (of which you are the sole owner) suddenly has the same rights as you do, then if something occurs to put your corporation in litigation, why are your personal assets suddenly protected?

It's an interesting philosophical discussion... we are creating greater precedent for a corporation being a "person" and having individual rights, but in the case of a closely held company, that is essentially just giving extra rights to the one person who owns it. The company is expressing their views, their religion, but they aren't liable for anything the company does.
victor809 Offline
#74 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 6:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
Pretty spot on. But, in the purest sense the constitution does not make mention of any point in which one's religious freedom ends.



There are plenty of instances where an individual's religious freedom gets abridged.
I mean, for a simple example look at the muslim head coverings for women. Their religious freedom ends when they walk into the DMV or passport office and need to remove their head-gear for identification photos.

So clearly the idea that an individual's religious freedom ends at some point, it's just a matter of defining where and why. As for a corporation's religious freedom... well that gets even weirder.
Abrignac Offline
#75 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 6:20 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,313
victor809 wrote:
Person, group OR Corporation representing said person or group.

I've seen some suggest this would put the corporation/individual barrier in jeopardy. If your corporation (of which you are the sole owner) suddenly has the same rights as you do, then if something occurs to put your corporation in litigation, why are your personal assets suddenly protected?

It's an interesting philosophical discussion... we are creating greater precedent for a corporation being a "person" and having individual rights, but in the case of a closely held company, that is essentially just giving extra rights to the one person who owns it. The company is expressing their views, their religion, but they aren't liable for anything the company does.


I think you are guilty of doing what you usually rant against: over thinking something.

It's really simple. It seems the court rebuked the ACA because by requiring contraceptive and abortion services it created a prohibition on the free exercise of religion. Any plan that includes such provisions can prolly be argued that it violates at least one plan participant's religious practices.

The flood gates have opened. Sticking one's finger in the dam hole will have no effect. Whether one agrees or not, this provision was doomed from Day 1.
teedubbya Offline
#76 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 6:57 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I think corporations exist to buffer from individual liability etc. it's interesting to pull back closer to individual beliefs. It could have in intended circumstances or unreconcileable hypocracy.

Who are we fooling. The court is political and neither side is strictly constitutionally based.

Abrignac Offline
#77 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,313
teedubbya wrote:
I think corporations exist to buffer from individual liability etc. it's interesting to pull back closer to individual beliefs. It could have in intended circumstances or unreconcileable hypocracy.

Who are we fooling. The court is political and neither side is strictly constitutionally based.




I didn't know that.
teedubbya Offline
#78 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:00 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Lol.
victor809 Offline
#79 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:00 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
I think you are guilty of doing what you usually rant against: over thinking something.

It's really simple. It seems the court rebuked the ACA because by requiring contraceptive and abortion services it created a prohibition on the free exercise of religion. Any plan that includes such provisions can prolly be argued that it violates at least one plan participant's religious practices.

The flood gates have opened. Sticking one's finger in the dam hole will have no effect. Whether one agrees or not, this provision was doomed from Day 1.


You're forgetting our legal system is built on precedent. A ruling like this can be used to defend a lot of interesting stuff later on.

teedubbya Offline
#80 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:02 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I'm sure when they placed GWB in the White House it was based strictly on strong constitutional principals.
Abrignac Offline
#81 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:02 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,313
victor809 wrote:
You're forgetting our legal system is built on precedent. A ruling like this can be used to defend a lot of interesting stuff later on.



Yep, but that's why it's called politics.
jetblasted Offline
#82 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:07 PM EST
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
teedubbya wrote:
I'm sure when they placed GWB in the White House it was based strictly on strong constitutional principals.


It was some dude named Chad . . .
teedubbya Offline
#83 Posted: Tue, Jul 1 2014, 7:13 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Isn't that the dude Janet was sort of hot after..... Or was the brad?

Dammit Janet
pdxstogieman Offline
#84 Posted: Wed, Jul 2 2014, 12:23 AM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
cacman wrote:
NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO BUY ANYTHING THEY DON'T WANT TO - including health insurance. PERIOD!
It should remain a freedom of choice - ESPECIALLY when it comes to buying any type of insurance.

What's next… we're all going to be forced to buy a Chevy? What about Life Insurance too?


People are forced to buy auto insurance so they can actually cover they damage, injury, or fatalities they cause someone else to suffer. It's called the public good. if you run a redlight and destroy my vehicle and maim or kill some of the occupants of my vehicle and don't have the insurance to cover my losses. I'd say you are one sorry sonofabitch who ought to be in jail, but your being in jail is not going to pay for my car repairs, medical bills, or funeral expenses. You have to be a @ucking idiot to think people shouldn't be required to in some way be financially responsible for the damages done to another individual that are not an uncommon occurrence in modern life.

Why shouldn't people be forced to buy health insurance instead of just showing up at an ER without the personal funds or insurance to cover the expenses the rest of the people who have insurance coverage will ultimately pay for? As a society it's not going to be acceptable to let people without the $ to cover necessary medical treatment suffer and die. If, as a society we do get to the point where many think that is acceptable then we've regressed to barbarism.

The real **** part of it is that people are forced to buy from the corporate insurance and health care vultures that are the cause of astronomical health care costs in the US.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top