ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[WILLIAMS5232]

No, they do not. Not at all. The church absolutely has a CHOICE in running a hospital. You see, you want it both ways, Night Strike. You want to be able to say "Car insurance isn't a requirement, because you have a choice of whether to drive or not", but you don't want to hold the church to the same standard regarding this law. They are precisely the same argument and concept. Stop being a hypocrite about it, Night Strike...take a stand, one way or the other. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence just to satisfy your conservatism and religiousity.

actually, i think it's not the same. you can buy yourself 40 acres, and make a track. and then you can speed around it with no insurance or even without wearing a seatbelt if you like.

they're just saying that if you drive on a public road, then you must pay insurance. also, i think there is some sort of law that says if you can maintain x amount of dollars in a bank account, then you are free from having to purchase insurance. i'm not sure about this,

so, i'm also not sure about the law about contraceptive, but if i understand what ya'll are talking about, then the church will in no way be able to deny a certain service that they wish to deny. no matter what reason they hold. that's like telling wendy's restauraunt, "hey, since all the other burger joints are making breakfast, then we're going to require you to as well. if you do not comply...we will shut you down." not really, but kind of yes...

[luns101]

Juan, Himmelstein's data on the high rate of bankruptcies charge (from page 243) is bogus. I showed that back in 2009 (or maybe it was 2010...can't remember exactly) on this site.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/conten ... 4.full.pdf

If you don't like reading through the whole thing, then it's summarized with this conclusion: "The conclusion that almost 50 percent of consumer bankruptcies are 'medical related' requires a broad definition and generally is not substantiated by the official documents filed by debtors".

Elizabeth Warren also tried to make the case that it was even higher, but that was also refuted, mostly for the fact that Warren based her work on Himmelstein's flawed definitions.

[Woodruff]

We've been over this many times already, Night Strike. This law does NOTHING AT ALL to force any religious organization to take any action that goes against their beliefs. None. Zero.

The law itself may not explicitly do such a thing, but the regulations that go along with the law clearly do. That means that without the law, those regulations would not exist.

No, they do not. Not at all. The church absolutely has a CHOICE in running a hospital. You see, you want it both ways, Night Strike. You want to be able to say "Car insurance isn't a requirement, because you have a choice of whether to drive or not", but you don't want to hold the church to the same standard regarding this law. They are precisely the same argument and concept. Stop being a hypocrite about it, Night Strike...take a stand, one way or the other. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence just to satisfy your conservatism and religiousity.

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

Furthermore, they cannot force a religious institution to provide something that goes against their religious beliefs.

This law does not force a religious institution to do anything against their religious beliefs. Running a hospital is NOT a requirement of their religion, thus it is a choice on that religious institution's part - they are not being forced to do anything that isn't based on their own choice. I'm very disappointed that you're going to remain steadfastly hypocritical on this point.

If a hospital does not believe in providing elective abortions or a doctor doesn't believe in prescribing non-medicinal contraceptives, then they cannot be forced to provide it. It's quite simple.

It IS quite simple, but not in the manner you seem to believe. A hospital absolutely can be required to follow Federal regulations. It's quite simple.

And your car insurance "analogy" doesn't even hold water because you're confusing a personal choice of purchase with a company's choice of what to provide. It doesn't even make sense.

Please read your statement there again for me. I just want to give you an opportunity to recant. Would you like to recant?

How is providing contraceptives going against religious beliefs? You can provide them without using them yourself. So much for the whole "your rights end where mine begin" argument.

The part about not enabling someone else to sin. The Catholic church may also teach that providing the means to sin is just as sinful as the act (although I don't know their exact teaching).

The Catholic church LITERALLY ENABLES THEIR OWN PRIESTS TO SIN, Night Strike.

No, they do not. Not at all. The church absolutely has a CHOICE in running a hospital. You see, you want it both ways, Night Strike. You want to be able to say "Car insurance isn't a requirement, because you have a choice of whether to drive or not", but you don't want to hold the church to the same standard regarding this law. They are precisely the same argument and concept. Stop being a hypocrite about it, Night Strike...take a stand, one way or the other. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence just to satisfy your conservatism and religiousity.

actually, i think it's not the same. you can buy yourself 40 acres, and make a track. and then you can speed around it with no insurance or even without wearing a seatbelt if you like. they're just saying that if you drive on a public road, then you must pay insurance.

Again, you are making THE CHOICE to drive on that public road. You are not REQUIRED to drive on that public road. It is your choice to do so, thus there is no requirement that you must own car insurance.

[WILLIAMS5232]

We've been over this many times already, Night Strike. This law does NOTHING AT ALL to force any religious organization to take any action that goes against their beliefs. None. Zero.

The law itself may not explicitly do such a thing, but the regulations that go along with the law clearly do. That means that without the law, those regulations would not exist.

No, they do not. Not at all. The church absolutely has a CHOICE in running a hospital. You see, you want it both ways, Night Strike. You want to be able to say "Car insurance isn't a requirement, because you have a choice of whether to drive or not", but you don't want to hold the church to the same standard regarding this law. They are precisely the same argument and concept. Stop being a hypocrite about it, Night Strike...take a stand, one way or the other. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence just to satisfy your conservatism and religiousity.

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

Furthermore, they cannot force a religious institution to provide something that goes against their religious beliefs.

This law does not force a religious institution to do anything against their religious beliefs. Running a hospital is NOT a requirement of their religion, thus it is a choice on that religious institution's part - they are not being forced to do anything that isn't based on their own choice. I'm very disappointed that you're going to remain steadfastly hypocritical on this point.

If a hospital does not believe in providing elective abortions or a doctor doesn't believe in prescribing non-medicinal contraceptives, then they cannot be forced to provide it. It's quite simple.

It IS quite simple, but not in the manner you seem to believe. A hospital absolutely can be required to follow Federal regulations. It's quite simple.

And your car insurance "analogy" doesn't even hold water because you're confusing a personal choice of purchase with a company's choice of what to provide. It doesn't even make sense.

Please read your statement there again for me. I just want to give you an opportunity to recant. Would you like to recant?

How is providing contraceptives going against religious beliefs? You can provide them without using them yourself. So much for the whole "your rights end where mine begin" argument.

The part about not enabling someone else to sin. The Catholic church may also teach that providing the means to sin is just as sinful as the act (although I don't know their exact teaching).

The Catholic church LITERALLY ENABLES THEIR OWN PRIESTS TO SIN, Night Strike.

No, they do not. Not at all. The church absolutely has a CHOICE in running a hospital. You see, you want it both ways, Night Strike. You want to be able to say "Car insurance isn't a requirement, because you have a choice of whether to drive or not", but you don't want to hold the church to the same standard regarding this law. They are precisely the same argument and concept. Stop being a hypocrite about it, Night Strike...take a stand, one way or the other. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence just to satisfy your conservatism and religiousity.

actually, i think it's not the same. you can buy yourself 40 acres, and make a track. and then you can speed around it with no insurance or even without wearing a seatbelt if you like. they're just saying that if you drive on a public road, then you must pay insurance.

Again, you are making THE CHOICE to drive on that public road. You are not REQUIRED to drive on that public road. It is your choice to do so, thus there is no requirement that you must own car insurance.

ok

[Night Strike]

Woodruff, we fundamentally disagree, so there's no point in making the exact same statements back and forth at each other. I won't be changing my mind on the unconstitutionality of these mandates, and you won't be changing your mind about the government having control over businesses and religious organizations, so we'll just move on to the myriad of other problems in this law.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, we fundamentally disagree, so there's no point in making the exact same statements back and forth at each other.

Actually, we fundamentally AGREE. You're just being a hypocrite about it and I'm not. I agree completely with you that owning car insurance is not a REQUIREMENT, because there is a choice involved. I recognize that also applies to the Catholic church CHOOSING to run hospitals.

I won't be changing my mind on the unconstitutionality of these mandates

Of course you won't, because that would require actual thought and consideration of the issues, and perhaps even studying the subject rather than mindlessly intoning dogma.

and you won't be changing your mind about the government having control over businesses and religious organizations

What? You clearly don't have the first understanding of my position in this regard. But again, to do so would require actual thought and consideration of what I've said, rather than mindlessly intoning dogma. So I shouldn't be surprised.

[saxitoxin]

Player has been shown incorrect on more basic, basic, basic, current events facts in her history here than are countable. I knew Lederle developed the polio cure not because I'm brilliant or I'm interested in the history of vaccine development but because there was a major class action lawsuit a few years ago involving them. Anyone with the slightest awareness of their surroundings, who has the basic human ability to cogitate and retain information for more than 9 seconds, should know that. Player and her ilk in this thread are the bellwethers of the intellectual decline of the west.

There is no cure for polio. Sorry to burst your bubbling rant.

"vaccine", I meant (I interchanged Player's phrasing with my own; had you read our tête-à-tête to that point, you would not have been confused by this error. And, frankly, given her long diatribes of creative pseudo-English, I should be congratulated for missing only that one correction in transcription.)

That said, I extend to you my regret that you were unable to decipher the meaning behind this typo and suffered another, typically, public breakdown of your cognitive processes as a result and which you - in form - saw fit to fête us all with once again. I strongly suggest the Valued Mods place a photograph of a Victorian-era fainting couch in all threads in which Symmetry happens to enter, considering his desire to frequently exhibit to us his dainty, fragile constitution in melodramatically convulsive style.

[john9blue]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

[WILLIAMS5232]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

also too, i just remembered that auto insurance.. if i'm not mistaken.. is a state regulation. not a federal govt regulation. it just so happens that every state requires it because it's such a good idea.

maybe i'm wrong, but like i said before, i'm not much into fact checking on these issues. mainly because this is a gaming site.

[PLAYER57832]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

Going on memory alone, I believe several people made reference to France's system. However, basically any other country has a system that works better for most people than ours.

I thought that the US had 85-90% of its citizens currently covered by health insurance.

Close, but not correct. Census showed 16.3 people were uninsured in 2010 -- and that would have been higher if CHIP programs had not largely expanded. In other words, tax payers were picking up more of the insurance costs that insurers had dumped already.

Besides, when you are talking about impacts, we have to look at families, not just individuals. If even one person in a family is uninsured, then the entire family is impacted. So, the number of families impacted is much higher than 15%.

Also, that number has risen every year for the past few years. As more people hit those "life time limits" for coverage or experienced gaps in coverage so that the insurance companies were no longer obligated to cover them... those numbers grew. Further, those the insurance companies dumped were the least profitable ones, so the costs were more heavily placed on the taxpayers.

This year, more people are insured, thanks to the health care reform act.

It's that "most people"? Why are we blowing up the current system in favor of a new one that might add about 10-20 million more people to health insurance doles while not actually decreasing medical costs or improving the actual care provided?

Nice distortion there. I refer to insurance costs and overall healthcare costs and you claim "no reduction in medical costs".

The main reason this WILL reduce costs is because the insurance companies have been refusing to cover those who cost the most. They, then were covered by we taxpayers-- particularly children, but also adults who were injured or very poor.

It is harder to say if care will improve, but the fact that many people can now go to the doctor, or at least go before their condition is bad enough to mean an emergency room visit, means overall care likely will improve, particularly for the working poor and lower- middle class individuals.

[PLAYER57832]

Hospitals and businesses are just going to have to hire new people to do even more governmental paperwork.

Yeah, and the fact that they might have more patients is utterly irrelevant. They are just SOOO not looking forward to the ncrease in business as many more patients can now seek care. (except, all the hospitals in my region are quite happy about this law).

Also, roughly 62% of hospitals and 40% of insurance providers are non-profit entities. With so many non-profits, how is it the "evil, rich managers" making all the money off the "little people"?

This law makes insurance companies cover people. It does not limit hospital costs directly. HOWEVER, if local hospitals are any indication, the increase in business should result in increased ability to provide and deliver care. (according to recent pronouncements by the CEOs).

Further, you want to assume this law is going to be the "end all", without any change. Other issues can and will be tackled later. This is just a start.

Also, approximately 16% of hospitals are Catholic-run, and they have already said they would rather stop providing that service than have to compromise their morals when it comes to contraceptives and abortion. Where does Obamacare actually increase the number of health care providers when it clearly mandates more (all) people get insurance and visit providers?

Well, gee.... seems like you just said they were already refusing to offer needed medical care to women. The issue is not insurance, its whether hospitals should have to follow modern medical procedures.

Its no different than saying a Jehovah's witness can be a surgeon, but cannot refuse to offer blood transfusions when his patients need them. PATIENT medical need outweighs doctor's religious beliefs.

Even if they were serving only Jehovah's Witnesses or only Roman Catholics, it still would not give the doctor/surgeon the right to deny needed treatment. A church can excommunicate/deny membership to someone who is not following their tenets. Pronouncing a death sentance is not OK.

If a hospital is not going to adhere to modern medical standards, then they SHOULD be closed. It will be a problem, temporarily, for a few people, but not long. I can gaurantee that other groups will step in rather quickly to fill the gap. In fact, there is a good chance there will be no real gap, since its highly likely another organization will take over the hospital. Since hospitals are generally considered needed items, it may happen as soon as the Church decides it is going to close the institution.

[PLAYER57832]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

Vaccinations, agricultural production, road maintenance and construction, gasoline (in emergencies) gee-- they have even siezed property to build shopping malls.

[PLAYER57832]

And I also know that the US government is prohibited from forcing a religious organization to take an action that goes against their beliefs.

They very much can when that religious institution is seriously endangering the health and well being of even its membership, never mind those who are not members.

Christian Science parents can be forced to have their kids get an operation. Jehovah's Witness parents can be forced to let their kids get blood. The LDS off-shoot leadership can be put in jail for marrying underage girls. Many churches can and have been taken to court, put in jail, had kids removed for promoting various other types of abuse.

A church can have gatherings, but cannot block traffic, blast music that exceeds certain noise levels or do so after specific hours of the day. They cannot just build whatever type of church wherever they want if it is deemed unsafe or that it will otherwise cause problems for a community.

The rights of religious leadership pretty much stop at the doors of the church and the membership. The Roman Catholic church has been allowed to operate hospitals because, up until now, they have not challenged accepted medical practices. Now they are and they are therefore removing themselves from any right to practice medicine.

Per the "provide health insurance" bit... again, a Jehovah's Witness, a Christian Scientists, a Scientologist -- ALL are required, by law, to provide insurance if they hire more than 50 people , at least to those who are not members. Ironically enough, this law will provide another opportunity for people to buy insurance. Soon, the whole idea that healthcare is tied to the employer will vanish.

[kentington]

Woodruff -
I asked you this before and I got an answer, but I am asking again because I want to know a personal answer.

I asked if you thought this health care stuff was constitutional. You said that the courts just made it constitutional.

I want to know if you believe it is constitutional, not just a good idea or whether the judges believe it is constitutional.

Ok, aside from the fact that the Supreme Court's decision MAKES it Constitutional...personally, I believe it is a Constitutional law (with the following caveat). HOWEVER I do believe that the Supreme Court should not have made the determination that it was a tax rather than a penalty and the bill should have been returned to have that portion rewritten (I don't believe it's the Supreme Court's job to make that determination). So to make sure I'm making myself clear...it should have been initially rejected because having a penalty enforced in such a manner is unConstitutional, but the law could then have been then rewritten as a tax, making it Constitutional.

Granted, I am not Constitutional lawyer, merely a teacher of the Constitution. But I do care very much about the Constitution and that is my view of it.

Ok cool. That is pretty much what I thought your stance was, but I wasn't sure.
I agree with you regarding all of that. I don't like the law, but I agree that if you changed the mandate to a tax then they would be hard pressed to claim it was unconsitutional. I think there are better answers to the health care system, do I know them; no.

[kentington]

As long as you can accept that your original point (that managers don't profit personally) was kind of dumb, I think we're on the level. You were arguing a kind of silly point. It shouldn't take this amount of teeth pulling to make you differentiate between what constitutes non-profit at a business level and what motivates a high level manager in terms of wages.

Of course, with Catholic hospitals, the government is still telling them what they can and can't provide. It's just that it's an unelected foreign government rather than the US federal government.

It's odd that you object on principle to one but not the other.

That's because I can't control what entity they get their religious doctrines from, nor would I try to. However, I do know that US Constitution does not allow for the US federal government to dictate that a business must provide a certain product. And that's what I'm clearly and plainly against. And I also know that the US government is prohibited from forcing a religious organization to take an action that goes against their beliefs.

Has there been a uptick in wicth burning that I'm unaware of? Again, hyperbole, NS. Sorry, but law trumps religious belief. I appreciate that you like to make these big sweeping statements about FREEDOM, but accept that people are around who will try to bring your ecstatic enthusiasm down to more earthly realms.

Which part of this last quote is hyperbole?
His last statement doesn't make big claims. He is differentiating between the government prohibiting action and requiring action. The government can prohibit the church from eating marshmallows, but the government cannot require them to eat said marshmallows. I think he is also saying the same thing of business. The government can prohibit a business from selling marshmallows, but the government cannot require them to sell marshmallows.

It's good that you too see that he's admitting a degree of nuance as he backs down from his hyperbole. It's also kind of cute that you're playing the knight in shining armor for NS- he's pretty good at defending himself, but it's sweet nonetheless. I understood his points, and perhaps a quick re-read will help you understand mine.

Hint: Not about the marshmallows

Thanks. Glad you think I am cute. I am not defending NS. I am trying to find out what you meant in your post. You have been tossing the word "hyperbole" all over the place and I want to know if you are just being cute or you actually mean what you say. I didn't find a hyperbole in his last comment, yet you said, "Again, hyperbole, NS."

Marshmallows are the cutest and I think the analogy worked.

[Woodruff]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

If the government requires that certain safety standards be met, they are requiring that a certain product/service must be sold in that manner. It's just as much a case of what will be sold as what can't be sold.

[Symmetry]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

If the government requires that certain safety standards be met, they are requiring that a certain product/service must be sold in that manner. It's just as much a case of what will be sold as what can't be sold.

Yup, if you want to sell something, you gotta take a few governmental restrictions.

[Phatscotty]

Wow the poll results have really changed since the Supreme Court ruling.



We're victims of sedition on an open sea
No one ever said that life was free
Sink, swim, go down with the ship
Just use your freedom of choice

I'll say it again in the land of the free
Use your freedom of choice
Freedom of choice

In ancient Rome there was a pawn
Who followed along and watched it fall
He cast a stone
He felt secure
He felt that he would never be heard

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom of choice!

You've been given a voice- you don't want it
It seems to be the rule of thumb
Don't be tricked by what you see
You've got two ways to go

I'll say it again in the land of the free
Use your freedom of choice
Freedom of choice

Freedom of choice
Is what you've got
Freedom of choice!

In ancient Rome
There was a pawn
Who followed along
and watched it fall
He cast a stone
He felt secure
He felt that his voice would never be heard

Freedom of choice
Is what you've got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

[Phatscotty]

While I would agree with your position on many topics, health care isn't one of them. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the subject, but you are essentially saying that basic healthcare isn't a basic human right.

I ask you to put something into perspective here, to look at this from another point of view. Let's pretend you work in a low wage job making $15,000 a year, and can barely afford groceries and your rent payment. You have been feeling terrible the past couple of months (and work productivity has suffered because of it). You pony up the ~$250 or more to go to a walk in clinic and after a few tests (which cost even more), they determine that you have stage-2 breast cancer. This condition has well over a 95% recovery rate if treated early. But, you do not have insurance, can not GET insurance because of your now pre-existing condition, and can not afford treatments. This is the system before the new legislation. If you are lucky, you might be able to get "free" care through a hospital (costing the system, aka you and me anyway), but in most cases, your condition deteriorates, and you die of an otherwise preventable condition way before you could have.

Enter the legislation. Now, you CAN get insurance, get better, and have a long, healthy life where you are a productive member of society.

Granted there are others that will never be productive members of society and hang on to the government programs like welfare way longer than they should... these people get "free" care in hospitals too under the old system... but that is an entirely different topic (that I WOULD probably agree with your opinion on based on your posts thus far).

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission. A privilege, such as marriage or healthcare, is something that you need permission from a higher authority to grant you. I do not support any so called "rights" that involve taking something from anyone else. I simply view that as anti-Liberty, and that is not to comment on the level of importance or compassion for the need and how things should be redistributed, one way or another. It really is as simple as either it increases liberty or it decreases it.

For what you ask, a gal I know and have known quite well for many years, who makes slightly more than 15k... I am going to imagine her life. I think she makes closer to 18k, but I know for a fact she makes sure she works the minimum hours in order to stay below the "poverty" line, wherever that is. I know she recently chose to cut back on her hours. I should also mention she has 3 children and is single. Her picture has been in my local newspaper for a recent story about her use of the food shelf, and I know she regularly has a problem with her rent, as she borrows from my other friend and wife on a monthly basis. I don't know where "ponying up" the $250 comes from, because she and her whole family have health insurance through the state, and it costs her 24$ a month, no out of pocket costs. Maybe my state (Minnesota) has a kick ass handout insurance plan, and I actually think it does kick ass, as I know a bunch of people form Chicago are on it as well (long story).

Anyways, now I have been diagnosed with breast cancer huh. I'll have to use what I know from my state, that is that if you make under 18k or something like that, you can qualify for basically free state insurance. My brother was on it for a short period of time, but basically he had to send them 6$ a month, and if he didn't pay it just added up until he did pay, but he didn't lose his state insurance or anything. But..... I will morph your example that it does not cover breast cancer (even though I think it is covered, especially with an early detection). And so we say I can't get health insurance, I have a pre-existing condition, breast cancer.

I can go along with all that, but first can I ask, what have women always done, for the last 1,000 years, when breast cancer struck? What did women do in 1600? 1910? 1950? 1990? 2004? If you answer something to the effect of, "well yeah medical tech and availability have increased exponentially yadda yadda" then I am going to ask why it is that the technologies and availability have increased?

[Night Strike]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

If the government requires that certain safety standards be met, they are requiring that a certain product/service must be sold in that manner. It's just as much a case of what will be sold as what can't be sold.

Yup, if you want to sell something, you gotta take a few governmental restrictions.

Exactly, the government puts restrictions on what can be sold. That is fundamentally different than the government restricting what you do NOT sell (aka, making you sell something).

[Woodruff]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

[Woodruff]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

If the government requires that certain safety standards be met, they are requiring that a certain product/service must be sold in that manner. It's just as much a case of what will be sold as what can't be sold.

Yup, if you want to sell something, you gotta take a few governmental restrictions.

Exactly, the government puts restrictions on what can be sold. That is fundamentally different than the government restricting what you do NOT sell (aka, making you sell something).

No, it is NOT fundamentally different. It is precisely the same. You say "exactly", but then you go on to disagree with your own "exactly".

[jj3044]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission. A privilege, such as marriage or healthcare, is something that you need permission from a higher authority to grant you. I do not support any so called "rights" that involve taking something from anyone else. I simply view that as anti-Liberty, and that is not to comment on the level of importance or compassion for the need and how things should be redistributed, one way or another. It really is as simple as either it increases liberty or it decreases it.

Then I think that the fundamental difference here is actually what the value of a human life is to both of us here. Quick question... have you ever made a charitable donation? If so, what were the organizations and what did they stand for (or provide)?

For what you ask, a gal I know and have known quite well for many years, who makes slightly more than 15k... I am going to imagine her life. I think she makes closer to 18k, but I know for a fact she makes sure she works the minimum hours in order to stay below the "poverty" line, wherever that is. I know she recently chose to cut back on her hours. I should also mention she has 3 children and is single. Her picture has been in my local newspaper for a recent story about her use of the food shelf, and I know she regularly has a problem with her rent, as she borrows from my other friend and wife on a monthly basis. I don't know where "ponying up" the $250 comes from, because she and her whole family have health insurance through the state, and it costs her 24$ a month, no out of pocket costs. Maybe my state (Minnesota) has a kick ass handout insurance plan, and I actually think it does kick ass, as I know a bunch of people form Chicago are on it as well (long story).

Anyways, now I have been diagnosed with breast cancer huh. I'll have to use what I know from my state, that is that if you make under 18k or something like that, you can qualify for basically free state insurance. My brother was on it for a short period of time, but basically he had to send them 6$ a month, and if he didn't pay it just added up until he did pay, but he didn't lose his state insurance or anything. But..... I will morph your example that it does not cover breast cancer (even though I think it is covered, especially with an early detection). And so we say I can't get health insurance, I have a pre-existing condition, breast cancer.

There are absolutely freeloaders in society, and I think there needs to be massive reform on programs such as welfare and food stamps so that abuse doesn't happen... if she can work, she should work, and not receive a handout. This point I know we agree on. It isn't this person that I want to help necessarily, it is her children. I don't know anything about Minnesota health care programs, but I promise you there are many, many people out there that can't afford insurance and do not have an option available to them at $6 a month. Or, if they do, they don't care, use the system anyway when they get sick, and the cost of their visit gets paid by you and I.

EVERYONE uses the system. At the very least at birth and at death, so everyone should pay in. The nice benefit is that it might encourage some people to access the system properly increasing the time between birth and death (such as getting preventive screenings and early treatment of conditions).

I can go along with all that, but first can I ask, what have women always done, for the last 1,000 years, when breast cancer struck? What did women do in 1600? 1910? 1950? 1990? 2004? If you answer something to the effect of, "well yeah medical tech and availability have increased exponentially yadda yadda" then I am going to ask why it is that the technologies and availability have increased?

I'm not sure I am following your question here or the relevance... maybe cause I am sleep deprived. Can you rephrase?

[Night Strike]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

Why does nothing fit that definition? Rights are things that others have to do nothing for you to have. If health care were a right, you would be forcing someone else to give up their personal freedoms to provide you that health care. In the US, the only right you have that allows you to take from someone else is a trial by jury. Every other right is something you have in and of yourself and is not prerequisite upon someone else giving you anything.

No, it is NOT fundamentally different. It is precisely the same. You say "exactly", but then you go on to disagree with your own "exactly".

Nope, it's still fundamentally different. It is against your freedom for the government to force you to sell a product that you don't want to sell. If I make widgets, the government cannot come in and force me to make gizmos as well. They do not have that authority.

[Woodruff]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

Why does nothing fit that definition?

Tell me which basic human right you can exercise that the government cannot stop? Which one do you NOT need "their permission" for, Night Strike?

Every other right is something you have in and of yourself and is not prerequisite upon someone else giving you anything.

The government GIVES YOU YOUR RIGHTS. That's the fact of the matter. Without the government's consent, you have no rights.

No, it is NOT fundamentally different. It is precisely the same. You say "exactly", but then you go on to disagree with your own "exactly".

Nope, it's still fundamentally different. It is against your freedom for the government to force you to sell a product that you don't want to sell. If I make widgets, the government cannot come in and force me to make gizmos as well. They do not have that authority.

The government absolutely can tell you HOW TO SELL IT, which is what this ruling does. They're still selling health insurance. This simply tells them HOW they can sell it.

I guess this is your fallback position now that you've recognized that this law doesn't force anything on any religious organizations?