What If ObamaCare is Found Constitutional

[desert dude]

So that would make me a Republican? I mean they always talk about angels and God and how God and Jesus are on their side. So I take it you think I am a Republican?

By the way, you never answered my question about whether insurance companies should pay for cancer treatments or illnesses or injuries. Should they? If an employer has a moral objection to chemotherapy and curing cancer, should they be forced to pay for it? What about killing a virus? Do they not have the right to say that their religious freedom is being over trodden by Big Daddy Government?

Insurance companies provide the coverage that they are paid to provide.

I think you mean, "should employers be forced to purchase health insurance for their employees that covers things the employer has a moral objection to ..."

I would think Jehovah's Witnesses have a fairly strong first amendment case to not pay to provide blood transfusions, for example. Catholics think contraception and abortion are both mortal sins. Jews think every male child should be circumcised. etc. To force any of this religious institutions to reject their own religious beliefs in favor of a state mandated set of beliefs flies in the face of the first amendment.

But, putting my liberal thinking cap on, fuck yeah, the government should be able to dictate the actions of religious institutions and fuck a bunch of religious objections!!!

 

[desert dude]

So what we have here is another Roe V Wade decision. The result may be acceptable to those on the left, we may even gloat over it but the decision is wrong headed. just another tax? really? under the perview of the commerce clause? really?

To those on the left, what have we really gotten here? The results really do further an anti-rights agenda and I am surprised at Robert's decision. I am almost willing to believe that he is furthering some heinous agenda that we know nothing of at present. This court has done more to bring about the destruction of our country as we know it than any other in the last hundred years. It may be fun to rub the right's nose in this decision but it bodes poorly for our future.

The right gets what it deserves, we could have had the sort of health care the right wanted during the Bush years when the right ran the show, but true to form all they did was all they ever do, cut taxes and complain. Only AFTER Obama presented a "solution" that echoed the "solution" of the rightist think tanks and Romeny's healht care reform for his own state, did the right start addressing not the problem itself but any approach to solving it. Had they looked, at the time, for any sort of reform rather than leaving it to the Dems to try, they would never have opened the door to this sort of open ended decision by the court.

But there is nothing new here, the right does as it has always done - nothing.

Canndo, respectfully, cause you're a fellow liberal, the decision does not rest on the commerce clause. PPACA was upheld on the taxing authority of congress. The decision specifically says PPACA is NOT constitutional under the commerce clause. I think you're right, Roberts has some clever (and cruel) plan going on in his twisted right wing brain. What I think he is trying to do is to undo the left-wing undoing of the commerce clause. That dirty rat bastard!

 

[canndo]

Insurance companies provide the coverage that they are paid to provide.

I think you mean, "should employers be forced to purchase health insurance for their employees that covers things the employer has a moral objection to ..."

I would think Jehovah's Witnesses have a fairly strong first amendment case to not pay to provide blood transfusions, for example. Catholics think contraception and abortion are both mortal sins. Jews think every male child should be circumcised. etc. To force any of this religious institutions to reject their own religious beliefs in favor of a state mandated set of beliefs flies in the face of the first amendment.

But, putting my liberal thinking cap on, fuck yeah, the government should be able to dictate the actions of religious institutions and fuck a bunch of religious objections!!!

It's like this:

Religion and religious institutions should not be forced to pay for anything that is outside of their belief system - so long as they are dealing only within their religious institutions.

When, however, a religion seeks to establish an organization that is within the sphere of commerce, a hospital, a boarding house, a factory, a store, then they are subject to the rules established for everyone else in commerce. They are not exempt simply because they happen to believe a different way, this has nothing to do with religious freedom, it has to do with commerce and regulations upon that commerce.

If my athiest storefront is forced by law to provide pigs knuckles to it's customers then so is your Jewish deli. You want religious freedom? keep your religion in your homes and churches.

 

[desert dude]

So what we have here is another Roe V Wade decision. The result may be acceptable to those on the left, we may even gloat over it but the decision is wrong headed. just another tax? really? under the perview of the commerce clause? really?

To those on the left, what have we really gotten here? The results really do further an anti-rights agenda and I am surprised at Robert's decision. I am almost willing to believe that he is furthering some heinous agenda that we know nothing of at present. This court has done more to bring about the destruction of our country as we know it than any other in the last hundred years. It may be fun to rub the right's nose in this decision but it bodes poorly for our future.

The right gets what it deserves, we could have had the sort of health care the right wanted during the Bush years when the right ran the show, but true to form all they did was all they ever do, cut taxes and complain. Only AFTER Obama presented a "solution" that echoed the "solution" of the rightist think tanks and Romeny's healht care reform for his own state, did the right start addressing not the problem itself but any approach to solving it. Had they looked, at the time, for any sort of reform rather than leaving it to the Dems to try, they would never have opened the door to this sort of open ended decision by the court.

But there is nothing new here, the right does as it has always done - nothing.

Canndo, again respectfully, cause you're a fellow liberal. The legal challenge to PPACA came from libertarians. Libertarians would have contested PPACA whether it was put forth by the Democrats, or those dirty rat bastards (DRB) on the right.

 

[canndo]

Canndo, respectfully, cause you're a fellow liberal, the decision does not rest on the commerce clause. PPACA was upheld on the taxing authority of congress. The decision specifically says PPACA is NOT constitutional under the commerce clause. I think you're right, Roberts has some clever (and cruel) plan going on in his twisted right wing brain. What I think he is trying to do is to undo the left-wing undoing of the commerce clause. That dirty rate bastard!

As Yet I have only seen the SCOTUS blogs on the subject but I was responding to other posts on other threads about the commerce clause - yes, it is simply a "tax". If it is seen only as a tax then fine, the idea works, but this is not a tax so much as a remedy or even punishment for not retaining insurance, so in any real understanding of a tax, this isn't it.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad as is possible for me to be that the result is that more of us will be insured, that people with preexisting conditions will be helped, that people (like me) cannot be turned away for such things as high blood pressure - that is perfectly treated by drugs, that insurance companies cannot "health redline" and cherry pick only the most healthy - turning the concept of pooled risk on it's head but what we are seeing, as what I have said, is a new reign of insurance companies. The very ones that had the right believe that "competition across state lines" would cure everything when in fact insurance companies have always had that option and chose rather to divide the coutry up and not compete at all. About the only thing they didn't get out of this deal is tort reform - another bold lie, that limiting lawyers and patients awards would somehow wind up saving any of us money - this is one more elaborate "trickle down" idea. If we let insurance companies have more money then maybe they will let us have some of it as well.

 

[desert dude]

It's like this:

Religion and religious institutions should not be forced to pay for anything that is outside of their belief system - so long as they are dealing only within their religious institutions.

When, however, a religion seeks to establish an organization that is within the sphere of commerce, a hospital, a boarding house, a factory, a store, then they are subject to the rules established for everyone else in commerce. They are not exempt simply because they happen to believe a different way, this has nothing to do with religious freedom, it has to do with commerce and regulations upon that commerce.

If my athiest storefront is forced by law to provide pigs knuckles to it's customers then so is your Jewish deli. You want religious freedom? keep your religion in your homes and churches.

Well, if a religious group, say Catholics, opens a charitable hospital to provide health care for lepers and decide to hire only practicing Catholics as doctors and nurses, should the Catholic church be forced to pay for insurance that provides birth control and abortions? Would practicing catholic doctors and nurses have a need for such coverage? Should the Catholic church be allowed to even have a restriction on their employees that requires them to be practicing Catholics?

However, putting on my liberal thinking cap, fuck yeah the goddamn Catholic church should be forced to strike down their centuries-old religious beliefs and abide by the moral dictates of the state!!! What a fucking stupid question to even ask, geesh.

 

[desert dude]

As Yet I have only seen the SCOTUS blogs on the subject but I was responding to other posts on other threads about the commerce clause - yes, it is simply a "tax". If it is seen only as a tax then fine, the idea works, but this is not a tax so much as a remedy or even punishment for not retaining insurance, so in any real understanding of a tax, this isn't it.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad as is possible for me to be that the result is that more of us will be insured, that people with preexisting conditions will be helped, that people (like me) cannot be turned away for such things as high blood pressure - that is perfectly treated by drugs, that insurance companies cannot "health redline" and cherry pick only the most healthy - turning the concept of pooled risk on it's head but what we are seeing, as what I have said, is a new reign of insurance companies. The very ones that had the right believe that "competition across state lines" would cure everything when in fact insurance companies have always had that option and chose rather to divide the coutry up and not compete at all. About the only thing they didn't get out of this deal is tort reform - another bold lie, that limiting lawyers and patients awards would somehow wind up saving any of us money - this is one more elaborate "trickle down" idea. If we let insurance companies have more money then maybe they will let us have some of it as well.

The majority opinion of SCOTUS defined the individual mandate as a tax. It is not a fine. The law, as written, specified a "fine" but the court read that out loud and every time they read the word, "fine" it came out as "tax". So this is a tax and not a fine. End of discussion.

 

[canndo]

Well, if a religious group, say Catholics, opens a charitable hospital to provide health care for lepers and decide to hire only practicing Catholics as doctors and nurses, should the Catholic church be forced to pay for insurance that provides birth control and abortions? Would practicing catholic doctors and nurses have a need for such coverage? Should the Catholic church be allowed to even have a restriction on their employees that requires them to be practicing Catholics?

However, putting on my liberal thinking cap, fuck yeah the goddamn Catholic church should be forced to strike down their centuries-old religious beliefs and abide by the moral dictates of the state!!! What a fucking stupid question to even ask, geesh.

Charitable? I'd have to think on that.

However - the point is not the Catholic church, the point is their attitudes toward their members. They should have enough faith (imagine that) in their members for them to conform to church doctrine, isn't that what this is all about? their freedom to practice as they wish? Don't like birth control? then preach to your members that they shouldn't use it, hell, even preach to non-members that they shouldn't use it, but if it is a hospital competing in one way or another with other hospitals, then they are governed by the same rules as all hospitals. Furthermore, if they are competing and they demonstrate that they have a social agenda and are intent upon foisting that social agenda to the rest of us through commerce, then their tax exempt status should be removed. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[canndo]

The majority opinion of SCOTUS defined the individual mandate as a tax. It is not a fine. The law, as written, specified a "fine" but the court read that out loud and every time they read the word, "fine" it came out as "tax". So this is a tax and not a fine. End of discussion.

So let us recap:

Fines are not taxes, taxes are not fines, this is a fine
corporations are not citizens
money is not speech


But we live in interesting times.

 

[canndo]

Canndo, again respectfully, cause you're a fellow liberal. The legal challenge to PPACA came from libertarians. Libertarians would have contested PPACA whether it was put forth by the Democrats, or those dirty rat bastards (DRB) on the right.

You aren't getting it, libertarian challenge or not, this decision went differently than the right had hoped and it could have been avoided had republicans actually seen a need for health care reform. They didn't and only agreed that something HAS to be done after Dems went ahead and did it, even then, all the Republicans really wanted was... the status quo reinstitutionalized.

 

[UncleBuck]

Well, if a religious group, say Catholics, opens a charitable hospital to provide health care for lepers and decide to hire only practicing Catholics as doctors and nurses....

that's not the reality we are dealing with, that's your delusion/strawboy.

 

[desert dude]

Charitable? I'd have to think on that.

However - the point is not the Catholic church, the point is their attitudes toward their members. They should have enough faith (imagine that) in their members for them to conform to church doctrine, isn't that what this is all about? their freedom to practice as they wish? Don't like birth control? then preach to your members that they shouldn't use it, hell, even preach to non-members that they shouldn't use it, but if it is a hospital competing in one way or another with other hospitals, then they are governed by the same rules as all hospitals. Furthermore, if they are competing and they demonstrate that they have a social agenda and are intent upon foisting that social agenda to the rest of us through commerce, then their tax exempt status should be removed. You don't get to have it both ways.

Catholics consider contraception and abortion mortal sins. They can, and sometimes do excommunicate church members for those sins. Catholic hospitals have a first amendment right to operate their hospitals according the doctrines of their own faith. Catholic hospitals have a first amendment right to provide health coverage that excludes coverage of contraceptives and abortions. Individual Catholics have a right to purchase contraceptives and abortions, but their employer, the Catholic church, has no obligation to purchase those mortally sinful good and services.

Liberal thinking cap: in this case, fuck the first amendment, it is a good thing for employees to have FULL FUCKING COVERAGE!

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

 

[desert dude]

that's not the reality we are dealing with, that's your delusion/strawboy.

UncleBuck, respectfully, because you are not only A liberal, you are THE liberal. I think the first amendment affords the Catholic church the right to operate their hospitals according to Catholic doctrine. In honor of our president's history PPACA victory I want to agree with you on everything, for at least today.

Help me reconcile the clash between the first amendment and PPACA dictates in the specific case of Catholic charitable hospitals. I know that as a liberal you have the utmost respect for the constitution. With the seeming contradictory requirements of PPACA and 1A, which one has greater import?

 

[desert dude]

that's not the reality we are dealing with, that's your delusion/strawboy.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to UncleBuck again."

 

[abandonconflict]

What if a religious institution ran a clinic that provided free cannabis?

 

[UncleBuck]

Help me reconcile the clash between the first amendment and PPACA dictates in the specific case of Catholic charitable hospitals.

catholic hospitals employ non catholics. done.

maybe you can show me a few examples of catholic hospitals that have 100% of their employees as practicing catholics.

 

[desert dude]

What if a religious institution ran a clinic that provided free cannabis?

They would be coerced to stop by the DEA. If they did not stop, the DEA would come in and ransack their church. If they still did not stop, the DEA shoot their dog and ransack their church. If they still did not stop, the DEA shoot their dog and ransack their church, and arrest them. The church would fight it in court. If the church is able to convince an appellate court that they have a right to distribute, then SCOTUS (might) take the case. If SCOTUS takes the case, they would rule the church has no right to distribute marijuana because the commerce clause forbids it.

 

[desert dude]

catholic hospitals employ non catholics. done.

maybe you can show me a few examples of catholic hospitals that have 100% of their employees as practicing catholics.

Today I cannot argue with you. I think Catholic hospitals have, as part of their employment contract, their own rules. An employee has the option of not agreeing with that contract and refusing employment. But, as I said, today I am a liberal so contracts don't matter, and the first amendment does not matter.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

Slavery has been upheld and expanded

Now imagine countries are giant prison cells & we work for canteen money, just to give it back to master.

Inside the country borders - low security prison - guarded by the military but yet you need to verify your prison transfer when you leave "passports" ( general population)

States - medium security prison - throw on a few extra laws and be guarded by state police. (general population)

City- high security prison - add a few more laws and be guarded by local police. (general population)

Prison - Maximum security prison - you done fucked up, but the only difference is we confine you to a small area. ( solitary confinement)


You still work for money for in each scenario. The only difference is the laws get stricter and you get less space to roam around.

You pay tax to the fed , the same way you have to pay a jail or prison for staying over.
you pay tax to the state, the same way you have to pay a jail or prison for staying over.
you pay tax to your city(some), the same way you have to pay a jail or prison for staying over.


This is just abstract thinking but look how similar they really are. They scale up well