Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision
different

Tupelo, MS

#83 Jul 5, 2014
Remember Obamacare does not grant you a "right" to medical coverage but just grants the government the power to tax you or a company for not having it. Like all taxes it can not violate your protected rights like religion.
different

Tupelo, MS

#84 Jul 5, 2014
Remember Obamacare did not grant you a "right" to health insurance but simply granted the government the power to tax you or a company for not having it. Like all taxes it can not violate your protected rights like religion. Th Supreme Court ruling did not make new law or rules. It simply pointed out a portion of a tax that was in violation of protected rights and nullified a portion of that tax that violated protected rights.
The ruling in no way limits your personal sexual choices or behavior.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Paducah, KY

#85 Jul 5, 2014
different wrote:
<quoted text>Rape is a crime. Are you suggesting ALL women should be on birth control because they "might" get raped? If a women has a religious or medical reason for not using birth control should she be sterilized because she "might" get raped and become pregnant? You feel companies should provide birth control to protect women from rapist? Would you also support companies to provide hand guns to women to help protect them from getting pregnant by rapists as well as other health issues caused by rapist such as disease and other bodily harm or death? Guns would be much more efficient than birth control .
But of course the subject is not rape. The subject is women who make a choice to have sex and get pregnant. We can always come up with a remote reason to support any stance but we are discussing the average reasons for insurance. I could make the claim that being as women get raped and become pregnant then like seat belts they should be required by law to wear a chastity belt.
Try to stay on subject.
All women should be given ACCESS TO contraception such as Plan-B, the so-called "morning after pill" and have the cost of that contraception paid for by their insurance because ANY woman can be raped. All are at risk. In this case, the contraceptive is like the "personal injury protection" in many state's automobile insurance that covers medical expenses for the driver in case of an accident. It is also like the air bag in a car. The law says that the car maker must put it there and it is illegal to disconnect it. Both the personal injury protection and air bag are there just in case the driver has an accident, which can happen to anyone. That protection becomes active if and only if there is an accident.
different

Tupelo, MS

#86 Jul 5, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
All women should be given ACCESS TO contraception such as Plan-B, the so-called "morning after pill" and have the cost of that contraception paid for by their insurance because ANY woman can be raped. All are at risk. In this case, the contraceptive is like the "personal injury protection" in many state's automobile insurance that covers medical expenses for the driver in case of an accident. It is also like the air bag in a car. The law says that the car maker must put it there and it is illegal to disconnect it. Both the personal injury protection and air bag are there just in case the driver has an accident, which can happen to anyone. That protection becomes active if and only if there is an accident.
Ha ha ha. NO insurance company will cover your car if you INTENTIONALLY crash it. 99.9% of pregnancy in this country is from INTENTIONAL sex. EVERY safety item on cars are paid for by ALL who buy cars as the cost is passed to the consumer and ONLY the person buying the car.. Why not make women pay for their safety features? Those that choose not to own a car does not have to pay for insurance or safety features, unlike heath insurance where all even men or non sexually active still must pay for these women to have coverage.

Your analogy of airbags would be more akin to a chastity belt being forced installed and a crime to remove it. IF you remove the safety features in your car and have an intentional crash then no your insurance will not cover you and you can be charged with a crime.
SO if a woman gets "the pill" and her insurance pays for it and she fails to use it and gets pregnant should she not also be charged with the crime of fraud?

NO WHERE in this subject is a woman "not given access" . Insurance is not a right and even under Obamacare it is not a right. Obamacare simply allows the government to add yet another tax in the public. Insurance companies (like the government) does not pay for anything. The money comes from the public so not only is the public paying for their own heath care they also now get to pay insurance employees as well as government workers a salary to tell you that you are getting something for nothing.
For Obamacare to work insurance companies MUST take more money from you than they spend on you.

AGAIN, SCOTUS was sold Obamacare as a tax and not a right or service or it would have been ruled Unconstitutional.
Pollys Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#87 Jul 5, 2014
different wrote:
<quoted text>BUT the claim WAS "essential". Many companies DO include a morality clause as a condition of employment. Many companies DO require a drug test prior to employment. Including MOST government agencies.
Again you are trying to move the goal post. NO WHERE in this issue is a company trying to change your lifestyle. YOU just want companies to be responsible for your choices in your lifestyle. My company may or may not have a stance on me drinking beer but they DON'T have to buy the beer. If you don't like the insurance coverage provided you are more than welcome to buy your own private coverage.
What is dangerous is getting government or companies involved in your private life to begin with. You want interference when you agree with it but how about when you don't. You want birth control to be a choice for the employee but not employer but what if birth control were to become law that you MUST use it like seatbelts? "For your own protection" of course. Rape is always a possibility (even if remote) so a law to force you to be protected would be just a logical.
Be careful what you support! You may just get it.
Whether or not it is "essential" has little or nothing to do with my opposition to the decision.
The goal posts were set before you started the "essential" circle argument.
As I stated in posting #73:

My main concern is that it is a decision based on bad interpretation of the law. The principles that stand behind decisions should make some sense.

Justice Samuel Alito's insisted the decision should be narrowly applied to the peculiarities of the case. "BUT the logic of the argument" is likely to invite a tide of new lawsuits, all with their own unintended consequences.

Then the Supreme Court has a quandary on its hands. One issue can stand as the law of the land but a very similar situation based on the same argument and using the Hobby Lobby decision as precedence is either refused to be heard or denied. That is "bad law" and Supreme Court Justices creating bad law for either religious reasons and or political reasons.

After all, incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.

Corporations are not “people” but legal creations. Corporations have no morals or no religious beliefs into themselves. They simply are a manmade creations.

Allowing a corporation, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily yet foreseen.

I cannot predict where this bad decision will lead. But I am pretty sure that there are people out there already thinking on this very issue.

If this legal loop hole was to be given to a “Corporation” it should have been done through a law voted on by both Houses of Congress and signed into law. The Supreme Court simply took it upon themselves to rewrite Corporate Law & create new law.

The Supreme Court is the last place where laws should be created.
different

Tupelo, MS

#88 Jul 5, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether or not it is "essential" has little or nothing to do with my opposition to the decision.
The goal posts were set before you started the "essential" circle argument.
As I stated in posting #73:
My main concern is that it is a decision based on bad interpretation of the law. The principles that stand behind decisions should make some sense.
Justice Samuel Alito's insisted the decision should be narrowly applied to the peculiarities of the case. "BUT the logic of the argument" is likely to invite a tide of new lawsuits, all with their own unintended consequences.
Then the Supreme Court has a quandary on its hands. One issue can stand as the law of the land but a very similar situation based on the same argument and using the Hobby Lobby decision as precedence is either refused to be heard or denied. That is "bad law" and Supreme Court Justices creating bad law for either religious reasons and or political reasons.
After all, incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.
Corporations are not “people” but legal creations. Corporations have no morals or no religious beliefs into themselves. They simply are a manmade creations.
Allowing a corporation, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily yet foreseen.
I cannot predict where this bad decision will lead. But I am pretty sure that there are people out there already thinking on this very issue.
If this legal loop hole was to be given to a “Corporation” it should have been done through a law voted on by both Houses of Congress and signed into law. The Supreme Court simply took it upon themselves to rewrite Corporate Law & create new law.
The Supreme Court is the last place where laws should be created.
A lot of words but no bases.Obamacare has NOTHING to do with medical need. It is a pure financial law. It is a tax law and nothing more. NO ONE has a "right" to insurance or health care. Insurance companies MUST take in more of your money than pay out to remain a viable business. SCOTUS does not make law but simply renders an opinion of being Constitutional. Private company, individual owned business or corporation is still private and NOT government owned therefore not set up for the "public good".

AGAIN this law is a tax law NOT a rights or health issue or public good law.
NOWHERE are you forced to alter your lifestyle.
Obamacare ONLY allows the government to tax you for not having insurance and thats ALL.
Obamacare does NOT force ANYONE or ANY business to buy your insurance for you.
SCOTUS did not address a health law but a TAX law. TAX LAWS can not violate protected rights (religion).
I love how you dance but still don't address ANY of my points.
Pollys Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#89 Jul 5, 2014
different wrote:
<quoted text>A lot of words but no bases.Obamacare has NOTHING to do with medical need. It is a pure financial law. It is a tax law and nothing more. NO ONE has a "right" to insurance or health care. Insurance companies MUST take in more of your money than pay out to remain a viable business. SCOTUS does not make law but simply renders an opinion of being Constitutional. Private company, individual owned business or corporation is still private and NOT government owned therefore not set up for the "public good".
AGAIN this law is a tax law NOT a rights or health issue or public good law.
NOWHERE are you forced to alter your lifestyle.
Obamacare ONLY allows the government to tax you for not having insurance and thats ALL.
Obamacare does NOT force ANYONE or ANY business to buy your insurance for you.
SCOTUS did not address a health law but a TAX law. TAX LAWS can not violate protected rights (religion).
I love how you dance but still don't address ANY of my points.
That was a long winded rant about nothing. President Reagan said otherwise in regards to healthcare treatment in America and there is a law signed by him to that effect.

Insurance Companies were raking 30% off the top for holding the money. Do banks take 30% for holding your money in a savings account?

In this case the Supreme Court did write law which should be left up to Congress to change Corporate Laws.

The rest of your ramble is not worth responding to.
different

Tupelo, MS

#90 Jul 6, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a long winded rant about nothing. President Reagan said otherwise in regards to healthcare treatment in America and there is a law signed by him to that effect.
Insurance Companies were raking 30% off the top for holding the money. Do banks take 30% for holding your money in a savings account?
In this case the Supreme Court did write law which should be left up to Congress to change Corporate Laws.
The rest of your ramble is not worth responding to.
Just what law did Reagan make that says you have a right to have other people buy your insurance for you? If Obama was serious about wanting you to have money to pay for medical treatment then it would seem he would have a plan for putting your money in a tax free bank account instead of insurance companies so you would get a better return on your money instead of just making fat insurance executives richer. So much for taking from the rich and giving to the poor like he promised. Just what law did SCOTUS write? From what I read they simply struck down an illegal portion of a tax law. That is their job. Didn't you know that?

OH NO not he "ole" I have no answer so I have to avoid the question tactic! Typical democrat.
Bloody Bill Anderson

Paducah, KY

#99 Jul 6, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a long winded rant about nothing. President Reagan said otherwise in regards to healthcare treatment in America and there is a law signed by him to that effect.
Insurance Companies were raking 30% off the top for holding the money. Do banks take 30% for holding your money in a savings account?
In this case the Supreme Court did write law which should be left up to Congress to change Corporate Laws.
The rest of your ramble is not worth responding to.
You are wasting your time replying to the "different" fellow from Saltillo, Mississippi.

He is stuck on the idea that the Supreme Court struck down an unconstitutional portion of a tax law. It most certainly did not, but you will never make him see that - or admit it even if he does.

According to his logic, having to pay taxes is contingent on the tax not infringing someone's religious beliefs. By his thinking a pacifist Quaker (or any other pacifist religious person) would be able to not pay the portion of their income tax that goes to the Department of Defense.

What the Court really did was extend an act of Congress enacted to protect the religious rights of individuals (living human beings with souls who when the die will be judged by God and will go to Heaven or Hell) to corporations (intangible, non-living legal "beings"). In fact, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of any law, tax or other wise. It evaded the question of constitutionality by saying that a statute (which was enacted to reverse a previous Court decision) applied. The Court did not settle anything in this case. It merely tossed it back to Congress, which can repeal or amend the law that it said applied.

The problem is the new legal precedent that the Court set. That precedent can and will be used by various people and groups seeking exemptions from a variety of laws that they say infringe their religious beliefs, things far removed from the ACA and the issue of health care/birth control.
Pollys Opinion

Buffalo Gap, SD

#100 Jul 6, 2014
different wrote:
<quoted text>Just what law did Reagan make that says you have a right to have other people buy your insurance for you? If Obama was serious about wanting you to have money to pay for medical treatment then it would seem he would have a plan for putting your money in a tax free bank account instead of insurance companies so you would get a better return on your money instead of just making fat insurance executives richer. So much for taking from the rich and giving to the poor like he promised. Just what law did SCOTUS write? From what I read they simply struck down an illegal portion of a tax law. That is their job. Didn't you know that?
OH NO not he "ole" I have no answer so I have to avoid the question tactic! Typical democrat.
Republican presidential icon Ronald Reagan imposed his own national healthcare mandate on the country. The mandate is well known today — it requires emergency rooms to treat anyone in need, regardless of their ability to pay — but the fact that Reagan signed it into law is often forgotten.

In 1986, Congress passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which contained the Emergency Medical Treatment. The law requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or even legal status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is virtually every hospital in the country.

Guess who foots the bill - the taxpayers.

Incidentally, the larger Omnibus law is now known commonly as COBRA and lets people stay on their former employers’ health insurance — another healthcare mandate signed by Reagan.

Another point worth mentioning:

On February 16, 1972, the AP headline in papers across the country was "Mandatory Health Insurance Program Proposed by Reagan."

Yeah, that's right-- mandatory as in everybody would had to have it. In fact, everyone would have to have money taken right out of their pay check to pay for the catastrophic coverage portion of their insurance and everyone would be required to have "regular insurance" for everything else.

Like Obamacare, there was no public insurance in this plan, everything was private insurance from plans pre-approved by a new "state health security commission," but unlike Obamacare, if you didn't want the insurance you couldn't pay the small fine and go on your way-- you had to pay for the catastrophic coverage and their were fines if you didn't have the regular insurance.

You could say that Reagancare was like Obamacare with teeth (mandatory payroll taxes) to prevent people from getting out of mandatory coverage.

Yet, Tea Party Republicans invoke Reagan's name at every turn and are even shutting the government (something Reagan vehemently opposed) to kill Obamacare in some sort of Reaganesque, don't blink, show-down moment... all to stop a health care plan that can be traced back directly to... Reagan!
Pollys Opinion

Buffalo Gap, SD

#101 Jul 6, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>

You are wasting your time replying to the "different" fellow from Saltillo, Mississippi.
--

What the Court really did was extend an act of Congress enacted to protect the religious rights of individuals (living human beings with souls who when the die will be judged by God and will go to Heaven or Hell) to corporations (intangible, non-living legal "beings"). In fact, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of any law, tax or other wise. It evaded the question of constitutionality by saying that a statute (which was enacted to reverse a previous Court decision) applied. The Court did not settle anything in this case. It merely tossed it back to Congress, which can repeal or amend the law that it said applied.
The problem is the new legal precedent that the Court set. That precedent can and will be used by various people and groups seeking exemptions from a variety of laws that they say infringe their religious beliefs, things far removed from the ACA and the issue of health care/birth control.
You are correct on both the first suggestion and the second statement.

Another interesting little issue I run across:

I’m not taking a position on any of the following but would like to know the truth.
A comment I saw on a blog....
“Isn't it obvious that Hobby Lobby DOESN'T QUALIFY for the exemption under the terms of the Court's Ruling? The Court clearly stated that the belief must be SINCERE. Since Hobby Lobby invests in & profits from companies that manufacture birth control drugs they are insincere. That is obvious. Perhaps the ruling can stand in the abstract BUT Hobby Lobby is not eligible for it on the basis of hypocrisy. They proved it by investing in birth control drug manufacturers.”

I question whether or not that is true or even provable. But likely the now wealthy owners of Hobby Lobby are well diversified across the stock market and very likely could have investments that could connect.

I wonder if they can actually prove that either Hobby Lobby or any of its owners invest in any company that produces those “morning after” so call abortion drugs.
Pollys Opinion

Buffalo Gap, SD

#102 Jul 6, 2014
One point I will clarify:

The emergency room mandate signed by Reagan also became a treaty between member nations of the UN during his term.

It does not say the treatment is free. If the person receiving treatment can pay then they are billed and must pay. If they cannot then the taxpayer picks up the bill.

Many tea baggers say all illegal immigrants get "free" healthcare. They do not. They are billed just like you and me. Yet if they skip out on the bill then the taxpayers foot the bill.

The law says anyone needing immediate "emergency" care must be treated. If for example an illegal alien goes to the emergency and is found to have cancer. That person will likely not receive a series of Kemo treatments unless covered by some insurance or paying the bill.

Only "emergency" care is provided.
different

Tupelo, MS

#103 Jul 6, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Republican presidential icon Ronald Reagan imposed his own national healthcare mandate on the country. The mandate is well known today — it requires emergency rooms to treat anyone in need, regardless of their ability to pay — but the fact that Reagan signed it into law is often forgotten.
In 1986, Congress passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which contained the Emergency Medical Treatment. The law requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or even legal status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is virtually every hospital in the country.
Guess who foots the bill - the taxpayers.
Incidentally, the larger Omnibus law is now known commonly as COBRA and lets people stay on their former employers’ health insurance — another healthcare mandate signed by Reagan.
Another point worth mentioning:
On February 16, 1972, the AP headline in papers across the country was "Mandatory Health Insurance Program Proposed by Reagan."
Yeah, that's right-- mandatory as in everybody would had to have it. In fact, everyone would have to have money taken right out of their pay check to pay for the catastrophic coverage portion of their insurance and everyone would be required to have "regular insurance" for everything else.
Like Obamacare, there was no public insurance in this plan, everything was private insurance from plans pre-approved by a new "state health security commission," but unlike Obamacare, if you didn't want the insurance you couldn't pay the small fine and go on your way-- you had to pay for the catastrophic coverage and their were fines if you didn't have the regular insurance.
You could say that Reagancare was like Obamacare with teeth (mandatory payroll taxes) to prevent people from getting out of mandatory coverage.
Yet, Tea Party Republicans invoke Reagan's name at every turn and are even shutting the government (something Reagan vehemently opposed) to kill Obamacare in some sort of Reaganesque, don't blink, show-down moment... all to stop a health care plan that can be traced back directly to... Reagan!
Except you forgot to mention that ALL these "mandates" compensated the medical community by tax breaks and reimbursement. Thus buying medical treatment not forcing it.
Social security, medicaid, and medicare are ALL government "public good" systems except they are not. they are simply a tax going into funds the government can use however they want under the lie of not being a tax.
Obama sold Obamacare to the SCOTUS under being a tax NOT health care. As a tax it MUST follow guidelines of not infringing on rights. As with each of these the idea was to produce more money from the public than spent on them therefore producing money for the government. A TAX not healthcare. Liberals called Obamacare everything but a tax INCLUDING Obama himself until the case went to SCOTUS then and only then did they admit it to be just another tax.

AGAIN for the last time. How does a tax give you a "right" to health care or insurance?
different

Tupelo, MS

#104 Jul 6, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wasting your time replying to the "different" fellow from Saltillo, Mississippi.
He is stuck on the idea that the Supreme Court struck down an unconstitutional portion of a tax law. It most certainly did not, but you will never make him see that - or admit it even if he does.
According to his logic, having to pay taxes is contingent on the tax not infringing someone's religious beliefs. By his thinking a pacifist Quaker (or any other pacifist religious person) would be able to not pay the portion of their income tax that goes to the Department of Defense.
What the Court really did was extend an act of Congress enacted to protect the religious rights of individuals (living human beings with souls who when the die will be judged by God and will go to Heaven or Hell) to corporations (intangible, non-living legal "beings"). In fact, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of any law, tax or other wise. It evaded the question of constitutionality by saying that a statute (which was enacted to reverse a previous Court decision) applied. The Court did not settle anything in this case. It merely tossed it back to Congress, which can repeal or amend the law that it said applied.
The problem is the new legal precedent that the Court set. That precedent can and will be used by various people and groups seeking exemptions from a variety of laws that they say infringe their religious beliefs, things far removed from the ACA and the issue of health care/birth control.
I know you being from Kentucky have a hard time understanding but we will try anyway. Churches and religious organization are tax exempt.
different

Tupelo, MS

#105 Jul 6, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
One point I will clarify:
The emergency room mandate signed by Reagan also became a treaty between member nations of the UN during his term.
It does not say the treatment is free. If the person receiving treatment can pay then they are billed and must pay. If they cannot then the taxpayer picks up the bill.
Many tea baggers say all illegal immigrants get "free" healthcare. They do not. They are billed just like you and me. Yet if they skip out on the bill then the taxpayers foot the bill.
The law says anyone needing immediate "emergency" care must be treated. If for example an illegal alien goes to the emergency and is found to have cancer. That person will likely not receive a series of Kemo treatments unless covered by some insurance or paying the bill.
Only "emergency" care is provided.
So Reagan "forced" emergency rooms to treat sick people and then get paid for it?
Isn't that what they were doing before his "mandate"? But it sounded good didn't it?

A few years ago the idiot liberal politicians here passed a law banning gun stores from selling guns to children. It was a great hit in the news. The problem was it was already illegal by federal law. But it sounded good.
Stupid liberals.
different

Tupelo, MS

#106 Jul 6, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct on both the first suggestion and the second statement.
Another interesting little issue I run across:
I’m not taking a position on any of the following but would like to know the truth.
A comment I saw on a blog....
“Isn't it obvious that Hobby Lobby DOESN'T QUALIFY for the exemption under the terms of the Court's Ruling? The Court clearly stated that the belief must be SINCERE. Since Hobby Lobby invests in & profits from companies that manufacture birth control drugs they are insincere. That is obvious. Perhaps the ruling can stand in the abstract BUT Hobby Lobby is not eligible for it on the basis of hypocrisy. They proved it by investing in birth control drug manufacturers.”
I question whether or not that is true or even provable. But likely the now wealthy owners of Hobby Lobby are well diversified across the stock market and very likely could have investments that could connect.
I wonder if they can actually prove that either Hobby Lobby or any of its owners invest in any company that produces those “morning after” so call abortion drugs.
Is there ANY part of the ruling that FORCES any company to pay for your insurance or can they just opt out and pay a fine (tax).
different

Tupelo, MS

#107 Jul 6, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Republican presidential icon Ronald Reagan imposed his own national healthcare mandate on the country. The mandate is well known today — it requires emergency rooms to treat anyone in need, regardless of their ability to pay — but the fact that Reagan signed it into law is often forgotten.
In 1986, Congress passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which contained the Emergency Medical Treatment. The law requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or even legal status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is virtually every hospital in the country.
Guess who foots the bill - the taxpayers.
Incidentally, the larger Omnibus law is now known commonly as COBRA and lets people stay on their former employers’ health insurance — another healthcare mandate signed by Reagan.
Another point worth mentioning:
On February 16, 1972, the AP headline in papers across the country was "Mandatory Health Insurance Program Proposed by Reagan."
Yeah, that's right-- mandatory as in everybody would had to have it. In fact, everyone would have to have money taken right out of their pay check to pay for the catastrophic coverage portion of their insurance and everyone would be required to have "regular insurance" for everything else.
Like Obamacare, there was no public insurance in this plan, everything was private insurance from plans pre-approved by a new "state health security commission," but unlike Obamacare, if you didn't want the insurance you couldn't pay the small fine and go on your way-- you had to pay for the catastrophic coverage and their were fines if you didn't have the regular insurance.
You could say that Reagancare was like Obamacare with teeth (mandatory payroll taxes) to prevent people from getting out of mandatory coverage.
Yet, Tea Party Republicans invoke Reagan's name at every turn and are even shutting the government (something Reagan vehemently opposed) to kill Obamacare in some sort of Reaganesque, don't blink, show-down moment... all to stop a health care plan that can be traced back directly to... Reagan!
Republicans shut down the government? You mean like harry Reed REFUSING to allow republican bills to come up for a vote in the senate? You mean when the House simply asked Obama to delay some of the implementation of Obamacare to work out the problems? Just how many times has he HAD to delay portions of Obamacare because of problems?

I love seeing liberals eat crow.
different

Tupelo, MS

#108 Jul 6, 2014
The Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare on June 28, 2012. The final ruling on ObamaCare was a made by Supreme Court Judge Vinson. The basic idea of the ruling was that ObamaCare was declared a tax and not a mandate and was therefore declared constitutional.

The ruling also let State's opt-out of expanding Medicaid, almost half of U.S. States opted out of expanding Medicaid in 2014 as of October 2013 leading to millions of our nations poorest going without coverage.

"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."

NO WHERE in the ruling is it said "you have a right to insurance".
different

Tupelo, MS

#109 Jul 6, 2014
1. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

2. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

3. Families will on average save $2500 annually.

4. Obamacare won’t add a dime to the deficit.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”— Barack Obama, September 2008
Pollys Opinion

Buffalo Gap, SD

#110 Jul 6, 2014
different wrote:
The Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare on June 28, 2012. The final ruling on ObamaCare was a made by Supreme Court Judge Vinson. The basic idea of the ruling was that ObamaCare was declared a tax and not a mandate and was therefore declared constitutional.
The ruling also let State's opt-out of expanding Medicaid, almost half of U.S. States opted out of expanding Medicaid in 2014 as of October 2013 leading to millions of our nations poorest going without coverage.
"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."
NO WHERE in the ruling is it said "you have a right to insurance".
Any chance you could focus on what the thread was about?
You are all over the place babbling about everything else you don't like.

Try to focus:

As I stated in posting #73:

My main concern is that it is a decision based on bad interpretation of the law. The principles that stand behind decisions should make some sense.

Justice Samuel Alito's insisted the decision should be narrowly applied to the peculiarities of the case. "BUT the logic of the argument" is likely to invite a tide of new lawsuits, all with their own unintended consequences.

Then the Supreme Court has a quandary on its hands. One issue can stand as the law of the land but a very similar situation based on the same argument and using the Hobby Lobby decision as precedence is either refused to be heard or denied. That is "bad law" and Supreme Court Justices creating bad law for either religious reasons and or political reasons.

After all, incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.

Corporations are not “people” but legal creations. Corporations have no morals or no religious beliefs into themselves. They simply are a manmade creations.

Allowing a corporation, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily yet foreseen.

I cannot predict where this bad decision will lead. But I am pretty sure that there are people out there already thinking on this very issue.

If this legal loop hole was to be given to a “Corporation” it should have been done through a law voted on by both Houses of Congress and signed into law. The Supreme Court simply took it upon themselves to rewrite Corporate Law & create new law.

The Supreme Court is the last place where laws should be created.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 41 min NYStateOfMind 340,275
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr John-K 317,539
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 1 hr Paul Yanks 45,753
jets talk back (Dec '07) 1 hr Paul Yanks 14,377
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Steven 63,975
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 1 hr KitKaboodle 17,581
Zeal for Life Challenge potential side effects:... (Sep '13) 1 hr Bob 107

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages