Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Obamacare and the religious right
Comments
-
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?HoustonHusky said:Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
-
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-respond-to-hobby-lobby-ruling
It's strange that liberals and conservatives are making this ruling out to be a huge deal. All the ruling does is remove a very narrow coverage requirement, in very specific cases; 99.9 percent of Obamacare is upheld.
It's true that closely held corporate entities should not be forced to pay for this particular contraceptive coverage. But focusing on that narrow issue misses the bigger point: No employer should be forced to provide any health coverage at all.
This ruling just draws the line between freedom and regulation arbitrarily. If these employers are free to ignore this particular mandate, why aren't other employers free to ignore other Obamacare regulations? They should be.
Obamacare is unjust and unconstitutional from top to bottom. No employer should be forced to provide health coverage to its employees, or penalized by government if it doesn't.
Religion is not the issue. The fact that these employers have religious motives doesn't matter. Employers have the right to associate freely with their employees, and to come up with any mutually agreeable employment terms, whether their motives are religious, secular, generous, greedy, or whatever.
This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government's desire to regulate and control. -
As soon as we overthrow the corrupt government and create a free society.OZONE said:
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?HoustonHusky said:Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok. -
NSAdawg?MikeDamone said:
As soon as we overthrow the corrupt government and create a free society.OZONE said:
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?HoustonHusky said:Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok. -
That's just what I was hearing, not what I actually think. Stop twisting. Don't be a twister.allpurpleallgold said:
NSAdawg?MikeDamone said:
As soon as we overthrow the corrupt government and create a free society.OZONE said:
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?HoustonHusky said:Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
But you actually don't want that. You to stop paying for those things (and so do I) so the money can be spent on things you approve of. So as long as you agree with the waste, it's ok. -
Sounds great the next time the govt forces a business or individual to buy an aircraft carrier or bailout for another individual. Of course you could argue the GM fiasco fit that mold...OZONE said:
Makes sense. Where do we sign up to stop paying for nuclear aircraft carriers and for corporate bailouts?HoustonHusky said:Straw man discussion. Hobby Lobby pays for birth control pre conception...including the pill and lots of other methods. They just don't want to pay for drugs that can destroy a viable embryo.
-
SCROTUM, I mean SCOTUS, needs to have its powers severely curtailed. There should be no such thing as an 'activist judge.' It should have no power to rule on social issues that should be decided on a state by state basis, or by its own power alone overturn laws enacted by the vote of the people. The people of 50 states, not 9 biased individual imbeciles that are appointed for life, should be deciding the trajectory of the nation. It and the executive branch has overstepped its bounds at the expense of the legislative branch (which sadly doesn't really represent the people like it's supposed to). SCOTUS and POTUS are the two evil twins that currently act as vampires on the nation. They need a strong punch in the jaw to break some of their teeth off.GrundleStiltzkin said:http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-respond-to-hobby-lobby-ruling
This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government's desire to regulate and control. -
SCROTUM, I mean SCOTUS, needs to have its powers severely curtailed. There should be no such thing as an 'activist judge.' It should have no power to rule on social issues that should be decided on a state by state basis, or by its own power alone overturn laws enacted by the vote of the people. The people of 50 states, not 9 biased individual imbeciles that are appointed for life, should be deciding the trajectory of the nation. It and the executive branch has overstepped its bounds at the expense of the legislative branch (which sadly doesn't really represent the people like it's supposed to). SCOTUS and POTUS are the two evil twins that currently act as vampires on the nation.oregonblitzkrieg said:GrundleStiltzkin said:http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-respond-to-hobby-lobby-ruling
This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government's desire to regulate and control.
If they don't rule on "social issues" then what should they rule on? At least they got this weeks rulings correct. If they would have ruled correctly on the ACA in the past, we wouldn't have had the Hobby Lobby case.
I agree with about 81% of what you said. But you kind of fucked up the presentation. -
They need to stay completely out of social issues like the gay marriage debate for example. Things like this should be decided by the individual states. If a majority of citizens vote to legalize gay marriage in their state, like WA for example, fine. It's for them to choose. If a majority of citizens are against it, as is the case in Utah, that should be ok too. Utah doesn't want gay marriage. Utah shouldn't be forced to legalize it against the will of its people. Oregon was forced into it also like California was, and I think most people resent a federal court overturning the will of the voters who enacted a law stating they were against it. If the law is to be invalidated it should be invalidated by the people of that state, not by the pen stroke of a single biased activist judge. What do you call a nation state that is ruled by judges?
-
I'm all for states rights, but how do you define a social issue and why shouldn't the states have over all issues. And does your opinion apply only when the judge rules in favor or things you agree with or are you up in arms over only things you disagree with as well? For example, if abortion is a "social issue" are you ok with each state deciding if it is constitution or not? Would you be ok with abortion being illegal in huge sections of the nation?
