It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Supreme Court debates the future of Obamacare

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:59 PM

reply to post by beezzer

I don't support Obamacare either, but Hobby Lobby needs to lose this case. It may be against the religion of the owner's of Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives, but I'm pretty damn sure that they don't just employ Christian fundamentalists like themselves. This results in religious discrimination from the employer to the employee from a government mandated law. The rights of the person need to outweigh the rights of this corporation. If a Christian doesn't approve of contraceptives, fine, don't use them, but don't deny other's their right to use them or be provided with them under law because of your disagreement.

This whole fiasco could be solved by just getting government out of our lives, but hey apparently that isn't in the cards.

Except this case has been horribly mischaracterized in the media. What the owners object to is only four out of 20 methods of birth control mandated by Obamacare. They are not against covering the pill which is what most people think they are against covering. They do not want to cover Plan B, Ella and two types of IUD, all of which can prevent a fertilized from implanting which they feel is an abortion. Simply put, they do not feel they should be forced to cover abortions.

Now, I find your two statements to be contradictory.

If the government got out of our lives, Hobby Lobby's owners would be free to run their company as they liked which means not providing the four methods described above, but according to you, they should be forced to provide them so as not to infringe on their employees?

Another problem I have with the whole blowup over this is that so many times, people are upset that corporations are so evil and greedy and just out for profit. Well, here you have one that is being run by principle. Hobby Lobby is pretty obviously a business that runs for more than just gross profit. Anyone who has one knows they aren't even open on Sundays when everything else around them will be, for example. If they were simple for profit, they'd be open on Sunday.

However, when that expression of being run on more than just profit means the principle strays into expressions that the left (those who deride corporate greed) find to be counter to their preferred narrative, they don't like it anymore. How dare Hobby Lobby be in business for anything more than naked profit if it means those principles express themselves in politically incorrect/inconvenient ways (the same could be said of Chik-fil-A, btw)? Perhaps, if we are to build a world that runs on a different paradigm than naked greed, it means you are going to have to compromise with some ideas you aren't as happy with because they often are found in people who aren't motivated by mere greed in their daily lives and work. Food for thought.

You might have to relax your puritanical secularism a tad.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by macman

The federal and state government politicians are good at wasting money I think, but the health department and hospitals do a pretty good job here most of the time. I'm not saying it's perfect and I'm sure it could be better but overall we have a pretty good healthcare system.
I can say politicians and the government are pathetic it doesn't mean the police, doctors, hospitals, firefighters etc are all hopeless too they're not, they do a good job for the most part.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:43 PM


First off, how in the name of all that is holy can a corporation be religiously oppressed????

Perhaps it is because corporations are considered 'people' and people can be oppressed.

Perhaps it is because a fetus is not considered a person so they are not being 'oppressed'.

And the rationale of the day is they use of government to force a business to provide another CORPORATE PRODUCT that business owners have to pay for.

Never mind that the Hobby Lobby's are ALREADY PAYING:

Half of their employees social security, and medicare contributions.

PAYING for their unemployment INSURANCE.

PAYING for their worksmans comp INSURANCE.

Then came along Obama 'care' forcing employers to shell out again for their employees.

As if all of the above wasn't enough already.

And it is especially since employees can walk in to planned parenthood and get their 'contraceptions' for free.

Or they can walk in to any Walmart, or Target and shell out a few bucks to get them as well.

But the thing that is STUPID about it all is that it shouldn't even have to go to the SCOTUS.

IN one breath they tell government to stay out of their wombs !

Whoops no wait sorry pay for their birth control.

Nothing but a bunch of GD cognitive dissonance from the entire lot of them.

edit on 26-3-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by windword

Yeah, its amazing isn't it? We actually have a Constitution that ensures equal rights for all. Seems to me that its a one-way street, though, and we're moving away from the original intent of freedom of religion and rather strongly towards freedom from religion. A happy medium would be nice, but instead of one extreme, I think we're heading towards another.

But keep setting these precedents where government can stomp on your individual rights. One day, perhaps sooner than you think, the political winds are going to shift and its going to be a right you actually do care about that's on the line.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

do the employees also pitch into this pool of money?? aren't they also paying?

yes my understanding they do, but before, the employer didn't have to offer insurance, obamacare mandates that employers provide health care to any full time worker and change it to anyone working 30hr work week instead of 40. so if the birth control comes out of their part fine, just don't take my part and use it for birth control.

so you as an employer should have your religious rights preserved but not the employees that share the same religious views? Even it they refuse to buy into the insurance scam they are still taxed and that money is being used for it.

just because someone doesn't want to pay for someone elses birth control or responsibility doesn't mean it's because they are religious. in this case hobby lobby is, but there are others who are not. they don't feel they should be forced to pay for someone elses choices. if hobby lobby wins the people that hold their views win to, it will be a blow to that part of the law. and it will be constent reason for people to opt out.there will be more cases if hobby lobby wins. and you can bet that the fines and tax for not getting covered is not gonna go to health care.

you say you have no problem paying for a women once pregnant if it is found that the pregnancy is endangering her life what about those times when it is known before conception that there is a danger?

if there is a known issues, why would anyone in there right mind take a contraceptive, that may not be 100% effective all of the time. or they might forget to take them. i've known women that both have happen. as i said there are way to prevent pregnancy some simple, some not. if your life hangs on the chance of getting pregnant why chance it. if curable reframe from sex until cured if you can't do that, do what ever measures are required to prevent becoming pregnant. it's that simple.

as far as your little anti religious rant i'm not gonna go there, to much to be said about the narrow views that anti religious people have on all of people that believe in God but don't follow mans religion.

i will respond to your very last part,

and oh yes all the women who are using birth control are just whoring around!

if you want to see yourself/ someone you know, or what ever as, that fine, that's not what i said. use reading and comprehension skills before you type something.
and like i said you are far from being a idiot, stop trying to play me off as one.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

the only reason why they are mandating the businesses to provide the insurance is because they wanted to mandate that everybody be insured. and they know that that is an impossibility unless the employers offer the benefit!
it's impossible anyways but what the heck if the people are playing the game they will just force them to right?

as far as birth control being a morality issue I beg to differ it's a healthcare issue! too many pregnacies are not good for a women's bodies

as far as the other ways of avoiding pregnancy well what are you talking about?
Tubals? what if there is a medical reason for her not to have surgery?
condoms?? ya right tell me how effective they are I conceived two kids with that method!
one has to consider the effectiveness of each method and also the health of the women that it is being perscribed for
pills are not good for some tubals aren't good for others ect

abstinance?? that's the only one that is 100% effective but well say you have a couple where the sexual relations is important to one or the other and well the lack of it would be destabilizing to the relationship..

would you society pay for the expenses of wife and kids when the marriage falls apart or would the birth control be the cheaper way to go??

and my religious rant as you call it is relevant to me even if it isn't to you!
one the churches still teach it so well it gives us a clue of what their intention is!
two it gives us an understanding of just how we got to where we are!
like maybe if women had been given the basic rights to begin with such as deciding just how many kids they had weather or not to be married to begin with being able to support herself if she decided not to marry
well maybe what we have now is the result of the denial of rights to begin with!

being in a sexual relationship is a lifestyle yes pregnancy can be avoided by chosing a different lifestyle yes1
but ya know what there are many things that could be avoided by just changing our lifestyle
high blood pressure
heart disease
and on and on I could go!!!

the gov't is trying to force me into their little scam which would cost me over half of what I am able to earrn! If I am gonna pay that kind of money I expect that scam to pay for whatever healthcare I deem necessary and not have anything held back because of my sex or the intimate relationship (also quite complex) with my hubby!

after all why should I pay for the fat guys medication for his high chlorestorel just because he doesn't have the common sense to not know when to stop eating.

and let's not forget no matter how this ruling turns out we will all be paying for those the gov't deems as "needy" to have birth control won't we???

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

You do understand that contraception is not health care?

Argue all you want, but pregnancy is not a disease.

I'm sorry you conceived two kids using condoms, but hubby and have been using them for a long time now and not had similar issues. Some women conceive as many kids on the pill while others have conceived after a tubal (or their husband's vasectomy). Like it or not, nothing you do short of removing you uterus will make you 100% unable to conceive except 100% abstinence.

Sex is 100% designed to cause pregnancy. That's just simple biological fact. If we didn't need sex to carry on the species, we'd evolve away from it entirely because it is a biologically expensive thing to maintain. So, if it wasn't darn good at creating pregnancy, it would be failing. There shouldn't be any woman out there who approaches the thought of having sex, even once, without be very, very aware of this fact.

Now, what you choose to do or not do is up to you, but you need to respect that other people feel differently about it. And, other people feel very strongly about their beliefs. Like it or not, they feel as strongly as you do. Demanding that they pay for your beliefs in violation of theirs is a violation of their rights, rights guaranteed in the COTUS - right at the top of the Bill of Rights in fact - Amendment 1.

Now, you can call your health care a "right" all you want, but the fact is that what you want is to impose an obligation on everyone else to provide something for you. No one has the "right" to anything that does that. For someone to not believe in abortion, imposes no obligation on you, but for you to think you should have everyone pay for you to have something very much does impose an obligation on us - you are making us pay for you. Explain where you have that "right."

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 06:11 PM
actually after I broke my ankle I kind of just decided that if I couldn't afford the healthcare then I sure the heck was gonna do everything in my power to keep my money for my needs instead of letting the gov't take it to give for others
even if that meant not working what the heck when the consequences of working is that I end up incurring more in medical bills than I am paid every year working is kind of a non productive thing to do and the last two jobs were like that
so well my answer was I'd just go without the healthcare if I couldn't afford it but I wouldn't be paying in to the pool if I couldn't afford it myself

obamacare is kind of forcing me to reconsider that solution
so well if I am gonna be paying over half of what I could earn between the premium and the deductables and then still not have access to the care well that coverage is gonna cover every healthcare need I may find I need! not be nick picked till what I consider to be a vital part is removed that really only affects one sex health wise!

after all ain't no men ever died in childbirth have they? nope all women!! for the most part of history the men could walk away without any responsibility to the kids whatsoever let alone have any physical effects!

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 06:52 PM



I sure as hell can't trust the corporation!

Do you actually believe the government is trustworthy?

I don't trust either one implicitly.

While I do realize that corruption does exist within government, it exist most everywhere else as well. In other words, I don't view my government as the enemy and I truly believe that most politicians have good intentions when first elected.

Once elected, they soon discover that our congress is actually under the control of corporate lobbyist who literally write the legislation to be voted on and who are more than willing to reward those who support it and destroy those who oppose it.

It's the corporations & special interest who are behind the corruption and that's where I place the blame.

So guess which one I trust the least?

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 07:01 PM



Or how about, any entity wishing to do business in this country shall abide by the laws of the land as enacted by representative government or go do their business somewhere else? As far as I can tell, nobody is forcing them to do business here in America.

Laws contrary to the Constitution need not be followed.

As far as I can tell, nobody is forcing people to work for a company that has opinions or policies they disagree with either, whether it be what coverage it offers, what it pays for a given job, etc etc.

And the Supreme Court is fixin to tell you whether or not this law is, (as you put it) "contrary to the Constitution."

The thing you have to remember about your "contrary to the Constitution" philosophy is that it's not up to you to determine the constitutionality of the law, that's what the SCOTUS is for.

Problem is, I feel certain that when the decision comes down and you don't agree with it, you'll just say that the SCOTUS decision is wrong and need not be followed.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 09:22 PM

reply to post by buster2010

In other words, you support abortions up to age 16?

If the kid is still in his mother at the age 16 then there is a big problem.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by doubletap

You know, I thought about what you said for a while. Maybe that is the way it should be. Businesses like Hobby Lobby should hire the women who believe the earth is 6K yrs old and have babies every two years.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by Flatfish

There is no need to wait for the decision. Why rely on 9 idiots in robes who have been wrong on numerous major decisions throughout history?

Dred Scott decision....think scotus got that one right? How about kelo v new london? Wickard v Filburn? All 3 of those were obviously wrong, but you would support them because 9 idiots said so.

The words of the founding father's are there in plain text for everyone to see. Those words aren't subject to interpretation based upon 9 supreme Court justices political ideology .

The only people who need the constitution interpreted are those incapable of understanding it themselves.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:20 PM
I personally will never pay into anything that supports something against my religious beliefs. Birth control is one of those. So I would never pay into ACA. Currently I do not have to make that decision thankfully. But Sorry not ever gonna happen even if I had to. It's quite easy for them to remove that junk from ACA and move on. They had to know when they added that that people who were religious would raise
objections. The judge you're quoting is anti-family pro abortion anyhow.

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:52 PM
reply to post by ketsuko

You do understand that contraception is not health care?

It's called "preventative care".

You ALL have been paying into it for the past 14 years plus, without a problem or religious objection.

Did you know that, by federal rule which has been upheld in the courts, employers and insurers have had to provide birth control as part of preventive care for women? And that that's been the case since 2000, throughout the Bush administration? Lost in the firestorm the far-right has started, and that the traditional media can't resist blowing up, is the fact that coverage of prescription contraception is remarkably run-of-the mill and has been controversy-free for over a decade.

edit on 26-3-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:09 AM

reply to post by Flatfish

The words of the founding father's are there in plain text for everyone to see. Those words aren't subject to interpretation based upon 9 supreme Court justices political ideology.

So let me make sure I got this right. Are you saying that as opposed to utilizing a court of 9 judges who are constitutional scholars to decide the constitutionality of challenges made before the court, we should just leave it open to 317 million different interpretations levied by the general public?

I think they have a term for what you're describing, it's called Anarchy. Furthermore, I'm sure it was mentality like yours that spurred Winston Churchill to make the following quote;

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

The only people who need the constitution interpreted are those incapable of understanding it themselves.

Well, that sure as hell explains why our founding fathers took the time to write and adopt Article III, now doesn't it?

Have you ever heard the old saying, "you can't have your cake and eat it too?" Well, you can't pretend to support our constitution while simultaneously ignoring the authority of the judicial branch which was specifically created for this purpose, in the third article of the document you're pretending to support.

Actually, you are free to ignore reality for as long as you like, just don't expect the rest of us not to recognize it for the "ignor"-ance it truly is.

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:50 AM

If you really check into it you'll find it was that oh so trustworthy government both State and Federal that colluded with hospitals, physicians, insurance and pharmaceutical companies with laws that insulated them from almost all consumer protection law, laws covering price fixing and monopolistic practices. Its why healthcare got so expensive in the first place.

Government makes the problem over decades then offers up a solution that just so happens to give it all the power over your health - how convenient!

And you trust them to fix it!

I don't explicitly trust everyone in government to fix it, but I do trust some of them like Elizabeth Warren to at least try. On the other hand, I can't think of a single corporate CEO who gives a big hairy rat's ass whether I live or die, much less one that has my best interest at heart.

I don't believe that most politicians are inherently corrupt, I believe the root of the corruption you speak of is administered by corporate and special interest lobbyist and it's our fault for allowing it.

I'm convinced that until such time as we outlaw paid lobbying it all it's forms, the corruption will continue. It's insane for us to believe that we can continue to allow corporate lawyers to literally write the legislation being adopted by Congress and expect that legislation to be in the best interest of the people or our nation.

IMO, this issue would be the perfect issue to take up in the form of a Constitutional Convention.

If the protection for the healthcare racketeering was repealed in true reform your costs are estimated to drastically go down by 80% in estimates I've seen.

I couldn't agree more! And that's exactly why I'm in favor of a truly universal, single-payer, not-for-profit, Medicare-for-all system that would provide basic coverage to everyone. Seeing how corporation's sole purpose is to generate profits, I'm confident that the moment we remove profit from healthcare insurance coverage, they'll run for the hills taking their corrupt influence with them.

With this I go right back to enumerated powers that deny the Federal government the right to dictate your healthcare much less forcing others to pay for contraceptives which IMHO are a personal responsibility that 99.9999% can afford anyway.

I don't see it as the government attempting to dictate my healthcare at all. No one is dictating that anyone else must take birth control, only that it be available and covered if they make the personal choice to utilize it.

What I see is my government attempting to dictate that insurance companies be held to a minimum standard with respect to what must be considered "covered procedures" in order to even qualify as "insurance." They've been selling hollow, meaningless policies to unsuspecting patrons for far too long which is why healthcare cost is one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy filings in America today.

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 10:00 AM


First off, how in the name of all that is holy can a corporation be religiously oppressed????

Perhaps it is because corporations are considered people and people can be oppressed.

wait a minute...I thought there wasn't a slippery slope to making corporations "people"....the right-wing judges of SCOTUS brought this on themselves. can't wait for the convoluted opinion by Scalia and company on this one.

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by Flatfish

Elizabeth Warren, really?.

The Same Elizabeth Warren who lied about her being a Native American, the same Elizabeth Warren who claimed that she was the first nursing mother to take the New Jersey bar exam.


posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 10:21 AM

reply to post by Flatfish

Elizabeth Warren, really?.

The Same Elizabeth Warren who lied about her being a Native American, the same Elizabeth Warren who claimed that she was the first nursing mother to take the New Jersey bar exam.


Do you even realize just how petty your argument is? If that's all you've got on her, I would just imagine that she is probably the most honest person in Congress.

Yeah, that Elizabeth Warren.

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in