Supreme Court debates the future of Obamacare

Half of you drones in here wouldn't be happy til the government forces companies to provide coverage to their customers.

Want want want that's all I hear nowadays from cry babies, that's not fair I want more I'm mistreated blah blah blah.

Life is not fair it's not suppose to be, suck it up people and learn to live your life without mommy and daddy.

doubletap

Flatfish


How about they rule against Hobby Lobby simply because of the fact that this has nothing to do with religious freedoms?

I despise religion and religious people. In fact, I think it takes a special kind of mental illness to believe religious bs.

That being said, if government is forcing them to pay for something, and it impacts their belief system, then by all means it has to do with religious freedom.

Then according to your premiss, any company owned by a Jehovah Witness won't be required to provide coverage for blood transfusions and/or transplant procedures either. What a load of B.S.!

Healthcare has nothing to do with religion, it just that religious zealots want to make it that way.

reply to post by greencmp


First, I never claimed that health insurance was a right (why is everyone assuming this about me?). Second, all laws, no matter how Constitutional or if they are rights or not, should be implemented fairly for everyone. THAT is the spirit of how our government works. Third, Hobby Lobby's religious rights CAN'T be discriminated against because a business CAN'T have a religious opinion. It is outside the scope of what a business does and is for. The owners certainly can, but they are individuals just like their employees and they don't get a say on if their business has to provide (read: NOT them) something their religion disagrees with. The money for these morning after pills will come from the business' profits and they will be written off on their taxes as a business expense, the money to pay for this will never come from the owners' private accounts.

Flatfish

beezzer

Flatfish


This is about healthcare, not religion.

This is about government dictating healthcare contrary to religious principles.

Good!!!!! I'm glad to know that my government is not bound by your religious principles! I wouldn't want it any other way.

So you are okay with a controlling central authority dictating what should be your responsibility?

reply to post by thesaneone


I'm really getting tired of the people who are on Hobby Lobby's side on this case assuming what the opposing side thinks and wants. Stop assuming stuff about us! I'm the most vocal opponent to this lawsuit in this thread and I believe or want NONE of what you said.

thesaneone
Half of you drones in here wouldn't be happy til the government forces companies to provide coverage to their customers.

Want want want that's all I hear nowadays from cry babies, that's not fair I want more I'm mistreated blah blah blah.

Life is not fair it's not suppose to be, suck it up people and learn to live your life without mommy and daddy.

What do you expect? Its the participation trophy generation and other assorted losers who think government exists to provide for them.

Their sad little belief system is diametrically opposed to the ideals this nation was founded upon.

Personal responsibility doesnt exist in their world, only whining and demanding they get more of other peoples money.

They are a cancer upon this nation and need to be treated as such.

Flatfish

Then according to your premiss, any company owned by a Jehovah Witness won't be required to provide coverage for blood transfusions and/or transplant procedures either. What a load of B.S.!

Healthcare has nothing to do with religion, it just that religious zealots want to make it that way.

Given that the business owners are paying for it, it is perfectly within their rights to offer coverage or in your example, exceptions as they see fit.

Personally I belittle and humiliate jehovahs witness psychos whenever they come to my door. I am coming at this from the rights of the business owner.

If employees are unhappy with what is offered, they are free to seek additional coverage, or find employment with a company that offers the coverage they would like.

If they dont like whats offered, forcing the business owner to cover something they find objectionable is not the proper course of action.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by doubletap

 

Hobby Lobby, the company, doesn't believe in anything. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church on Sunday. Hobby Lobby doesn't quote scripture on a regular basis. Hobby Lobby doesn't pray to god. The owners believe and do all those things. There is a key difference here, the difference being that the owners are allowed to push their religious views onto their employees by using their company to claim religious prosecution. This allows the owners to muddy the water (by claiming that Hobby Lobby is being religiously persecuted), when in reality if you strip the company from the picture, the reality of who is really religiously persecuting who surfaces.

edit on 26-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Ownership conveys the right you are so willing to take away for your own benefit, I guess its OK as long as its not your specific rights being taken? When you strip the corporate entity you get to the actual owners of a private business who do go to church.

How about the Federal Government passes law saying a nationalized media is in your best interest because dissent is damaging to the overall wellbeing? Further that all reporting will be of an approved generic nature promoting itself and its interests.

Point is rights or powers not given to the Federal Government will eventually come around to bite those who so easily support the abridgment of others rights.

For me its all about self determination without big overbearing government involved.

Again, why not just a standard co-pay for all medications? What is prescribed should be between doctor and patient. No one (outside of a medical professional) decides what should or should not be covered then.

Also if EVERYONE has healthcare under the new law, why the continued need for worker's compensation???

Krazysh0t
reply to post by doubletap

 

Hobby Lobby, the company, doesn't believe in anything. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church on Sunday. Hobby Lobby doesn't quote scripture on a regular basis. Hobby Lobby doesn't pray to god. The owners believe and do all those things. There is a key difference here, the difference being that the owners are allowed to push their religious views onto their employees by using their company to claim religious prosecution. This allows the owners to muddy the water (by claiming that Hobby Lobby is being religiously persecuted), when in reality if you strip the company from the picture, the reality of who is really religiously persecuting who surfaces.

edit on 26-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

well according to law they are people.

Despite not being human beings, corporations, as far as the law is concerned, are legal persons, and have many of the same rights and responsibilities as natural people do. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[5][6] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[7] Corporations can be "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate failure, when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[8] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter. However corporations are not considered living entities in the way that humans are.
link
Corporation

so if they can be held guilty of violating rights, then they should be afford the same rights as a person. not just limited to certain rights.
and if you strip the picture, then the rights of the owners are being violated, ie by being forced to pay for others inability to control ones self.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by greencmp

 

First, I never claimed that health insurance was a right. Second, all laws, no matter how Constitutional or if they are rights or not, should be implemented fairly for everyone. THAT is the spirit of how our government works. Third, Hobby Lobby's religious rights CAN'T be discriminated against because a business CAN'T have a religious opinion. It is outside the scope of what a business does and is for. The owners certainly can, but they are individuals just like their employees and they don't get a say on if their business has to provide (read: NOT them) something their religion disagrees with. The money for these morning after pills will come from the businesses profits and they will be written off of their taxes as a business expense, the money to pay for this will never come from the owners' private accounts.

I do understand your point so don't take this the wrong way. I am just challenging the idea that only individuals can have policies which are based upon principals, not organizations.

Can a family have a religious opinion?

For that matter, can a union, non-profit or any other freely associated group of individuals have a religious opinion?

thesaneone
Half of you drones in here wouldn't be happy til the government forces companies to provide coverage to their customers.

Want want want that's all I hear nowadays from cry babies, that's not fair I want more I'm mistreated blah blah blah.

Life is not fair it's not suppose to be, suck it up people and learn to live your life without mommy and daddy.

I'll "suck it up" when those who earn less than me have to suck it up also!!!
If the danged companies would pay enough to people to support their families and if the danged people who could work would and the danged gov't wouldn't give out more value to those who aren't working at all than the ones who are working can afford THERE WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM?!!!

beezzer

Flatfish

beezzer

Flatfish


This is about healthcare, not religion.

This is about government dictating healthcare contrary to religious principles.

Good!!!!! I'm glad to know that my government is not bound by your religious principles! I wouldn't want it any other way.

So you are okay with a controlling central authority dictating what should be your responsibility?

If you're asking if I want my government to set standards to insure that when I do purchase something like insurance, I actually get insurance and not something disguised as such, then the answer is yes!

Kinda the same way that I expect my government, (via various Depts. of Weights & Measures) to inspect gas stations to insure that when they say I'm getting a gallon of gas for a certain price, that's what I'm getting and not a fraction thereof. Or the same way they inspect the scales at the supermarket to insure that you get the actual pound of product you're paying for.


I sure as hell can't trust the corporation! They don't have religion, they don't have morals and the only thing they value is profit.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Because if I am working for an employee and get injured in some way (quite possibly through their neglect) I should be able to get treatment without having to come up with some what is now insane amount before my insurance pays a cent of it!

greencmp

Krazysh0t
reply to post by greencmp

 

First, I never claimed that health insurance was a right. Second, all laws, no matter how Constitutional or if they are rights or not, should be implemented fairly for everyone. THAT is the spirit of how our government works. Third, Hobby Lobby's religious rights CAN'T be discriminated against because a business CAN'T have a religious opinion. It is outside the scope of what a business does and is for. The owners certainly can, but they are individuals just like their employees and they don't get a say on if their business has to provide (read: NOT them) something their religion disagrees with. The money for these morning after pills will come from the businesses profits and they will be written off of their taxes as a business expense, the money to pay for this will never come from the owners' private accounts.

I do understand your point so don't take this the wrong way. I am just challenging the idea that only individuals can have policies which are based upon principals, not organizations.

Can a family have a religious opinion?

No, all members of the family may share the same religious opinion, but that is about as detailed as it gets. What happens if the son decides that he doesn't follow the family's religious opinion? He is still part of the family, yet doesn't believe as the rest of the family. That is why a family cannot have a religious opinion.

For that matter, can a union, non-profit or any other freely associated group of individuals have a religious opinion?

Same answer as the family example.

Religion is an individual choice, NOT a group choice.

doubletap

Flatfish

Then according to your premiss, any company owned by a Jehovah Witness won't be required to provide coverage for blood transfusions and/or transplant procedures either. What a load of B.S.!

Healthcare has nothing to do with religion, it just that religious zealots want to make it that way.

Given that the business owners are paying for it, it is perfectly within their rights to offer coverage or in your example, exceptions as they see fit.

Personally I belittle and humiliate jehovahs witness psychos whenever they come to my door. I am coming at this from the rights of the business owner.

If employees are unhappy with what is offered, they are free to seek additional coverage, or find employment with a company that offers the coverage they would like.

If they dont like whats offered, forcing the business owner to cover something they find objectionable is not the proper course of action.

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.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


In response to your post, I point you to this post I made on the second page of the thread, specifically the last line of the post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Krazysh0t
reply to post by greencmp

 

Second, all laws, no matter how Constitutional or if they are rights or not, should be implemented fairly for everyone. THAT is the spirit of how our government works.

It is the responsibility of citizens to oppose, obstruct and defy all unconstitutional laws. That is how our society works.

dawnstar

I'll "suck it up" when those who earn less than me have to suck it up also!!!
If the danged companies would pay enough to people to support their families and if the danged people who could work would and the danged gov't wouldn't give out more value to those who aren't working at all than the ones who are working can afford THERE WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM?!!!

Why dont you stated a danged business and pay the danged employees enough to support their danged families?

People are paid what they are worth. Burger flippers certainly arent worth 15 bucks an hour, and they never will be.

Flatfish


I sure as hell can't trust the corporation!

Do you actually believe the government is trustworthy?