It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Supreme Court debates the future of Obamacare

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

dawnstar
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!


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


Would you be willing to pay the entire cost if you get hurt through an act of your own stupidity?

If not, why the double standard?




posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 

in the 1960's anyone including the burger flippers who worked a full time job earned enough to be above the proverty line!!!

now it's the taxpayers that are footing the bill for the corps!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


Of course they do that's what big bro and sis told them.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


no I am not!!
been there done that!!
ended up laying in a bed while the danged surgeon demanded an insanse down payment before he would do the surgery!
no I am prepared to die if such a thing happened!



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


That's pretty murky and hard to do. If the law isn't deemed unconstitutional in your lifetime or even for many years, you could end up spending jail time or being ostracized from your community for doing it. Most people don't have the willpower or drive to go through with that.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Flatfish


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.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

greencmp

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.


BRAVO, Greencmp.

If we were descended from good little citizens who followed every law, there would be no USA and we would still be English citizens.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
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.


Well put, so the impossibility of uniform agreement is what prevents enforceable policy in any organization.

I would consider veganism a reasonable analog for religion for the purposes of this discussion.

If the state made it a right for employees to be provided with a well rounded "square" meal which included meat, there could be no complaint made by a vegan organization because the possibility of dissent within the organization toward that policy would preclude it?



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

dawnstar
reply to post by doubletap
 

in the 1960's anyone including the burger flippers who worked a full time job earned enough to be above the proverty line!!!

now it's the taxpayers that are footing the bill for the corps!!!



Burger flipper is an entry level job, it isnt mean to support a family.

Did a quick google search and found this: the average minimum wage for the decade of the 1960's was $1.29 an hour, which equates to $7.91 an hour in todays dollars. Seems like that wage has remained pretty constant over the past 50 years, know why?

Because its a job a trained monkey could do and isnt worth anything more than minimum wage. It's an entry level position meant to teach people new to the job market basic job skills, like showing up on time, following a schedule, and doing menial tasks until better employment can be found.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


So you got hurt through an act of your own stupidity, yet you dont think you shouldve had to pay for that?

Really?



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Flatfish

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.



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!

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.

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.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

dawnstar
reply to post by doubletap
 

in the 1960's anyone including the burger flippers who worked a full time job earned enough to be above the proverty line!!!


Incorrect.

The percentage of Americans in poverty today is lower then the percentage of Americans in poverty in the 60's.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

greencmp

Krazysh0t
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.


Well put, so the impossibility of uniform agreement is what prevents enforceable policy in any organization.

I would consider veganism a reasonable analog for religion for the purposes of this discussion.

If the state made it a right for employees to be provided with a well rounded "square" meal which included meat, there could be no complaint made by a vegan organization because the possibility of dissent within the organization toward that policy would preclude it?


As much as it pains me to say this, but correct. The people who comprise that organization don't have to eat the meat that comes on their plate if they don't want to. (I really hope a law like you just suggested is NEVER implemented by the US government...)
edit on 26-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

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


fair enough, then i ask you point blank.

if i employ you, should i be forced to provide you with insurance for other than work related injury?
should i have to pay for your health because you don't care of your self or you wanted to go out and have a good time, or couldn't control yourself?
should i have to forget my right to believe in something because you don't?
you are not my propriety you are not my family.
why should i have to provide for you more than a paycheck for what you agreed to do for me?
i didn't hold a gun to your head and make you go to work for me. why should i be responsible for your actions off the clock?

do you not believe in being responsible for your own actions, your own descesions?[
edit on 26-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

GeorgiaGirl

greencmp

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.


BRAVO, Greencmp.

If we were descended from good little citizens who followed every law, there would be no USA and we would still be English citizens.


...and as English citizens we wouldn't be having this debate because health care is a given (quality is a different issue).



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Phoenix

Flatfish

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.



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!

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.

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.


Spot on!


I always hear people complaining about the state of the health care industry as if it is completely private and unregulated.

It has been the regulations themselves thus far which have caused the costs to skyrocket and the quality to descend.
edit on 26-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

hounddoghowlie

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


fair enough, then i ask you point blank.

if i employ you, should i be forced to provide you with insurance for other than work related injury?
should i have to pay for your health because you don't care of your self or you wanted to go out and have a good time, or couldn't control yourself?
should i have to forget my right to believe in something because you don't?


If it is an existing law, then yes. If not, then no and I wouldn't support the government trying to make it law.


you are not my propriety you are not my family.
why should i have to provide for you more than a paycheck for what you agreed to do for me?


Because that is what the law currently says.


i didn't hold a gun to your head and make you go to work for me. why should i be responsible for your actions off the clock?


Tell that to the government, not me.


do you not believe in responsible for being your own actions, your own descesions?
edit on 26-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


I direct you to another post of mine earlier in the thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this one
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 26-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Didn't Obama state that Obamacare would NOT be used for abortions?


First of all, the methods of birth control in question do NOT cause abortion.


Hobby Lobby's attorneys argue that the law violates the company's constitutional right to religious freedom by forcing it to cover all forms of birth control or pay steep fines. The company's owners are morally opposed to intrauterine devices and emergency contraception, believing it to be a form of abortion, though medical studies have debunked that claim. www.huffingtonpost.com...


These methods of birth control can prevent implantation. According to the American Medical Association and American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, pregnancy begins at implantation. If there is no pregnancy there can be no abortion.

Secondly, Hobby Lobby was covering these types of contraceptives without complaint up until the ACA kicked in, then they, like many others, pulled their coverage in protest.


Even though it’s suddenly become controversial, employer birth control coverage has been mandatory since 2000, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. (After learning about the contraceptive-coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act, Hobby Lobby “re-examined its insurance policies,” discovered that they already covered certain FDA-approved contraceptives to which the Greens objected, and proceeded to exclude those contraceptives from the Hobby Lobby plan.) The only change is that under the Affordable Care Act such coverage is offered for little or no out of pocket cost. www.patheos.com...


Third, Hobby Lobby doesn't want to just NOT COVER certain kinds of contraception, they want to forbid doctors from even discussing other forms of contraception with their employees!


Hobby Lobby and their co-plaintiff, Conestoga Wood Specialties, are also objecting to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. In other words, these for-profit businesses aren't just asking their female employees to pay for their own contraception, even though they are already paying for their own contraception by paying for their insurance coverage. These companies want to elbow their way into doctor's offices and call the shots on what doctors can and cannot say to Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood employees. www.slate.com...


Talk about constitutional infringement!

Looking even deeper into the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby's supposedly religious based objection, there seems to be a conflict in their business model, as they buy most of their product from China, a country that enforced not only the objectional methods of birth control, but also mandatory forced abortion, for resale in their supposedly Christian store!

Hobby Lobby's motives stick to high heaven! Their supposed pious religious objections are based on politics and politics alone. I will rejoice the day they shutter their doors!



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

dawnstar

The employee also has the right to seek employment elsewhere if they don't wish to endure their boss' sexual harassments! But there are still laws on the books that at least attempts to prevent them from having to!

So now you are equating an employer not offering certain things to be covered within a voluntary program/benefit to sexual harassment??
You clearly have nothing else do you.



dawnstar
You act like there are decent jobs all over the place with very few applicants looking!

So, NOW you are defending this crap with the availability or non-availability of jobs?? WOW. Talk about being the poster child of the ME/Y Generation.
That really doesn't have anything to do with this.



dawnstar
Personally I know better!
So should she quite her job over birth control on the chance that she will be one of the lucky ones to land a decent job quickly when she knows that a good part of her income is being used to pay her mortgage?

Maybe she really needs to be on the Govt Welfare system.
Anyone that make a job decision based on a company not offering birth control, which can be gained for minimal expense, sounds like an idiot to begin with.


dawnstar
Ya real good advice!! We can all pay when that house and so many more aren't paid for and we end up bailing out the banks again!!


Yeah, because she/they left their job over not having birth control covered.
Can this person walk and chew gum at the same time???



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Wow I did NOT know that about this case. Well that just reinforces my opinion even more. Hobby Lobby needs to lose this lawsuit.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join