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.

 

After Hobby Lobby Decision, Federal Court Grants Catholic Network Relief From Birth Control Mandate

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think it's incredibly stupid to have one's healthcare tied to one's job. We ought to have a national health care system like every other 1st world country.



Alternatively, the employers could take the money they're paying now for healthcare, give raises to their employees, and have the employees purchase their own healthcare.



As if that would ever happen.


It's tough to fund national healthcare while you're also funding the UN, World Bank, global military operations, the largest third world relief programs, free trade tariff losses, and subsidizing the lifestyles of half your population...

The money we have wasted on the war on terror could have paid for national healthcare.
edit on 1-7-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




The whole problem is the high cost associated with healthcare. It is artificial.
Instead of looking for different ways to pay the high cost, we should be looking for ways to lower costs so that we aren't beholding to insurance companies OR government.


So lets leave it to the free market to do that?
Outside of regulating the cost, what can we do to stop the cooperation of insurance companies and big pharm in creating that artificial high cost?
Disclaimer: In no what do I feel the ACA was the answer, far from it
edit on stTue, 01 Jul 2014 17:53:06 -0500America/Chicago720140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010


So Hobby Lobby and others did not have their rights violated because they have no rights.


Sorry the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

What's the "solution"?



The solution, in my opinion, is for a corporation to be a corporation. I have zero problem with their beliefs on abortion, but I do not believe that once you create a company and enter the public arena that corporation should be viewed as a person and protected by personal right like it is one. The law disagrees but my hope is that will change. I find this win mildly concerning as it does, as much as many will argue it doesn't, open the door for some disturbing possibilities.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: theantediluvian

No.

It should be the responsibility of the individual.

Not at the mercy of government OR insurance companies.

The whole problem is the high cost associated with healthcare. It is artificial.

Instead of looking for different ways to pay the high cost, we should be looking for ways to lower costs so that we aren't beholding to insurance companies OR government.


So if we're not at the mercy of the insurance companies' bottom lines or the evil government, what does that leave? Faith healing? Shamans?

All levity aside, the instant a cost saving measure is introduced, it's immediately decried by politicians, pundits and bloggers and the like from the right. Want to encourage old people to maintain an advance directive in the event that they become unable to communicate their wishes? That's a death panel. Institute a program to penalize the poorest performing hospitals who have the highest rates of readmission for the same illness by withholding 1-2% of their reimbursement from Medicare? They're trying to kill grandma!

Why? Because nothing, no matter how reasonable or innocuous, will escape being twisted into propaganda.

It's not exactly cheap to have a baby either and contraception is obviously a MUCH cheaper alternative but nope, keeping an egg from implanting is abortion according to the owners of Hobby Lobby and if you want to work for Hobby Lobby, it's not up to you to make that decision for yourself (or your dependents).

edit on 2014-7-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010


So Hobby Lobby and others did not have their rights violated because they have no rights.


Sorry the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

What's the "solution"?


Get rid of the people on the Supreme Court that don't understand the Constitution and replace them with people that do. Then we can overturn corporate person-hood and the ruling that money equals free speech.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

In Hobby Lobby's case it was financial. If they did not comply it would have cost them millions in fines. I think I read something like $475 million per year if they didn't comply but am not sure that's true.

In any case, I wonder if they divested their pension fund of the stocks of the companies that make these products they refuse to pay for and then gave all the profits made on said stocks to homeless children yet. That would, of course, be the Christian thing to do to atone for that bit of hypocrisy.

Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection/

And still more hypocrisy.

Christians Call Out Hobby Lobby For Hypocrisy

Christian, my ass. Only when it's convenient to make more money. The idiots didn't even know their old plan paid for all this stuff until the lawyer thieves came a-knocking.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Nancy Pelosi has the answers....

(March 22, 2012)..


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Obamacare facilitates the type of “liberation” that the “Founders had in mind” because it allows you to quit your job and become a “photographer,” a “writer,” a “musician”--or “whatever.”

...Whatever?



Pelosi to Aspiring Musicians Quit Your Job, Taxpayers Will Cover Your Health Care

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010


So Hobby Lobby and others did not have their rights violated because they have no rights.


Sorry the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

What's the "solution"?


Get rid of the people on the Supreme Court that don't understand the Constitution and replace them with people that do.




Does that include Obama?

So your solution is to get rid of people because they don't agree with your ideology.

The Supreme Court know the laws.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Shouldn't your response have something to do with the Hobby Lobby case? There was no Constitutional issue in this matter (except peripherally). It also didn't have much to do at all with corporate personhood. And there was no attention paid to the question of money equaling free speech.

Would you explain what you were thinking of? I must have missed it.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

If the free market was open neither insurance nor pharmaceutical companies would have a monopoly on healthcare. This means that consumers would do what they do best...shop.

I could buy drugs from online and the prices of drugs would naturally come down quickly. Consumers are VERY good at making companies compete.

I could sign waiver to dentist to get tooth filled but agree not to sue in case of damage. That same dentist could then opt out of expensive insurance. They could also buy their amalgam and caps from other countries that sell them for much cheaper. Now a cap that cost me 1k before can competitively be sold to me for 200 bucks. If they have insurance of their own accord it might cost me 300.

There is no insurance so people start calling around to doctors and finding the best prices for services. You start to see doctors advertise visits in the same way you see auto shops offering 20 dollar oil changes in big yellow letters.

Doctors no longer have to hire hoards of nurses and staff to handle insurance messes. Administrative costs go down as a result and the prices of services become even cheaper.

Hospitals can no longer bull# with cost accounting and shifting costs around on their accounting. They can no longer make emergency rooms look like the area that loses most money.

Surgery centers will pop up with websites where costs are up front. Hospitals will no longer have a huge monopoly on major surgeries.

I use Lasik as example because it is not covered by insurance and no one company has monopoly on administering it. In a 20 year period surgery has dropped from over 20k to less than 4k for both eyes. The technology has also improved in that same time period.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

I think a lot of what you're talking about could be accomplished through medical savings accounts and catastrophic policies.

Would also take care of the contraception issue since it would more likely than not be paid for out of the savings account, which would allow the individual to make their own decisions and create some distance between the employer and those decisions.

EDIT: Since a lot of the money paid to doctors and such would come out of the savings account, it would benefit the patient to shop around.
edit on 1-7-2014 by imwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You're acting as though Hobby Lobby has banned contraceptives to its employees.

They haven't.

They just won't pay for it.

This entitlement mentality is stunning!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: Sremmos80

If the free market was open neither insurance nor pharmaceutical companies would have a monopoly on healthcare. This means that consumers would do what they do best...shop.

I could buy drugs from online and the prices of drugs would naturally come down quickly. Consumers are VERY good at making companies compete.

I could sign waiver to dentist to get tooth filled but agree not to sue in case of damage. That same dentist could then opt out of expensive insurance. They could also buy their amalgam and caps from other countries that sell them for much cheaper. Now a cap that cost me 1k before can competitively be sold to me for 200 bucks. If they have insurance of their own accord it might cost me 300.

There is no insurance so people start calling around to doctors and finding the best prices for services. You start to see doctors advertise visits in the same way you see auto shops offering 20 dollar oil changes in big yellow letters.

Doctors no longer have to hire hoards of nurses and staff to handle insurance messes. Administrative costs go down as a result and the prices of services become even cheaper.

Hospitals can no longer bull# with cost accounting and shifting costs around on their accounting. They can no longer make emergency rooms look like the area that loses most money.

Surgery centers will pop up with websites where costs are up front. Hospitals will no longer have a huge monopoly on major surgeries.

I use Lasik as example because it is not covered by insurance and no one company has monopoly on administering it. In a 20 year period surgery has dropped from over 20k to less than 4k for both eyes. The technology has also improved in that same time period.


Excellent ideas and a beautifully illustrated post!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

Well "catastrophic policy" is just a fancy name for "insurance". Those policies that you pay low fees for to buy coverage on a very rare but potentially crippling financial event(i.e. a car accident that breaks all the bones in your body).

The current beast that is health insurance is in no way insurance. It is a mess that was started by good ol' president Nixon back in the early seventies to screw over the American public and give insurance companies greater profits.

While savings accounts are a fine idea they wouldn't necessarily be needed if the free market was doing it's job in terms of health care costs.

People actually aren't that stupid and if traditional insurance existed again and the costs of healthcare were brought down from people shopping I am sure there would be many people who would buy catastrophic policies. I know I would...wouldn't you?

I am a fairly young woman with very little wrong with me. Why wouldn't I buy a policy that covers catastrophic events and I pay for everything else out of pocket?

For everyone else there are charities(worked fine before Nixon #ed everything up) that would take care of the outliers that couldn't afford healthcare and also couldn't afford insurance.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology




The current beast that is health insurance is in no way insurance.


I've no argument with that. I think the policies would need to be truly catastrophic in the old sense of the word.



While savings accounts are a fine idea they wouldn't necessarily be needed if the free market was doing it's job in terms of health care costs.


I think there are some advantages to them, the tax breaks, as I understand them, encourage people to plan ahead and do what they can to stay in good health.

As far as doing away with health insurance altogether, I've wondered if that isn't the solution, or at least the start of the solution before:

OutLaw Health Insurance and End the Health Care Crisis in the States



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

I really believe that the greatest thing that could happen would be to get rid of it or at least strip all law advantages away from the companies creating these policies.

They would then be forced to create traditional insurance products again or go bust. Without law those companies could not create managed care insurance products.

It is impossible to price them and stay afloat. They only exist due to government law.

I think savings accounts are okay but a better idea to me(well actually it is David Goldhill's idea) would be to create a tax credit(notice word credit, meaning you get it all back. It would also be exempt from IRS liens) that would be given to people for buying catastrophic policies.

That would give people a HUGE incentive to buy catastrophic insurance because it then becomes use it or lose it type thing. Most people will use it if given the choice. So they buy health policies in year and at end of year get a tax credit for spending their hard earned bucks so wisely.

Also any money that rolls over they can keep. So they have an incentive to shop for cheapest policy(which would be huge incentive for companies to create policies with best options at lowest cost). Think car insurance or term life insurance and how easy they are to shop for.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think it's incredibly stupid to have one's healthcare tied to one's job. We ought to have a national health care system like every other 1st world country.

Alternatively, the employers could take the money they're paying now for healthcare, give raises to their employees, and have the employees purchase their own healthcare.

As if that would ever happen.


I'm with you Mystic...remember 20+ years ago when Clinton proposed just that?
Where would we be now? Between the insurance and Pharmaceutical rackets it went nowhere even with a fully democratic government. Follow the money.

Hell, the ACA (it's not Obamacare, it will be around after he leaves office to the chagrin of most posters on this thread) would NOT have even passed if it wasn't a political tool of mass distraction. Insurance companies will do even better than before in the long run.

What are the taxpayers shelling out for Wal-Mart employees alone? 6-7 BILLION!
Most places I know have cut hours to make fewer full time employees...who's going to make up the difference?

But they're just lazy...they need more jobs to pay their own way.

You can't eat Ayn Rand Books or bibles or rub them on yourself to cure ailments.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: buster2010

Shouldn't your response have something to do with the Hobby Lobby case? There was no Constitutional issue in this matter (except peripherally). It also didn't have much to do at all with corporate personhood. And there was no attention paid to the question of money equaling free speech.

Would you explain what you were thinking of? I must have missed it.


It has to do with the Hobby Lobby case. They changed the law to follow the wishes of a religion which goes directly against the first amendment.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think it's incredibly stupid to have one's healthcare tied to one's job. We ought to have a national health care system like every other 1st world country.



Alternatively, the employers could take the money they're paying now for healthcare, give raises to their employees, and have the employees purchase their own healthcare.



As if that would ever happen.


It's tough to fund national healthcare while you're also funding the UN, World Bank, global military operations, the largest third world relief programs, free trade tariff losses, and subsidizing the lifestyles of half your population...

The money we have wasted on the war on terror could have paid for national healthcare.


Just how many TRILLION were spent so far?
...but, hey, Bush the lesser gave me a $300 check with the budget surplus and WOW! Look at all of the jobs from the trickle down tax cuts.

We should be rolling in tax money to fund a single payer system from all of those jobs...

Quick question for all non-US peeps...
Does your nationalized health care pay for birth control options?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: theantediluvian

You're acting as though Hobby Lobby has banned contraceptives to its employees.

They haven't.

They just won't pay for it.

This entitlement mentality is stunning!

If they won't pay for it then how is that not banning them? They told their employees we will not allow these in your medical insurance plan. That is banning them here is the definition of the word seeing how you don't know what the word means.
ban
verb \ˈban\

: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done

: to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something
This anti critical thinking mentality is stunning!



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join