Learn some history. Healthcare/employer paid insurance IS A BENEFIT NOT A RIGHT

Corporate persons are not people, the shareholders may be people, but corporate personhood should not be.

Shareholders are only liable for loss of the amount of money they have invested.

Corporations should not have anything resembling the rights of actual people, the revolutionary war was caused in large by the same old crap we have going on now regarding corporations and their abuses.

Corporations look suspiciously like monopolies in disguise by the way they seem to work, somebody just changed the name to actually reflect what they actually are.


a reply to: beezzer

originally posted by: MOMof3
After thinking about it for a while, I like the Hobby Lobby decision by the Court. I believe it is one more push toward single payer/medicare for all system. Health care is a right, rich or poor. We have the right to pursue happiness. Excluding millions of people and children from going to a doctor because of cash, is inhumane.

Show me where in the Constitution where it labels healthcare as a right. Furthermore, this is not about healthcare. Obamacare is about health INSURANCE a product produced by corporations to make money.

Ya know, I think riding a motorcycle is a basic human right, I think the government should provide all of us with a brand new harley davidson street glide. That harley davidson should be the color i choose with options including, intercom system, screaming eagle stage 2 performance upgrades, bluetooth and gps.

See how utterly stupid that is? Same argument based on the same facts.

originally posted by: jtma508
I know it all seems so very simple. Pretty much everything on ATS does to some. But the fact is, things are more complex than many here want to believe. Or perhaps need to believe. There are all sorts of nefarious forces at work that drive up the cost of healthcare: insurance, lawyers, pharma, fraud, to name just a few. That has driven the cost of healthcare out-of-reach for most employers and average people. At the end of the day the buck stops with the hospitals. Face it, we need hospitals. We all need hospitals. But they have been driven to bankruptcy by the huge increase in unrecoverable services caused by the uninsured for whom hospitals have become the provider of last resort. Many have been forced to close, scale back services, and lay-off clinical staff. Manageable and comparatively inexpensive conditions are allowed to deteriorate because people have no care. What was an early stage diabetic now becomes a hospitalized amputee. Whether you feel people have a 'right' to basic healthcare or not, our medical infrastructure --- the one we ALL rely on, insured or not --- is at-risk. There are huge societal economic costs associated with allowing large numbers of people to descend into medical morbidity. One way or another we will end up paying for it. A stitch in time saves nine sort of thing. But don't be fooled. Whether care for the uninsured is paid for through the ACA, welfare, or skyrocketing fees for those that ARE insured levied by hospitals needing to recover what they cannot from the uninsured, WE will pay one way or another. Even if we kick those who cannot pay to the curb we will pay. That's reality like it or not.

So instead of working to roll back those problems that caused the mess in the first place, we should give control of the system to the very bureaucracy that gave us all of those problems in the first place? How is that logical?

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Corporate persons are not people, the shareholders may be people, but corporate personhood should not be.

Shareholders are only liable for loss of the amount of money they have invested.

Corporations should not have anything resembling the rights of actual people, the revolutionary war was caused in large by the same old crap we have going on now regarding corporations and their abuses.

Corporations look suspiciously like monopolies in disguise by the way they seem to work, somebody just changed the name to actually reflect what they actually are.


a reply to: beezzer

let me just cut and paste my reply to the same argument in another thread

Please allow me to illustrate where you are most decidedly wrong in that comment.

first i will post the source
en.wikipedia.org...

and seeing as though you will most assuredly not go and read the offered link, i will post the relevant portions for you to save the trouble of clicking....

"Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts."

here is a link to that specific case....en.wikipedia.org...

"In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the court reporter, Bancroft Davis,[1] noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[2] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[3] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since."

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: beezzer

we used to have jobs that paid decent wages that kept up with inflation
we used to have a gov't and banking system that saw an importance of maintaining the value and integrity of the dollar
we used to be able to pay for much of our healthcare without having to depend on gov't or insurance!!!
and there was a time when the healthcare industry and the insurance companies had to carefully consider increasing their charges because if they charged too much there would be no one to pitch in and help the people pay them!!!

now we are so far down the rabbit hole we are bickering weather it is right to give businesses religious values deserve protection while completely ignoring that is no protection for our own!

is your employer holding an exemption?
no?? guess your religious rights aren't as important as the business man's

I would like to have a 1991 Suzuki DR650 with emulators and reservoir shock, Shinko sr344 front and rear and a big bore kit with all the extra parts in pelican cases on each side.

Harley are too limited in their usefulness and I don't care if anyone likes my ride anyway.

Anyway....

Ya'll do know that eventually these type conversations move toward who has the right to live at all eventually, in history the right to live or not live, the right to kill or be killed always comes around.

We practice the solution on our pets that we supposedly love to avoid watching them suffer, we slaughter animals wholesale to stock warehouses and store them till the price is right to make a profit.

We treat our pets better than we treat each other, aside from the fact we arbitrarily kill them for our own convenience, next it will be each other, for convenience and fun and profit, just business....

Maybe we can get it right someday and not use war to fix things, maybe progress toward something that works for longer than a century or so.

Everything isn't an "ism" "ist" or "ology", some things actually exist I more than theory.

a reply to: SM2

a reply to: NavyDoc

No. I'm not suggesting that. If you truly look at the situation as it developed you will find --- like it was with the banks --- we gave the system over to the bureaucracy long ago. The reason it IS as bad as it is right now is because no one wanted to face the problem decades ago. We absolutely need to shake ALL the crap out of the system that is driving-up costs. But a lot of people just want to wish the problem away. Like they have for so many years. Unfortunately, the tab has come due.

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: NavyDoc

No. I'm not suggesting that. If you truly look at the situation as it developed you will find --- like it was with the banks --- we gave the system over to the bureaucracy long ago. The reason it IS as bad as it is right now is because no one wanted to face the problem decades ago. We absolutely need to shake ALL the crap out of the system that is driving-up costs. But a lot of people just want to wish the problem away. Like they have for so many years. Unfortunately, the tab has come due.

I can swing with that. The "something for nothing" crowd has been giving more and more of their personal responsibility away, so that they are taken care of, that we've got a morass of debt and expense and tax and even less care.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer

we used to have jobs that paid decent wages that kept up with inflation
we used to have a gov't and banking system that saw an importance of maintaining the value and integrity of the dollar
we used to be able to pay for much of our healthcare without having to depend on gov't or insurance!!!
and there was a time when the healthcare industry and the insurance companies had to carefully consider increasing their charges because if they charged too much there would be no one to pitch in and help the people pay them!!!

now we are so far down the rabbit hole we are bickering weather it is right to give businesses religious values deserve protection while completely ignoring that is no protection for our own!

is your employer holding an exemption?
no?? guess your religious rights aren't as important as the business man's

No.

Now people are running to another corporation.

it's called government.

People need to stop relying on corporations and government.

Trading one master for another is not a step towards freedom.

a reply to: scrounger

With respect to your OP....I guess that, based on your inference that history dictates the definition of "rights," one could conclude that freedom is also a benefit and not a right. Wasn't slavery a part of our history?

If you ask me, your reasoning is flawed right from the get-go. Just because something was viewed a benefit in the past doesn't dictate that it never becomes a protected right, that's up to the people and people change.

Correct. Providing health insurance is not a right, it is the law. So basically Hobby Lobby is saying that they have the right to employ "heathens" but not cover the aspects of their "heatheness" when it comes to healthcare. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Is hobby lobby ok with paying into medicaire which covers sex performance drugs?

I would like to put a small point into the health care debate which I think is possibly overlooked.

When one considers all the revenue collected through various means from the American people doesn't anyone think its time to remind the government that they actually govern for the good of the public they represent.

Too many powerful some visible and many invisible individuals seem to be getting their hands on public money that should be allocated to better causes to look after the public rather than their personal fortunes. So much seems to be done in the guise of helping business and corporations instead of taking the attitude that they should be independent and inventive themselves rather than dipping into the public coffers needed for things like health care, education etc etc.

a reply to: beezzer
but even the corps run to the gov't!!!
and they get bailed out time and time again with our taxmoney and thus never have to suffer any repercussions!
right now only the rich can afford healthcare without running to a gov't or corp (insurance).
no healthcare provider could function without them!

walmart would suffer if it weren't for the gov't. they published a report that estimated the loss if food stamps were cut!

all these companies have shipped their jobs overseas and refused to allow the wages that they pay here keep up with inflation. haven't they in fact allowed a master into their lives one that will ensure that they have customers with money to buy their products?

who wrote the obamacare?? was it our elected officials? or was it the insurance companies??
seems to me the insurance companies have also accepted a master!

am I looking for the gov't to solve these problems!!
to a point yes!!
they have played such a big part in getting us to where we are
I think they have a responsibility to find solutions (not dig us into a bigger hole!!)
and to be frank I don't think it can be done without them intervening in some way!! at least not painlessly!
take medicaid and medicare chips and all that away and the healthcare industry will collaspe overnight!

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

again, that argument is as wrong as you can get.

Hobby Lobby is, and always has covered birth control, 16 of the 20 required by Obamacare.

they just did not want to be required to cover 4 specific products. the morning after pill, the week after pill, ella and a copper IUD. those 4 items are used to abort a fetus (according to the owners religious beliefs, not necessarily my own). Now, the only one of the items that could be called birth control is the copper IUD. A piece of copper ( a toxic heavy metal) that is inplanted into the uterus. Which in their opinion ( and a reasonable conclusion to come to ) poses an unnecessary risk to the life of the recipient. Just for grins and sake of argument, look up copper toxicity.

a reply to: SM2

www.scotusblog.com...

this is the decisions that we made after hobby lobby was

those that had ruled for the employer in lowers courts and challenged by the gov't were denied
those that ruled for the gov't in lower courts will be heard. many of these cases included all methods of birth control

this kind of gives me the idea that it all can be exempted

originally posted by: dawnstar

but even the corps run to the gov't!!!

And then you said. .

am I looking for the gov't to solve these problems!!
to a point yes!!

And then you say. . .

I think they have a responsibility to find solutions (not dig us into a bigger hole!!)
and to be frank I don't think it can be done without them intervening in some way!! at least not painlessly!
take medicaid and medicare chips and all that away and the healthcare industry will collaspe overnight!

So you willingly cede all responsibility and look to other entities to solve your problems.

The same entities that created the problems to begin with.

*shakes head*

a reply to: scrounger
This isn't about entitlements. It's about making sound, LOGICAL, and economically wise decisions that benefit the Nation. The SINGLE BEST, most effective way to bring people out of poverty is to give them control over procreation. How backwards is it that the one thing (responsible procreation) that would reduce entitlement programs, welfare costs, healthcare costs and societal costs is something people are so eager to take away or put barriers on?

Take a closer look:
Certain benefits exist because the cost of NOT offering them far exceed and outweigh the costs of offering them.
The Economic Costs of Poverty

But there is also an
economic
case for reducing child poverty. When children grow up in poverty,
they are somewhat more likely than non-poor children to have low earnings as adults, which in turn
reflects lower workforce productivity. They are also somewhat more likely to engage in crime (though
that’s not the case for the vast majority) and to have poor health later in life. Their reduced produc
-
tive activity generates a direct loss of goods and services to the U.S. economy.
What’s more, any crime in which they engage imposes large monetary and other personal costs on
their victims, as well as the costs to the taxpayer of administering our huge criminal justice system.
And their poor health generates illness and early mortality which not only require large healthcare
expenditures, but also impede productivity and ultimately reduce their quality and quantity of life.

The Economic Impact of Expanding Coverage

1. It would increase the economic well-being of the uninsured by substantially more than the costs of insuring them. A comparison of the total benefits of coverage to the uninsured, including such benefits as longer life expectancy and reduced financial risk, and the total costs of insuring them (including both the public and private costs), suggests net gains in economic well-being of about two-thirds of a percent of GDP per year.

2. It would likely increase labor supply. Increased insurance coverage and, hence, improved health care, is likely to increase labor supply by reducing disability and absenteeism in the work place. This increase in labor supply would tend to increase GDP and reduce the budget deficit.

3. It would improve the functioning of the labor market. Coverage expansion that eliminates restrictions on pre-existing conditions improves the efficiency of labor markets by removing an important limitation on job-switching. Creating a well-functioning insurance market also prevents an inefficient allocation of labor away from small firms by leveling the playing field among firms of all sizes in competing for talented workers in the labor market.

Everyone is placing all the blame on Obama when in fact the insurance companies have been derailing helath reform since day 1. The real death panels are the insurance companies where regulations on their criminal behavior is long overdo.
Please don't take my word for it, but an insurance company insider, now turned whistleblower. Wendell Potter.

PHAWKER: Let’s talk about the infamous ‘individual mandate,’ which requires that everyone purchases health insurance. Everyone. That was the industry’s idea. WENDELL POTTER: As the healthcare reform legislation was working it’s way through Congress, the healthcare lobbyists were very insistent that the reform legislation had to have an individual mandate in it, a requirement that we all had to buy coverage or they would do all they could to derail the reform as they had in the past. PHAWKER: Why were they so adamant about that? WENDELL POTTER: It would favor them because not only would we be required to buy coverage but if I’m for example someone who has low income and can’t afford the costs, the government will subsidize the cost. They’ll be getting revenue from two sources, individuals who pay from their own pockets, but a lot of people can’t afford it so the government subsidizes it and the money goes straight to the insurance companies. So they get an entire new revenue stream they hadn’t had before. And since everybody will be required to buy coverage, no one company theoretically will be disadvantaged. No company will get more sick people than any other company, but there will be some risk adjustment in the way this all takes shape so companies are protected from adverse selection, from getting more sick people than their competitors. So they’ll get a lot of money. PHAWKER: It’s corporate welfare. WENDELL POTTER: It gives them what I call a new lease on life because they know their current business models aren’t sustainable in the long haul and we’re seeing the evidence of that with growing numbers of Americans without insurance, it’s not because they don’t want coverage but they’ve been priced out of the market or haven’t been able to buy at all because of the practices of the industry.

PHAWKER: If the individual mandate provision was inserted into the healthcare reform at the insistence of the health insurers, why are the Republicans, who clearly have the industry’s back, fighting the individual mandate so aggressively, using it as a cudgel to try to kill Obamacare, with Republican-run states suing the federal government in the courts. WENDELL POTTER: It’s because of politics and ideology. They see this as a winning issue for them and it’s to their advantage to try to turn against this reform for the purpose of getting their allies or colleagues re-elected. It’s ideology. They’re saying it’s an infringement upon freedom and the free market, but it’s really a political strategy to win control of Congress and the White House. So they grandstand against the individual mandate but it’s not genuine. In my view, it’s disingenuous because they get a lot of money from insurance companies, the companies spend a lot of money on elections and lobbying efforts to influence how policy should take shape in Capitol Hill. These Republicans must realize, I think many of them do, that the insurance industry really needs this individual mandate. It’s disingenuous and the real motivation is not really to kill Obamacare, not to repeal it or have it declared unconstitutional despite what you might hear, it’s to get more Republicans elected.

...More

This whole things is a terrible mess, and religious people asserting their "rights" over who get's what is just as bad as the insurance companies behavior and just adds insult. The free market fixing everything? HA, that's exactly the insurance companies PR sentiment.

a reply to: dawnstar

in those cases you will have to wait to see the outcome. As is stands currently, the ruling was very narrow in scope.
They may be hearing those cases to confirm the narrow scope of the current ruling, which is done from time to time by the supreme court.

Either way, it all comes down to the fact that under us case and precedence, corporations do in fact enjoy the same rights as individuals. again, go back to my previous post I made explaining the history and precedence of corporate personhood.

If, you work for one of these companies, and you do not agree with their policies, you have the choice to go out and find a job at a company that more closely echoes your beliefs.

Let's face it, working at hobby lobby does not involve a specialized set of skills. One working there can just as easily go work for Wal-Mart, Target etc and get paid roughly the same and have their Ella, Plan B and IUD covered for free.

originally posted by: paleorchid13
a reply to: scrounger
This isn't about entitlements. It's about making sound, LOGICAL, and economically wise decisions that benefit the Nation. The SINGLE BEST, most effective way to bring people out of poverty is to give them control over procreation. How backwards is it that the one thing (responsible procreation) that would reduce entitlement programs, welfare costs, healthcare costs and societal costs is something people are so eager to take away or put barriers on?

People already have control over procreation and have had for a long time. The problem is that some people have messed up priorities--they don't want to pay for contraception but have no problem paying for cigarettes. You'd be surprised how many Medicaid recipient's I've seen that couldn't muster a $3 copay, but reeked from their 2 pack a day cigarette habit.

Does not matter how much contraception is covered, if they don't bother to use it in the first place and therein lies your problem, not what employers want to cover.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: scrounger

With respect to your OP....I guess that, based on your inference that history dictates the definition of "rights," one could conclude that freedom is also a benefit and not a right. Wasn't slavery a part of our history?

If you ask me, your reasoning is flawed right from the get-go. Just because something was viewed a benefit in the past doesn't dictate that it never becomes a protected right, that's up to the people and people change.

Speaking of flawed logic. Having a right to something still does not entitle you to have someone else pay for it. That's a problem today because the entitlement minded can't tell the difference between a right and an entitlement. You have the right to free speech and a free press, but you are not entitled to force someone else to buy you a printing press or books or a telephone.

You have a right to healthcare just as you have the right to engage in any other service. You do not have the right to force someone else to provide that for you.

That's the difference and therein lies the cognitive dissonance of the progressive.