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

So what? What's the point here exactly? So it's a benefit. Ooooooookay. Because you get a benefit you are stripped of your rights? Not like people become your property just because you give them a benefit for working for you or being insured by you.

The case SCOTUS should hear is why employers and insurance companies and governments, the former for profit and the latter in a botched attempt at fairness, have any business getting into the decisions between a physician and a person period.

You're either covered or you're not.

The laws and courts are ALL on the side of big business. And that's got to stop, but it won't with this Supreme Court that views corporations as people.

Truly pitiful.

And I agree with whoever said this is going to thrust us into single payer mode faster than all the whining all the corporations combined do to Congress and SCOTUS.

In this ever growing Globalist Economy where Multinational Corporations are spreading their wings to other countries to take advantage of cheaper labor, less regulations and taxes, have no allegiance to this nation, but yet still get to have a say in our government....

What is the problem with the citizens of this country opting for policies beneficial to them that exist in other countries?

I mean if the corporations want a Free For All Globalist Economy doing business with many other countries with different economic systems, then why should the citizens be held back from doing the same here?

a reply to: intrepid

Let's look at this logically.

When people are basing a person healthcare on their religious belief logic has no place in the discussion.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

So, why should an employer have an obligation to pay for all the decisions a person might make between their doctor and themselves? I don't buy that. If we go down that street, employers suddenly have to pay for cosmetic surgery just because I want bigger boobs.

If I own a business and decide to offer the insurance as a perk of you being my employee, you shouldn't have any right to demand I provide any more of a perk than I decide to offer you.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ~Lucidity

So, why should an employer have an obligation to pay for all the decisions a person might make between their doctor and themselves? I don't buy that. If we go down that street, employers suddenly have to pay for cosmetic surgery just because I want bigger boobs.

If I own a business and decide to offer the insurance as a perk of you being my employee, you shouldn't have any right to demand I provide any more of a perk than I decide to offer you.

The DoD already does that! When I was in the USMC, there were FMs (Female Marines) that got Tricare to pay for their boob jobs because they felt bad about themselves, ie low self esteem. I had to fight to get my Marine Corps broken nose fixed so I could breathe during PT and sleep better. So, it's just a matter of time before this happens in the civilian sector too.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ~Lucidity

So, why should an employer have an obligation to pay for all the decisions a person might make between their doctor and themselves? I don't buy that. If we go down that street, employers suddenly have to pay for cosmetic surgery just because I want bigger boobs.

If I own a business and decide to offer the insurance as a perk of you being my employee, you shouldn't have any right to demand I provide any more of a perk than I decide to offer you.

You're either covered or you're not.

This is not something anyone has a right to micromanage for you at the cost of your privacy, dignity, right to choose, and personal business just because they oh so kindly provide you with a "benefit" that probably, certainly in the case of larger companies and insurance companies, benefits them far more than you.

Don't kid yourself for a minute that this case was about religion either. It was purely monetary, no matter what spin the attorney criminals and opportunists put on it. These companies didn't want to pay the fine that SCOTUS already upheld.

The better thing for the entire country would be to get the insurance companies AND businesses out of this benefit business.

originally posted by: beezzer

Let me stop you right there.

This is where I see a problem.

You call corporations godlike, immortal. Many accuse them that they aren't "people" and have no rights.

Yet everyone states that government "cares".

Government is just another god-damned corporation!

The only one you can count on is yourself. Maybe other like-minded people.

I see this a lot where the Corporate and Banking Cheerleaders say Government is not the solution for the little people but yet funnel billions of dollars into politicians pockets for solutions to benefit them.


If Government is not the solution then why is record numbers of dollars going there way?

www.opensecrets.org...

Lobbying

Misc Business $6,078,960,580
Health $6,008,970,746
Finance/Insur/RealEst $5,987,751,654
Communic/Electronics $4,928,429,581
Energy/Nat Resource $4,462,152,496
Other $3,184,831,387
Transportation $3,059,318,830
Ideology/Single-Issue $1,965,929,158
Agribusiness $1,809,056,698
Defense $1,730,989,688
Construction $656,221,136
Labor $594,160,648
Lawyers & Lobbyists $415,404,522

a reply to: ~Lucidity

If it was purely monetary, why was it not a big deal before 2012 when the regulation was imposed? Hobby Lobby offered exactly the same number of birth control option in the plan then as they are fighting to offer now. All they are wanting is the freedom to keep the plan they liked as was promised to them.

Not only that, if you want to the right to manage your own health, then you need to take full responsibility for it. When you decide to let another person pay for your plan, you let them into the equation. You stop taking full responsibility, like it or not, and you lose the full right to decide. You want the world out of your private life and choices? Then you have to take full responsibility for them, including full fiscal responsibility.

Why on earth would anyone want to become a doctor anymore? You would have no control over your own talents at all, but would forever be at the beck and call of everyone else. Sure, doctors live to serve, but I don't think any of them live to enslave themselves to the state and its people.

a reply to: ketsuko

Insurance companies are doing that now! Doctors everywhere will tell you insurance companies are making the decisions on how they can treat their patients. The problem with insurance companies running healthcare is they will always refuse paying for treatment which hasn't had a proven track record of being effective. They're more concerned about not losing money on a procedure than giving a patient hope that a new procedure can be effective.

Universal health care can be made to work. It's being used in many countries with success. They have no shortage of doctors, and most of the negative propaganda we hear in the states is surely being pushed by insurance companies worried they will lose billions in healthcare profits.

I've said this before, my cousin lived in the U.S. for 35 years before meeting his Canadian wife and living in Canada. He's experienced both systems of healthcare. When he comes home to visit here n the states, he gets disgusted with all the negative propaganda about the Canadian healthcare system. I would rely on his direct experience rather than the negative propaganda spread in the media. Every system will have its problems, but to think the private system which leaves millions without healthcare insurance is really nothing to be proud of.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WeRpeons

And if health care becomes a right, what happens to all those who become doctors? Are they then a public good? Does it become illegal for a doctor to refuse to treat you for any reason? What rights does a doctor have when it comes to when and how he or she performs that service you now have a so-called right to?

Why on earth would anyone want to become a doctor anymore? You would have no control over your own talents at all, but would forever be at the beck and call of everyone else. Sure, doctors live to serve, but I don't think any of them live to enslave themselves to the state and its people.

You obviously have never been to a country where "universal" healthcare actually FUNCTIONS.

For instance, in Germany where we paid €70 BECAUSE WE HAD NO INSURANCE for an entire day in the ER, including several tests, blood tests, EKG, doctor consultation.

And you know what? DESPITE of it, doctors are and always have been still the highest paid professions

A RADIOLOGIST in this "social, universal healthcare" you are so afraid of for your "poor doctors" earns
€264,000 per year == $360,000
An Orthopedist makes €186,000 == $254,000 per year
An ENT makes about $200,000 per year

And so forth. Yeah. Those poor doctors.

This is obviously proof that universal healthcare WORKS when it's done right, also for the doctors.

What did you think? That with universal health care, all doctors become low wage workers working "for the state" for $10/hr or something? I just want to know what reasoning you had with your post.

>>
You would have no control over your own talents at all, but would forever be at the beck and call of everyone else. Sure, doctors live to serve, but I don't think any of them live to enslave themselves to the state and its people.
>>

Yes you must be in some fantasy there....care to explain what you mean there? The above doesn't make any sense to me.

No doctor in Germany (or the UK, or France, or wherever in Western Europe) is "enslaving themselves to the state and its people".

It looks that part of the patients can be with mandatory insurances, and other part of their patients are privately insured. Every patient of course has the right to choose whether they want go "state insurance" (like unemployed etc. or low earners)...but ALSO have the choice to select private insurance.

For the doctor it doesn't matter at all. The only difference is that for those on "state" insurance, the "state" insurance would pay most of it (except special procedures which would not be covered by mandatory insurance)...while for privately insured patients it's the private insurance who pays the doctor....so ultimately more out of the patient's pocket since private insurance is normally rather expensive.

In no way is the doctor "enslaved to the state" in any way...

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

And then I look at the VA ... yeah, so tell me again how this universal health care works ... your government and mine are not the same. Your country and mine are not the same. Don't tell me that because it "works" for you, it will work out here. This is the same country that can't run a cafeteria in its own senate office so it finally had to privatize it. It also can't manage its own postal service or public education system ... to say nothing of that same VA health care system I just got done mentioning.

I don't want that government in charge of my health and telling me what decisions I can and cannot make after it tells me what I must pay for the privilege of being allowed to die.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Argument is flawed, everyone does have access to emergency healthcare, you are trying to muddy water. However you still have to pay for it (eventually or in the case of the place I work they write it off), EVERYONE has to. Government involvement is not necessary to make things more expensive, worse coverage and less useful to individuals. A one size fit all mandatory purchase is not the answer.

Grim

a reply to: Kali74

I agree that healthcare should be affordable, however when the USG mandates anything, no matter how "fair" it seems they make the cost go up exponentially. All one has to do is look at auto insurance alone to see how this works, before mandated car insurance my payments were half of what they are for the more coverage, because they wanted to be competitive, now my coverage is less and cost more.

Your benefits package from your employer is what they are willing to pay for, if you do not like the package you do not "have" to work there, or you can purchase your "own" package, they do not HAVE to pay for anything you deem they should.

You did your health is "Your" choice and it should be "Your" responsibility no one else, you and your doctor, and this also means your responsibility for your choices and your actions. You cannot choose a benefits package from your employer not like it and then demand they fit it to your personal needs.

Grim

Just to make it clear this entire healthcare debate is a huge misdirection, it has NEVER been about healthcare it has EVERYTHING to do about control over you period.

Grim

If one looks into the history of heath insurance one finds that in the private sector (to which this whole debate of employer funded healthcare falls) it did not start with the unions, government mandates, or even employer charity.

Unless you look into the history of a different country who came to the exactly opposite conclusion. The fact that you call something a right or a privilege is completely arbitrary. If you're going to make such a big deal about what something is called, look at why it is called that. Don't just assume it is called that because it is something inherently attached to it.

1. Heath insurance is a BENEFIT.

Unless you're in Canada, Austria, Finland, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Scotland, or Cuba.

If you're going to make such a big deal about whether or not it's "privatized" or not, maybe you should look at other countries and see if that is actually the best way to do healthcare. Or maybe you should stop making such a big deal about the inherent "rightness" of doing it one way over the other.

2. An individual can CHOOSE to work for a company given their benefit package (including or not including healthcare).

Yes, an individual CAN choose to work for a company given their benefit package, supposing that that individual has a multitude of companies to choose from for work. That's a big assumption nowadays. Otherwise he or she is putting himself and/or his family at risk of starvation. No individual in his "right" state of mind would do that.

3. An employee can CHOOSE TO QUIT over the benefits they don't like.

Yes, an individual CAN choose to quit over the benefits (or lack thereof). IF that individual has a multitude of companies to choose from to replace that company. Also, A BIG ASSUMPTION nowadays. Otherwise he or she is putting himself and/or his family at risk of starvation.

4. The company can choose NOT TO PROVIDE a particular healthcare plan or choose none at all since ITS THERE MONEY NOT YOURS.

That one is true, I will give you that one.

5. The compan[y's] reason for not providing a particular plan or benefit (ex morning after pill) is in reality NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS AND [irrelevant]. They can choose it for religious, monetary, or no reason at all. JUST AS YOU CAN CHOOSE TO QUIT for any reason you choose.

Actually, that one is also true as long as the company actually keeps the reason to itself. A company could fire someone because he or she is black, so long as the company comes up with a valid reason like that the employee *doesn't fit in* with the company. Religion is not on that list of valid reasons, nor is discrimination.

6. A group of employee's can unionize and negotiate for healthcare as a benefit. But note in this case it is a MUTUAL DECISION.

Yes, but I find little relevance to the matter in question.

The next two I think are MAJOR FACTS.

Fantastic! Let's hope they're more universally valid than just in one particular country.

7. There is no constitutional amendment that REQUIRES AN EMPLOYER TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY HEALTHCARE.
If there is such an amendment that SAYS THIS SPECIFICALLY then point it out.

Dang! Too bad...

8. Before this employers routinely had policies that discounted some medical procedures and/or drugs.
I personally have worked for 2 companies that did not provide organ transplant insurance, two that did not provide any birth control, and all that had something or limits that DIDN'T CARE WHAT I THOUGHT I SHOULD HAVE.

Yes! You are finally getting to the arbitrary nature of what is called healthcare and what is called a religious right. It's too bad you only apply the arbitrary nature to things you don't care about.

And now the biggest point that those who support obamacare don't like because it torpedo's one of their screaming points.

I hope it isn't because of how arbitrary something you don't care about is, while making everything you DO care about non-arbitrary.

9. Any item the employer does not want to cover or provide no coverage of all ARE STILL LEGAL PROCEDURES AND DRUGS. NO ONE IS DENYING ANYTHING OR MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR (MOST QUOTED EXAMPLE) RELIGIOUS REASONS.

The COLD, HARD, UNDENIABLE TRUTH is THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR IT FOR YOU.
Its STILL LEGAL, its STILL BETWEEN YOUR DOCTOR AND YOU, and YOU CAN STILL GET IT.

Yay, I can get it! It's too bad I don't care whether or not I can get it. What I care about is that the justification used is that an imaginary entity (a corporation) can tell me what I can or can not have based on its imaginary and completely arbitrary beliefs. A company could be against safe working conditions because of its valid belief system that safe working conditions keep its workers away from the lord for far too long, and suddenly unsafe working conditions become legal.

Ok, so far I have gathered from reading this thread that the opinions of people lean toward letting people's limbs rot off and allowing people to die miserable deaths from treatable maladies, yet have no problem providing health care for people who by their own decisions placed themselves in harms way to fight senseless wars.

I wish I had the resources to move to Sweden while y'all die a slow death from poison ivy because you can't afford your co-pays.

Actually, if you read the employment agreement and sign it, you are in a way signing away rights in exchange for benefits. That's been a major sticking point throughout my entire employment career.

Most people act like drones and just go about their daily tasks at work without giving that much thought.

You sign away rights for a lot of things, I would like to figure out what document I signed that made life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness a privilege instead of a right, or maybe figure out what document or contract came into force that changed the definitions of the meanings of the words I think I'm saying, but am not.

Life: somewhat self explanatory, but there are always those who would argue the meaning of the word.

Liberty: also self explanatory unless one does not understand the meaning of "infringement" on the liberties of others, and many do not.

Pursuit of happiness: I suppose there could be an argument over the meaning of that phrase also considering some of the strange things that make people happy....

I see a lot of people signing a lot of contracts which hold force of law without really knowing what it is they are signing onto.

Everything is interwoven, it isn't just about any one thing, you can thank your educational system for your not being able to begin to understand the mess.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

a reply to: WeRpeons

If you consider yourself "civilized" you would be concerned about your fellow man. It's what separates us from animals.

Actually, I've seen some rather caring cats in my days. Even if it is only because they would like some food, if you were to die it would be days before they actually got food again if they EVER did. To say that their love is different from a human's is missing the point. Most people, I don't think, would have the same relationship with their parents if they were raised in a place without their parents present. If this is true, it would mean that their love was based on what their parents did for them growing up, which is more utilitarian than anything else.

Rather than love, the fundamental difference between humans and animals is morals or ethics. Nuclear weapons, I would also say fairly well separate us from animals, also, but their development arose out of very animal instincts guided towards very specific intentions. Quite ironic how one of the most devastating weapons humans have created has simultaneously been the greatest peacemaking device ever developed.

I hope you never lose your job or can't afford health care coverage and than find yourself one day needing life saving surgery for yourself or a loved one.

Even if for no other reason, the fact that it will one day help you if you need it should be more reason than enough to want it. That, obviously, only works if you are not rich and can not afford a several hundred thousand dollar treatment for cancer. It's definitely enough for me, but by no stretch of the imagination could that be considered the only reason I want it.

Yet this is controlled by government, but hey I guess those that think the government can't run anything right, sure does a pretty good job when it comes to creating weapons for war.

Actually, for the amount of money they have to throw at the problem and the advanced technology they have deployed, the fact that we have a war that has gone on for thirteen years against people armed only with technology we have had for decades strikingly shows the incompetence within the government. If our government WAS competent, one could only imagine what it would be capable of.

I like to think that one day we will have overcome the need for a government. That one day, through a mutually beneficial relationship wherein one person recognizes that he or she doesn't want to be hurt by other people and so chooses voluntarily not to do so him/herself, is able to focus on collaborating and giving the best he can give of himself to his society.

What you are saying is a kind of "societal de-evolution", a return to the values and moral influences of the past.

What some refer to as progress is frequently the exact opposite to others, as seems to be the case currently.

What good is technology if one cannot afford to utilize it ?.

a reply to: zackli

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: intrepid

Let's look at this logically.

When people are basing a person healthcare on their religious belief logic has no place in the discussion.

Ah!, Found the disconnect. You think because you CHOSE to work somewhere you should be able to force that company to adhere to something against their religious beliefs just because YOU are there? YOU as a responsible adult should have known what said company offers healthcare wise, and if it wasn't the package you were looking for, eliminate them from your list of possible jobs. What makes you so special?