• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Okay, for anyone interested in looking up the history of the mandate, please follow this link:

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes



Here's a clip of Obama proposing the federal mandate to conservatives in 2008:



Please provide a link to the Republican Plan that was presented to Congress back then. Also, if you could, provide the record of the votes that were taken.

Thanks
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Well there is this:

"The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners."

I like it. Kind of like the cities (Seattle) that are trying $15 minimum wage, this is a very manageable portion of businesses...of course most will not enact this anway....and it will display the repercussions *if any* to this decision.

So no publicly held businesses or corporations.

But I agree that a strongly held religious belief should be upheld if there is no overall societal harm/harm to the state, just as I supported the pharmacists that refused to carry the morning after drug (personally I find them sanctimoneous, judgemental, unprofessional, and unChristian but I would vote to support their right to refuse).

If this is a strong religious belief for someone, they should be able to opt out.

Their employees are not forced to work there.

It may attract different employees and customers....it may drive away employees and customers. I already boycott them for this reason. (I object personally but would not vote to take away this right)

So with these sized businesses, it will be an interesting test tube to see if it affects their bottom line and if so, if it changes their decisions. Not all businesses have alot of wiggle room on their bottom line.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Funny how you guys fall all over yourselves to defend the religious beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, atheist, etc, but Christians just need to shut the hell up.

That would be pretty cool. The STFU part. But let's not let the facts get in the way. When you say "You guys", I'll assume you are referring to me as one of those who oppose this move. And yes I do. I loathe organized religion. I loathe the idea that your delusional beliefs in a book of fairy tales is influencing my life or that of my children. And as to the other religions, keep them the **** out of my government.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I guess Obama, like you, failed to research any history other than a cursory reading. The heritage plan that was the backbone for the proposed 1993 plan put forward by Republicans quickly lost Republican support, and by the end of that time period was widely rejected by most republicans as a viable piece of legislation. It was also one of multiple varying plans put forward by Republicans at the time. Additionally, Romney's actions in Massachusetts were oft talked about as a possible mark AGAINST his potential run of the presidency and was a topic of negativity towards him during the 2008 primaries.

But why bother with an actual reasoned look at history...it's better to mouth talking points and propaganda and hope that no one is actually knowledgable enough to call people on the bull**** they spew.

I posted a direct link detailing the history of the individual mandate for anyone to see. Feel free to point out my inaccuracies, rather than painting me with a broad brush and dismissing me altogether. If I'm wrong I'll accept it, but you're going to have to do better than getting flustered and agitated.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Sadly, this decision will probably result in an increase in abortions.

So did Roe v. Wade.

I doubt you'd suggest this argument would be a legitimate one against Roe v. Wade because you feel that Roe v. Wade was protecting ones essential liberty in regards to the right to privacy, and thus even though it would result in "an increase in abortions" that is ENTIRELY okay to you.

Well...I'm sure to many that even if your assumption is the case (Which is really speculative in nature as it's requiring a lot of assumptive leaps to reach as opposed to Roe v. Wade which was DIRECTLY about abortion), that doesn't preclude that some may feel that ones essentially liberty in regards to the right to religious freedom must not be ignored simply because of the possible poor choices (in those peoples opinions) other people can make.

You don't support violating the constitution because the side effects of that makes you feel sad. Well, most people don't...perhaps you do.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Please provide a link to the Republican Plan that was presented to Congress back then. Also, if you could, provide the record of the votes that were taken.

Thanks

I don't need to do this to prove that the individual mandate has conservative roots and was embraced by some conservatives prior to Obama adopting it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Obama didn't even try to sell it. That's the problem with centrists. They get burned on both sides.

Because if there's one thing I'd say about Obama, he's not unintelligent. There was no way he was going to convince all the member FROM HIS OWN PARTY to get on board with socialized medicine. There were a large number of democrats in the house and senate that made it perfectly clear that such a thing was a non-starter. There's no reason to try to sell something that you have no hope of actually selling. All you would do then is waste time, effort, and resources that could be better spent focusing on something that's actually achievable.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This is what Obama gets for trying to compromise. He should have gone with true Socialized Medicine, which would have avoided this situation.

Obama.....compromise........like how, like he did with the POS 1,700 page healthcare novel that no one read?!
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Because if there's one thing I'd say about Obama, he's not unintelligent. There was no way he was going to convince all the member FROM HIS OWN PARTY to get on board with socialized medicine. There were a large number of democrats in the house and senate that made it perfectly clear that such a thing was a non-starter. There's no reason to try to sell something that you have no hope of actually selling. All you would do then is waste time, effort, and resources that could be better spent focusing on something that's actually achievable.

And of course, conservative support for the mandate -- which existed -- dropped to zero when Obama adopted it. So I agree that Obama did the intelligent thing, but it ultimately backfired as a compromise (and it was a compromise).
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That would be pretty cool. The STFU part. But let's not let the facts get in the way. When you say "You guys", I'll assume you are referring to me as one of those who oppose this move. And yes I do. I loathe organized religion. I loathe the idea that your delusional beliefs in a book of fairy tales is influencing my life or that of my children. And as to the other religions, keep them the **** out of my government.

And see, that's where you're opinions and existence on this earth become obsolete. To cast aside the beliefs held by millions of Christians, including me, as "delusional beliefs in a book of fairy tales" just shows your complete lack of any meaningful depth or contribution anywhere your lowly presence finds itself. And sadly, I know it masks a deep sense of self hatred and purposelessness.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I don't need to do this to prove that the individual mandate has conservative roots and was embraced by some conservatives prior to Obama adopting it.

I thought you wrote it has "strong" conservative roots. Then I think you wrote it was based on conservative ideas. Then it was based on Romenycare.

Look, I understand the reason this meme about Obamacare being a Republican plan is spread around.

If you want to join the rest of the liberal chorus blaming the right for the unilateral decisions of the left, so be it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ok, what SCOTUS has ruled is that a company does not have to pay for birth control as part of their healthcare plan if it violates the religious beliefs of the company. It seems to me that only a very small number of companies would choose to not offer birth control coverage as its much cheaper to pay for contraception than to pay for child birth.

Just the same, being you can get a prescription for the pill as a generic at Target for 4 dollars, what is the big deal? It is cheaper to pay for the pill out of pocket than to pay for the prescription copay on most plans anyway.

And if there was no difference between the 20 versions, that would be a fine answer. But for lots of reasons some women can't take the cheapest generic version and require some of the newer options, which aren't $4/month.

The bottom line is the ruling said providing no cost contraception, and for all 20 options, serves a compelling government interest, but that the government has a less restrictive way to accomplish that other than a mandate on all employers. So they carved out a very narrow restriction for closely held corporations. Essentially, because HHS has said to insurers of religious orgs exempt from the requirement, you (insurers) shall provide contraception for free, and the savings from not having as many pregnant mothers and new babies will offset the costs of providing contraception. And the availability of this option for religious orgs means HHS must extend this option to for-profit orgs in some cases.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That would be pretty cool. The STFU part. But let's not let the facts get in the way. When you say "You guys", I'll assume you are referring to me as one of those who oppose this move. And yes I do. I loathe organized religion. I loathe the idea that your delusional beliefs in a book of fairy tales is influencing my life or that of my children. And as to the other religions, keep them the **** out of my government.

and many of us loathe your belief in the government controlling our lives and influencing the lives of our children. We loathe that you and so many like you are collectivist borg that can't think or act for yourselves. We loathe that you jump at every opportunity to aid the federal government in subjugating us because you've already allowed youreself to be completely subjugated.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I thought you wrote it has "strong" conservative roots. Then I think you wrote it was based on conservative ideas. Then it was based on Romenycare.

I can use the same words and phrasing repeatedly if you like. From now on I'll just say 'strong conservative roots' to avoid the accusations of goal post changing.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And see, that's where you're opinions and existence on this earth become obsolete. To cast aside the beliefs held by millions of Christians, including me, as "delusional beliefs in a book of fairy tales" just shows your complete lack of any meaningful depth or contribution anywhere your lowly presence finds itself. And sadly, I know it masks a deep sense of self hatred and purposelessness.

Why thanks Dr. Erod. Now meanwhile back to the ****ed up world of Christian Sharia.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That would be pretty cool. The STFU part. But let's not let the facts get in the way. When you say "You guys", I'll assume you are referring to me as one of those who oppose this move. And yes I do. I loathe organized religion. I loathe the idea that your delusional beliefs in a book of fairy tales is influencing my life or that of my children. And as to the other religions, keep them the **** out of my government.

You mean OUR government. It's not yours; it's ours.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

and many of us loathe your belief in the government controlling our lives and influencing the lives of our children. We loathe that you and so many like you are collectivist borg that can't think or act for yourselves. We loathe that you jump at every opportunity to aid the federal government in subjugating us because you've already allowed youreself to be completely subjugated.

Meh, just keep your religious nonsense out of my government and my schools.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You mean OUR government. It's not yours; it's ours.

My government is mine. And you can't have it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I can use the same words and phrasing repeatedly if you like. From now on I'll just say 'strong conservative roots' to avoid the accusations of goal post changing.

Whatever works for you, goal posts or not.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Obviously, having the government as your religion does not bring one quite the joy and happiness as those blessed with a strong faith. Quite the opposite actually, as this post illustrates, the endless shrieking rage of the government dependent atheists is a pitiful life to live, barren of all but their boundless hatred.

Spare me your righteous babble. Religion is fine, just keep it to yourself.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And of course, conservative support for the mandate -- which existed -- dropped to zero when Obama adopted it. So I agree that Obama did the intelligent thing, but it ultimately backfired as a compromise (and it was a compromise).

You seem to have a problem ignoring responses given to this same claim liberals make over and over again. There is a difference between a state and federal mandate but apparently that reality escapes you. The State of MA adopted a healthcare mandate and that is the right of every state to do that. The problem comes in when the Federal Govt. mandates a one size fits all program for 50 independent sovereign states. Work towards that Massive central govt. is a mistake on your part but unfortunately it will be too late to say I told you so if it is ever fully initiated.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And if there was no difference between the 20 versions, that would be a fine answer. But for lots of reasons some women can't take the cheapest generic version and require some of the newer options, which aren't $4/month.

The bottom line is the ruling said providing no cost contraception, and for all 20 options, serves a compelling government interest, but that the government has a less restrictive way to accomplish that other than a mandate on all employers. So they carved out a very narrow restriction for closely held corporations. Essentially, because HHS has said to insurers of religious orgs exempt from the requirement, you (insurers) shall provide contraception for free, and the savings from not having as many pregnant mothers and new babies will offset the costs of providing contraception. And the availability of this option for religious orgs means HHS must extend this option to for-profit orgs in some cases.

Frankly, the vast, vast, vast majority of women just take the generic. If you don't take the generic, and you disagree with the ruling, then why not just find another company to work for? The health insurance benefits package is already a consideration most people take into account when they decide to work at a company or not.

I am not a fan of fundies, and frankly I would not work for a company owned by them for this very reason. However, I think its a stupid battle to pick in the culture wars as in the end, its impact is pretty minimal.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

My government is mine. And you can't have it.

Whatever. :roll:

Last time I heard, it was "we, the people," not "I, the person."
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You seem to have a problem ignoring responses given to this same claim liberals make over and over again. There is a difference between a state and federal mandate but apparently that reality escapes you. The State of MA adopted a healthcare mandate and that is the right of every state to do that. The problem comes in when the Federal Govt. mandates a one size fits all program for 50 independent sovereign states. Work towards that Massive central govt. is a mistake on your part but unfortunately it will be too late to say I told you so if it is ever fully initiated.

Unless I'm mistaken, the original idea was a federal mandate, which the (former) Speaker of the House endorsed prior to Obama.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Spare me your righteous babble. Religion is fine, just keep it to yourself.

Don't flatter yourself. That post wasn't about, nor do I have any interest in, providing religious information to you. Not in the slightest. Try and read for understanding.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom