• 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

This is why you can't have a productive debate with many conservatives. I say, "I'm not in favor of a one size fits all system" then you go off and assert that's what I'm promoting, ignoring just the obvious evidence that not even the ACA is a 'one size fits all' system. I LOVE having 6 PRIVATE regional hospitals, 1,000s of PRIVATE physicians, and nothing I've said suggests we change any of that.



How many "choose" not to have healthcare coverage? You have any data? This should be great.



First, the VA isn't 'single payer.' And I guess like Ockham you want to remain blissfully ignorant of the rest of the world's results.

Yes, the state of TX reports over half of the people who are classified as uninsured are eligible for Medicaid, and another 15% choose not to have health insurance because they are either wealthy enough or invincible.

I employed over 1200 employees, offered full and part time employees full healthcare benefits, never paid minimum wage and got 50% enrollment because most were in the invincible age group. You see, choice is something everyone has and when they choose not to have health insurance people like you don't understand

Really? The VA isn't single payer? Who pays for the VA services if not the Federal Govt.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So the reality then, is that no country the size of the US or larger has one of the "best ones" and it's smaller country's which look more like a state in the US. Comparing a country that is one of the "best ones" with a state in the US is probably a fair comparison, but using it as a gauge and example to the entire US is just as "mindbogglingly irrational".

I guess I'm not sure how you'd suggest we go about learning which healthcare delivery options work and which don't, if you want to ignore dozens of actual systems in place in advanced economies around the world. If the point is we can't blindly assume that what works in, say, Switzerland may not work perfectly here, that's obvious enough. But surely we can learn from the dozens of countries and with a bit of work come to some conclusions.

Furthermore, as I've been pointing out, the ACA allows for STATES to design their own plans - it's NOT 'one size fits all' or doesn't have to be if right wingers or left got off their lazy rear ends and did a bit of work. Tennessee with 7 million people has about 100 countries of similar or greater size it can look to for evidence. Maybe Israel (pop 8 million or so) with their universal coverage system is one we could look at? If not Israel, Sweden? Australia? New Zealand? Switzerland?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I don't even know what that means. Anecdotes trump reality? Are you saying that or are you laughably accusing me of asserting that?

And be specific about those "small countries." Which ones are we talking about? The 80 million in Germany? The 70 million in France? The 800 million collectively in Europe? The 125 million in Japan?



How many "Europeans" come to the U.S. for major surgery per year? There are roughly 800 million living in Europe, so maybe we can compare the number of them to their population and see how many have to abandon their own system to come here for care. The numbers I've found put the total traveling here from ALL countries at less than 100k. If they're ALL from Europe (not true at all, but we can pretend) about 99.9% of Europeans get their care in...Europe, at half the cost, excellent results, universal care, etc.

Furthermore, about 1 million Americans travel TO other countries, about 10 times the number who travel HERE for care, so the flow is exactly opposite of what you're asserting.

You are making the claim that 1 million Americans travel to other countries and imply that it is for care. What kind of care, what countries, what costs do they pay? Are you telling me that Mexico has a better healthcare system than the U.S? Many Americans do travel to Mexico for alternative cancer treatments with very limited if any success but that doesn't matter as all you want to do is throw out meaningless claims.

We have the best healthcare system in the world whose costs are increased by frivolous lawsuits, excessive testing and approval process for drugs, federal regulations and interstate commerce issues but none of those matter as long as you can get your contraception when you want it paid for by someone else.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yes, the state of TX reports over half of the people who are classified as uninsured are eligible for Medicaid, and another 15% choose not to have health insurance because they are either wealthy enough or invincible.

And so if more people just signed up for benefits you oppose, then Texas wouldn't have a problem. OK, I guess.

I employed over 1200 employees, offered full and part time employees full healthcare benefits, never paid minimum wage and got 50% enrollment because most were in the invincible age group. You see, choice is something everyone has and when they choose not to have health insurance people like you don't understand

I do understand why some people choose not to have health insurance that can afford it. It costs money, and they want to gamble, and if they lose, all the rest of us pay for their care. It's a good deal for them, and most of them frankly win that bet, and those that don't are screwed pretty badly. Other people who have the option for healthcare at work can't afford it for all kinds of reasons - there's a reason why Walmart employs more on Medicaid, and food stamps, than any other employer even though they also offer health insurance, but the cost is too high even for those who make more than minimum wage, hence those workers qualifying for Medicaid.

Really? The VA isn't single payer? Who pays for the VA services if not the Federal Govt.

I've said it several times, and you've read the responses - the VA is socialized medicine on the UK model. NO ONE proposes anything like that here, so bringing up the VA is a big fat straw man to beat the crap out of.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And so if more people just signed up for benefits you oppose, then Texas wouldn't have a problem. OK, I guess.



I do understand why some people choose not to have health insurance that can afford it. It costs money, and they want to gamble, and if they lose, all the rest of us pay for their care. It's a good deal for them, and most of them frankly win that bet, and those that don't are screwed pretty badly. Other people who have the option for healthcare at work can't afford it for all kinds of reasons - there's a reason why Walmart employs more on Medicaid, and food stamps, than any other employer even though they also offer health insurance, but the cost is too high even for those who make more than minimum wage, hence those workers qualifying for Medicaid.



I've said it several times, and you've read the responses - the VA is socialized medicine on the UK model. NO ONE proposes anything like that here, so bringing up the VA is a big fat straw man to beat the crap out of.

No, you made an issue out of the uninsured in TX and I gave you the information that explains the numbers but of course you ignored them.

The rest of us don't pay for the uninsured as you have been led to believe. Those uninsured in TX are paid for by the taxpayers in TX. Those uninsured in Tenn are paid for by the taxpayers of Tenn. So tell me again why we need a national program?

The VA is a single payer system and you stated that was wrong. No, you are wrong.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You are making the claim that 1 million Americans travel to other countries and imply that it is for care. What kind of care, what countries, what costs do they pay? Are you telling me that Mexico has a better healthcare system than the U.S? Many Americans do travel to Mexico for alternative cancer treatments with very limited if any success but that doesn't matter as all you want to do is throw out meaningless claims.

No, I'm not making that claim - I cited estimates by the CDC. If you have contrary data, cite them.

We have the best healthcare system in the world whose costs are increased by frivolous lawsuits, excessive testing and approval process for drugs, federal regulations and interstate commerce issues but none of those matter as long as you can get your contraception when you want it paid for by someone else.

OK, whatever.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, I'm not making that claim - I cited estimates by the CDC. If you have contrary data, cite them.



OK, whatever.

Don't you think you should find out the data behind those numbers if that is what you want to believe? To accept those numbers without details doesn't help your credibility very much.

Whatever is the typical liberal answer when confused with anything that counters your personal opinion. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? For some reason you still believe anything this Administration tells you and the question remains, why?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, you made an issue out of the uninsured in TX and I gave you the information that explains the numbers but of course you ignored them.

I didn't ignore them, I'm just not sure how citing stats that indicate the problem is not ENOUGH people who are so poor that they're eligible for Medicaid but don't sign up says something positive about healthcare or the Texas approach.

The rest of us don't pay for the uninsured as you have been led to believe. Those uninsured in TX are paid for by the taxpayers in TX. Those uninsured in Tenn are paid for by the taxpayers of Tenn. So tell me again why we need a national program?

I don't know how many times I can say it and you ignore it. I'm all FOR Texas and any other state getting off it's lazy rear end and designing their own approach. Read my responses - that's about the 10th time I've said the same thing.

The VA is a single payer system and you stated that was wrong. No, you are wrong.

OK, still a straw man since the kind of 'single payer' being suggested by me and by everyone else is nothing like the VA system. NO ONE IS PROPOSING A NATIONWIDE EXPANSION OF THE VA/UK MODEL. If you want to attack that, fine, but you're wasting everyone's time. It's not a proposal with any support anywhere.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I didn't ignore them, I'm just not sure how citing stats that indicate the problem is not ENOUGH people who are so poor that they're eligible for Medicaid but don't sign up says something positive about healthcare or the Texas approach.



I don't know how many times I can say it and you ignore it. I'm all FOR Texas and any other state getting off it's lazy rear end and designing their own approach. Read my responses - that's about the 10th time I've said the same thing.



OK, still a straw man since the kind of 'single payer' being suggested by me and by everyone else is nothing like the VA system. NO ONE IS PROPOSING A NATIONWIDE EXPANSION OF THE VA/UK MODEL. If you want to attack that, fine, but you're wasting everyone's time. It's not a proposal with any support anywhere.

The point continues to be the uninsured is a state issue not a Federal issue and people like you are still looking to the Federal Govt. to implement social programs that you want. It is up to the people of TX to decide what they want and right now the people of TX aren't for a state run program. Who are you to tell the people of TX what they want or need?

You said VA wasn't a single payer system, you are wrong, but cannot admit it. Guess someone hijacked your posts as didn't you post in 1201 the following?

First, the VA isn't 'single payer.'
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Don't you think you should find out the data behind those numbers if that is what you want to believe? To accept those numbers without details doesn't help your credibility very much.

But you've dismissed them with no investigation at all, then repeatedly made assertions that contradict all the available data with NOTHING - NOT ONE LINK OR CITE TO ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL - to back those assertions up. Whose credibility is greater here?

Whatever is the typical liberal answer when confused with anything that counters your personal opinion. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? For some reason you still believe anything this Administration tells you and the question remains, why?

I'm not confused by your statement. You said "We have the best healthcare system in the world." That's a totally subjective statement with no real basis in the evidence. How do you determine 'best' or 'worst?' If you want to prove your claim, it's simple enough to cherry pick some stats that do so and present those and ignore others. Say survival rates of prostate cancer. We do REALLY well with that. OK. How about affordability? If you ignore that it won't affect the ranking. If that's important, that we have 40 million uninsured and still pay double, that will probably take us off the top perch, etc. We have far FEWER doctors per capita. Important or not? Who knows. How about treatment for chronic illness. We're not good at that. So how do you put all that together to determine BEST!! or not? Who knows. I had NO interest getting into that argument.

Then you said, "whose costs are increased by frivolous lawsuits, excessive testing and approval process for drugs, federal regulations and interstate commerce issues." I've looked into the frivolous lawsuits stuff and the total spent on 'defensive' medicine and lawsuits is perhaps 3-4% of total spending. Well, some of that is inevitable, so let's call it half can be avoided. That might bring down costs by 2% at most, which is nice, but obviously not the core issue. the rest - excessive testing etc. for drugs - I know you have no data on that, so why would I bother spending time looking it up, etc. to respond to obvious baseless talking points.

Instead of doing that and more I said, "OK." But not because I'm confused or can't respond.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

But you've dismissed them with no investigation at all, then repeatedly made assertions that contradict all the available data with NOTHING - NOT ONE LINK OR CITE TO ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL - to back those assertions up. Whose credibility is greater here?



I'm not confused by your statement. You said "We have the best healthcare system in the world." That's a totally subjective statement with no real basis in the evidence. How do you determine 'best' or 'worst?' If you want to prove your claim, it's simple enough to cherry pick some stats that do so and present those and ignore others. Say survival rates of prostate cancer. We do REALLY well with that. OK. How about affordability? If you ignore that it won't affect the ranking. If that's important, that we have 40 million uninsured and still pay double, that will probably take us off the top perch, etc. We have far FEWER doctors per capita. Important or not? Who knows. How about treatment for chronic illness. We're not good at that. So how do you put all that together to determine BEST!! or not? Who knows. I had NO interest getting into that argument.

Then you said, "whose costs are increased by frivolous lawsuits, excessive testing and approval process for drugs, federal regulations and interstate commerce issues." I've looked into the frivolous lawsuits stuff and the total spent on 'defensive' medicine and lawsuits is perhaps 3-4% of total spending. Well, some of that is inevitable, so let's call it half can be avoided. That might bring down costs by 2% at most, which is nice, but obviously not the core issue. the rest - excessive testing etc. for drugs - I know you have no data on that, so why would I bother spending time looking it up, etc. to respond to obvious baseless talking points.

Instead of doing that and more I said, "OK." But not because I'm confused or can't respond.

This is a waste of time and again off track of the thread topic. A little research will verify the information I have provided you and as you stated I have no interest in further educating you for as I have stated before if a political foe is committing suicide stand aside and let them. You are doing just that with a lot of opinions and misinformation. I have posted hundreds of charts in DP only to be ignored. It is a waste of time dealing with ideologues who just ignore the information believing instead whatever they want. You are going to do that and for some reason believe that contraception should be paid for by someone else. I disagree and also disagree that you have a right to get anything from your employer other than an equal opportunity to make as much as you can.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The point continues to be the uninsured is a state issue not a Federal issue and people like you are still looking to the Federal Govt. to implement social programs that you want. It is up to the people of TX to decide what they want and right now the people of TX aren't for a state run program. Who are you to tell the people of TX what they want or need?

I guess we can agree to disagree on that.

You said VA wasn't a single payer system, you are wrong, but cannot admit it. Guess someone hijacked your posts as didn't you post in 1201 the following?

I'll admit it. You win, the VA is a type of single payer system that NO ONE proposes be expanded to cover the general population. Feel better?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This is a waste of time and again off track of the thread topic. A little research will verify the information I have provided you and as you stated I have no interest in further educating you for as I have stated before if a political foe is committing suicide stand aside and let them. You are doing just that with a lot of opinions and misinformation. I have posted hundreds of charts in DP only to be ignored. It is a waste of time dealing with ideologues who just ignore the information believing instead whatever they want. You are going to do that and for some reason believe that contraception should be paid for by someone else. I disagree and also disagree that you have a right to get anything from your employer other than an equal opportunity to make as much as you can.

We agree on that!

But I'll just note that I do try to present data to back up my opinions, and did so in this discussion. I'm sorry you don't want to recognize that or debate based on the evidence.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

A Supreme Court opinion is ALWAYS specific to the case it is addressing. You have to understand how to read the "holding" of the case and understand the ramifications of the decision. This is what jurisprudence is all about and how our court system operates. It would be incredibly naive to believe that this ruling is limited to Hobby Lobby. That isn't the way the Supreme Court operates.

I understand full well about jurisprudence and how holdings have to be read; indeed it was a core part of my education. My statement was not suggesting that this case was unable to be used as precedence in the future or that it would be unable to apply to things outside the scope of what it touched specifically on as it related to Hobby Lobby. What I suggested was that you are WRONG to suggest that it allows companies to deny coverage on anything which they deem offensive to their beliefs. This decision in no way definitively allows for that. It POTENTIALLY does, depending entirely on how the court views future cases as it relates to this one, but it potentially does not as well. While it can be argued that this decision provides the potential for that to happen, the decision does not specifically lay out that such is possible. As such, attempting to portray it as an absolute fact of what will come is just abjectly wrong. Now do you care to respond to my argument rather than responding largely based on an assumption that I don't know basics regarding constitutional law?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I guess we can agree to disagree on that.



I'll admit it. You win, the VA is a type of single payer system that NO ONE proposes be expanded to cover the general population. Feel better?


Again, you are wrong, you make a general statement judging others by your own standards. The liberal solution is a single payer system and incrementally that is exactly what is happening. Obamacare is failing and the next solution is a single payer system which most liberals want and what is being promoted


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/liberals-should-fight-lik_b_4235682.html
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

We agree on that!

But I'll just note that I do try to present data to back up my opinions, and did so in this discussion. I'm sorry you don't want to recognize that or debate based on the evidence.

I have over 46,000 posts in this forum, presenting data to back up everything I post including BLS, BEA, Treasury data. I even posted data showing TX information and what I have found out is that liberals don't take anything they don't actually research as accurate so the best thing to do is tell people like you to do your own research and find out the information. When you do you won't be heard from again because I know that if I post inaccurate data that everyone here on the opposite side are going to jump all over it and take great pride in proving me wrong. That has yet to happen here and won't because I am careful about the data I post.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I understand full well about jurisprudence and how holdings have to be read; indeed it was a core part of my education. My statement was not suggesting that this case was unable to be used as precedence in the future or that it would be unable to apply to things outside the scope of what it touched specifically on as it related to Hobby Lobby. What I suggested was that you are WRONG to suggest that it allows companies to deny coverage on anything which they deem offensive to their beliefs. This decision in no way definitively allows for that. It POTENTIALLY does, depending entirely on how the court views future cases as it relates to this one, but it potentially does not as well. While it can be argued that this decision provides the potential for that to happen, the decision does not specifically lay out that such is possible. As such, attempting to portray it as an absolute fact of what will come is just abjectly wrong. Now do you care to respond to my argument rather than responding largely based on an assumption that I don't know basics regarding constitutional law?

You are correct. I looked back at my post #1041 and can see that I mis-spoke. I didn't mean to be arguing that the decision allows a company to exclude from coverage anything that they deem morally offensive (although I agree with you that it is a possible extension of this). What I meant to be arguing in the context of the discussion was that it doesn't return Hobby Lobby's policy solely back to what it was, it allows for them to exlcude from coverage ANY contraceptive coverage which they deem morally offensive. I could have phrased it better and was not entirely clear.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I have over 46,000 posts in this forum, presenting data to back up everything I post including BLS, BEA, Treasury data. I even posted data showing TX information and what I have found out is that liberals don't take anything they don't actually research as accurate so the best thing to do is tell people like you to do your own research and find out the information. When you do you won't be heard from again because I know that if I post inaccurate data that everyone here on the opposite side are going to jump all over it and take great pride in proving me wrong. That has yet to happen here and won't because I am careful about the data I post.


Oh...now THIS is funny.....
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The liberal solution is a single payer system and incrementally that is exactly what is happening.

That is exactly what we need. Get rid of the stupid Heritage Foundation/Republican idea of the insurance mandate and replace it with a single payer system. At the very least, repleace it with a public option which is what we should have gotten in the first place.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That is exactly what we need. Get rid of the stupid Heritage Foundation/Republican idea of the insurance mandate and replace it with a single payer system. At the very least, repleace it with a public option which is what we should have gotten in the first place.

Turned 65 yet? Cannot wait for that to happen and you get forced onto Medicare. Great program, you are going to love it, LOL.

VA system is a single payer system and we all can see how well the Federal Govt. does in administering anything. Give the Vets a Voucher and let them go wherever they want. What is it about liberalism that believes a Federal Govt. that has created a 17.5 trillion dollar debt, created a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and has over 100 million Americans dependent on that govt. could administer a single payer system any better than the private sector can by giving people tax credits to buy their own insurance?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Personally, yes. But I am pro-choice. I would like to see no abortions take place, however, I don't believe that the government should be the one making that decision.

But the govt should be able to make you pay for someone else's?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

But the govt should be able to make you pay for someone else's?
Thats what the entire insurance system is based on. Doh!
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Thats what the entire insurance system is based on. Doh!

Way to dodge the question.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Way to dodge the question.


How is that "dodging the question"? I hear similar complaints all the time. My next door neighbor cries to me all the time about "Why am I paying to have my insurance cover pediatric dental? I don't even have any kids". My response to her is "Why does my insurance cover gynacological exams?" The point being....the insurance industry is set up to cover things that we may not necessarily want or care about....thats just the way the system operates and what it is based on.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Again, you are wrong, you make a general statement judging others by your own standards. The liberal solution is a single payer system and incrementally that is exactly what is happening. Obamacare is failing and the next solution is a single payer system which most liberals want and what is being promoted

Liberals Should Fight Like Hell for Single Payer Health Care | Brent Budowsky

The columnist in that link proposes a single payer system like Medicare, which is nothing at all in practice similar to the VA system. The VA system is government owned facilities, government employed workers, delivering care to a very small slice of the population totally outside the extensive private delivery system we have in place. Single payer, as the columnist used it and I use that term, would replace some or all of the private insurers with ONE payer - e.g. Medicare - but retain the private delivery system.
 
Back
Top Bottom