It's Supreme Court day! Hobby Lobby VS Obamacare.

[Wells]

I think maybe the most intellectually insulting part of Hobby Lobby's case, and that is saying something here, is how they want to not have to pay for "abortion drugs" that don't even cause abortions.

[Spectral]

I hate that these arguments exist at all. I really, genuinely can't comprehend what's in the heads of members of the American public that oppose just slapping together a coherent single-payer healthcare system that covers all basic care. This really doesn't seem like it should be controversial.

[Wells]

I hate that these arguments exist at all.

Hobby Lobby's insurance used to provide these drugs, it wasn't until the ACA came around that they found it objectionable. Its pretty clearly political.

[oujosh29]

By that logic if "Hobby Lobby gets to choose what their plans offer because they're paying" they could offer plans that cover absolutely nothing which would defeat the entire purpose.

It's a slipper slope, when you say X reason allows Y company to not have to provide Z, pretty soon companies are going to start coming up with all sorts of bullshit reasons that they cant provide a specific portion of coverage. Catholics won't cover the pill, Muslims won't cover ringworm (which you can get from pork and isn't even a worm, it's fungal). It won't matter if there are a dozen legitimate reasons to be on the pill that have nothing to do with sex (such as cysts or incredibly painful periods, or just plain hormonal balance), companies requiring to cover employees will piecemeal the thing apart until they might as well not provide it at all.

No. The government needs to put it's fun down. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Honestly, tell me why its the companies responsibility for this? The company isn't your mother, they pay you to work and give a benefit to incentive you to work there. Forcing a mandated policy on everyone is a horrible top down way to do things. If a company doesn't want to cover ringworm, or an important medical problem then they won't get any good employees. That's not even the real problem, Hobby Lobby is already offering multiple contraceptives, what your wanting is not only to offer it but they must pay for exactly what you want.

[Wells]

Honestly, tell me why its the companies responsibility for this? The company isn't your mother, they pay you to work and give a benefit to incentive you to work there. Forcing a mandated policy on everyone is a horrible top down way to do things. If a company doesn't want to cover ringworm, or an important medical problem then they won't get any good employees. That's not even the real problem, Hobby Lobby is already offering multiple contraceptives, what your wanting is not only to offer it but they must pay for exactly what you want.

Insurance is realistically access to health care in our system. If we're going to keep this shitty employment based insurance system then letting employers decide what you'll have access to is bullshit.

[Spectral]

Forcing a mandated policy on everyone is a horrible top down way to do things.

Are top-down policies always bad? If so, why does management exist at any level?

[darkwarrior42]

I hate that these arguments exist at all. I really, genuinely can't comprehend what's in the heads of members of the American public that oppose just slapping together a coherent single-payer healthcare system that covers all basic care. This really doesn't seem like it should be controversial.

Especially when the military (and their families/dependents) are already in a form of single-payer socialized healthcare. It's not perfect, but thus far I've had no complaints.

*shrug* Instead we have the ACA.... I'm hoping it will have settled down a bit by the time I'm back in the private sector.

[oujosh29]

[QUOTE=Spectral;26112433]Are top-down policies always bad? If so, why does management exist at any level?[/QUOTE
Its getting further and further away is the problem. A city government knows how to handle their city better than a bunch of politicians a thousand miles away having lunch with lobbyists.

[Wells]

Are top-down policies always bad? If so, why does management exist at any level?[/QUOTE
Its getting further and further away is the problem. A city government knows how to handle their city better than a bunch of politicians a thousand miles away having lunch with lobbyists.

You have in no way demonstrated a failure of anyone's reasoning here.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

[QUOTE=oujosh29;26112488]

Are top-down policies always bad? If so, why does management exist at any level?[/QUOTE
Its getting further and further away is the problem. A city government knows how to handle their city better than a bunch of politicians a thousand miles away having lunch with lobbyists.

They're no different, don't fool yourself that they're somehow different.

[Spectral]

Its getting further and further away is the problem. A city government knows how to handle their city better than a bunch of politicians a thousand miles away having lunch with lobbyists.

Why would you say that's the case?

[oujosh29]

[QUOTE=Aeluron Lightsong;26112498]

They're no different, don't fool yourself that they're somehow different.

Ok I'm not sure what you mean. Do you really think that DC can design a reform that fits completely different states like California and texas in one bill? that the same kind of reform would work for both? what about north dakota and florida? Our state are different for a reason, people can vote for their feet and decide which state laws they want to live under. The federal government shouldn't try to force a one size fits all solution on all the states.

[Wells]

Ok I'm not sure what you mean. Do you really think that DC can design a reform that fits completely different states like California and texas in one bill? that the same kind of reform would work for both? what about north dakota and florida? Our state are different for a reason, people can vote for their feet and decide which state laws they want to live under. The federal government shouldn't try to force a one size fits all solution on all the states.

Do ovaries work differently in Texas?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Ok I'm not sure what you mean. Do you really think that DC can design a reform that fits completely different states like California and texas in one bill? that the same kind of reform would work for both? what about north dakota and florida? Our state are different for a reason, people can vote for their feet and decide which state laws they want to live under. The federal government shouldn't try to force a one size fits all solution on all the states.

You're acting like if the government of the specific state is much better then the federal government which is clearly not the case.

[oujosh29]

You're acting like if the government of the specific state is much better then the federal government which is clearly not the case.

I disagree. State and local governments are closer to the problems and people. They are better at governing their own states better. They won't always succeed of course, its called the labotrary of experimentation. Different states can do what they want; Massachusetts can do their own Romneycare, that's their choice, and Oklahoma can do what they want, which is to create Soonercare, and we can see what works best.

[Wells]

I disagree. State and local governments are closer to the problems and people. They are better at governing their own states better.

What evidence is there for this assertion? Many states have had crippling levels of poverty for a century.

Different states can do what they want

And when they fail to adequately work on their own, we have a federal government. We're not a confederacy.

[Spectral]

Ok I'm not sure what you mean. Do you really think that DC can design a reform that fits completely different states like California and texas in one bill? that the same kind of reform would work for both? what about north dakota and florida? Our state are different for a reason, people can vote for their feet and decide which state laws they want to live under. The federal government shouldn't try to force a one size fits all solution on all the states.

I don't see a great reason why a nation can't provide basic healthcare. Being geographically large doesn't seem an obstacle for Canada, or at least one that's insurmountable.

- - - Updated - - -

Real freedom only exists under a system where unavoidable medical expenses threaten to bankrupt people for being born into an increasingly permanent underclass.

Hell, one doesn't even have to be in such an underclass to be threatened by our current healthcare system. I think I'm probably actually more underinsured than the average really poor person at present. It's a calculated risk on my part, which one could argue is a bad decision, but it's bizarre that it's a decision I have to (get to?) make at all.

[Sunseeker]

Its getting further and further away is the problem. A city government knows how to handle their city better than a bunch of politicians a thousand miles away having lunch with lobbyists.

It's not like there aren't lobbyists in my town, but whether the guys at home know what to do better than the guys far away is not as cut and dry as "distance increases knowledge". While that can be true, it can also be a "forest for the trees" issue. When you're in the city, it's easy to focus on fixing a single problem and miss the fact that there are dozens of problems affecting the entire city.

The people up top should be better at handling the BIG THINGS, the things that affect the country as a whole. Health care is not a "local issue", it's a national issue.

[oujosh29]

What evidence is there for this assertion? Many states have had crippling levels of poverty for a century.


And when they fail to adequately work on their own, we have a federal government. We're not a confederacy.

And states aren't just names. We have states for a reason with a federal government that's suppose to have a limited role. One of the problems we have is the federal government has been getting in the way on everything so its not fair to blame the states for all their failures.

[Wells]

And states aren't just names. We have states for a reason with a federal government that's suppose to have a limited role. One of the problems we have is the federal government has been getting in the way on everything so its not fair to blame the states for all their failures.

We had a court case over this. Move on. Also blaming the federal government for states being shit holes is a god damn joke when those states get more money from the feds than they pay in taxes.