“"Insurance companies have always rationed health care, and did so for reasons of pure profit."
...and, when they do, consumers are free to seek another insurance company. Thanks for playing.”
Traz O on Dec 5, 2013 at 10:05:31
“Still, no clue ...
When you're sick, and need an expensive treatment that your insurance company won't cover, do you think you can just buy insurance from, who, exactly? One of the insurance companies with a policy of losing money?
LOL, you're not even playing.”
“No, people will die from all the rationing that's inherent in Obamacare.”
Traz O on Dec 4, 2013 at 03:16:08
“You people haven't a clue.
Insurance companies have always rationed health care, and did so for reasons of pure profit. Insurance companies are accountable only to their shareholders. If you aren't aware that people are routinely victimized by their insurance carriers, you're not really qualified to comment on health care issues.
Healthcare has always been rationed. There are only so many donor organs to go around. There are only so many hospital beds for sick people. There are only so many resources.
Under the ACA, insurance companies are less motivated to waste those resources on corporate profits, since those profits are now limited by statute. So, less rationing.
As far as the rationing that inevitably occurs due to limited resources, I'd rather it be determined by people I can vote for, or against, and in the public eye, than Rick Scott the board of directors of Columbia HCA deciding what treatments their pay for based on what saves them the most money.”
“I don't make religious arguments. Try again (though I'm sure you'll just make the same ill-fated try). Gee, you forgot the "blood transfusions" argument. You need to study your handbook more closely (even though it's been addressed). And a company having one policy that affects all employees is not analogous to one that affects some of its employees -- as in your "married women" example.
Your position is no different from a customer trying to force a vegan restaurant to sell him a roast-beef sandwich, thereby violating their belief system (that need not be based in religious principles). Secular argument. You lose.”
“Okay, but before this just now you went with a form of reductio ad absurdum ("thought of fertilization"), followed by condescension ("Isn't science a hoot? You should try it sometime."), so I don't quite think it's fair to accuse me of assuming that those who disagree with me do so out of ignorance, when that seems to be a common trait displayed by so many on the other side (calling anyone who disagrees a "fundie," etc.).”
“As I said, the lower courts are declaring that your little (b) is unconstitutional. Good chance the Supreme Court will agree, but we'll see. Your repeated use of the word "voodoo" indicates that no one should take you seriously.”
“Good. You admit, albeit indirectly, that contraception is still legal. So those people who happen to believe in using contraceptives are still PERFECTLY FREE TO PURCHASE AND TO USE THEM. THEY CAN EVEN SEEK OUT INSURANCE OR A JOB THAT WILL COVER IT FOR THEM. NO ONE'S FORCING YOU TO BELIEVE IN A HIGHER POWER (though showing more respect for people with different beliefs might not be a bad idea, Cupcake). YOU JUST CAN'T FORCE SOMEONE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING FOR YOU.”
Bhokara on Nov 27, 2013 at 16:29:23
“If the law of the land says:
(a) An employer shall provide health care cover coverage to employees, and
(b) Health care coverage shall include contraceptives, then
YES, you CAN force the employer to abide by the law and provide insurance coverage to employees which includes contraceptives, regardless of whatever voodoo nonsense the employer personally believes about contraception. The law is the law, and the Supreme Court has ruled a dozen times that religious beliefs do not exempt anyone from complying with the law. The employer has the choice of (1) complying with the law or (2) going out of business. Period.
And that would be DOCTOR Cupcake to you, Brownie.”
“Then, just as I've been saying with respect to the contraception mandate, employees should be free to opt out of the employer-provided insurance so that they can find some that suits them better. Everybody wins, and no one is forcing the employers to violate their conscience. Got it?”
Father Jerusalem on Nov 27, 2013 at 12:24:07
“It's not about "employers violating their conscience". It's about employers wanting to exercise even MORE control over the people they employ.”
“You still don't get it. Contraception is LEGAL. That hasn't changed. You want it; go out and pay for it. I don't know why you're having trouble with such a simple concept. Did you buy me dinner tonight? No. So did you starve me? No, because I bought my own dinner. This isn't difficult.”
Father Jerusalem on Nov 27, 2013 at 02:39:24
“That's an absolutely moronic comparison.
Here's a better one. As part of my being your employer, I provide you with meals while you work, which you pay for on a monthly basis.
However, due to MY religious beliefs, I mandate that you're not allowed to eat chicken, pork, eggs, wheat, milk, beef, or salt.
Your religious beliefs allow all of that.
Ergo, once again, I am forcing my religious beliefs on you.”
“(George and Tollefsen also refute your twinning argument in their book, EMBRYO.)”
coffeebeaner on Nov 27, 2013 at 21:36:19
“So, let me just bring our conversation full circle. At first you tell me your point of view is solidly the acceptable scientific argument, and I should learn to deal. Fine. Then I post the current scientific counter argument that is the opposite of your scientific argument....which simply shows that multiple scientific arguments exist. I would just end by requesting you to simply not assume those who disagree with you do so out of ignorance of scientific discovery on this particularly sensitive issue. You kindly posted your source material, which I appreciate...and it exhibits you understand your argument. I can post as many sources that back up my argument....but that would not convince you of anything. So, we can essentially agree to disagree, and accept that this issue is unresolved scientifically.”
“"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resulting mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." -- Human Embryology, Bradley M. Patten
"The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being." -- Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N.4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Fertilization is that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual." -- Biology of Gestation, Dr. Louis Fridhanler
"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." -- Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, Drs. E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig
"Your true beginning was a split-second event when a single spermatozoon, one of millions of sperm cells from your father, joined an ovum (egg cell), one of the several hundred thousand ova produced and stored in your mother's body during her lifetime." -- Human Development, Diane E. Papalla and Sally Wendkos Olds”
“Is it really this hard to understand? Contraception is a part of health care. In no civilized country on earth is there any discussion of whether health insurance should or should not include prescription coverage of contraceptives. The ignorance and prudery of this country is simply shocking. Contraceptives are medicine. Medicine is part of health care. Only in Afghanistan and the United States could this even be a question. OF COURSE EMPLOYERS MUST PROVIDE PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE OF ALL MEDICAL TYPES INCLUDING CONTRACEPTIVES AND THEIR OWN PERSONAL RELIGIOUS VOODOO IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.”
“Corporations, you fail to understand, are run by human beings, all of whom have their personal belief systems, religious or otherwise. If a business wanted to have an all-vegetarian cafeteria in its building, those employees who want meat would still be free to check out the food court two blocks down. That wouldn't even necessarily be a religious belief, but one the business could still have.”
Father Jerusalem on Nov 26, 2013 at 20:14:32
“You can have your belief system. That's great.
But the employees have their belief systems too. And forcing YOUR beliefs ON them is a clear violation of Freedom of Religion.”
“I never claimed to be a part of any particular religion. What's that they say about assuming?”
Bhokara on Nov 26, 2013 at 20:23:26
“Did I at any point say you were? It was not I who made this an ad hominem argument. I merely said that civilized countries do not make health care laws based on religious voodoo. All civilized countries on earth have universal health care, and among those which do not, only the United States and Afghanistan allow health care issues to be framed by religious mumbo-jumbo.”
“"The company next door has employees getting contraception through thier health care and Hobby Lobby does not."
Then go work next door. Problem solved.
"You are fine with force as long as you agree with the policy being forced."
I'm going to explain this to you AGAIN. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing ANYTHING onto its employees, who are still fully capable and fully permitted to procure their contraceptives. It is YOU who is trying to force YOUR views onto someone else by making Hobby Lobby (or making whomever) be involved with artificial contraception against its will.
"You haven't made a single secular argument."
Your incapability to understand the word "secular" in no way means I am not making secular arguments.”
alacrity on Nov 28, 2013 at 00:36:32
“Your inability to understand the complexity and nuance of your own religious based and non-secular argument is not my responsibility....
It's worth noting that never before has the Supreme Court held that a for-profit corporation, rather than an actual person, has the right under the RFRA to refuse to abide by generally applicable laws and regulations. Doing so opens the door to a slew of issues: if you work for a Christian Scientist who believes illness should be cured by prayer, are they obligated to cover medical care at all? Should for-profit companies be allowed to refuse to hire or cover healthcare for married women if they believe that it's a woman's religious duty to raise children and stay in the home? If you sincerely believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality and promiscuity - a belief expressed by some of the most prominent members of the Christian right - should your company be able to opt out of covering HIV care for your employees? Since Obama's healthcare law also requires that employee health plans cover vaccinations, which some religious people oppose, should companies be allowed to refuse vaccine coverage for all employees and their dependents?
You are arguing ENTIRELY in favor of religious oppression of those who do not share the beliefs of the religious. NOT a secular position and not a secular argument. Basic logic and common sense apply. You either know this and are being purposefully obtuse and disingenuous, or you are just parroting Glen Beck.”