Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured....but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

Given that there people who don't have identification papers who have managed to vote in many elections it is incumbent upon the government not the governed to prove citizenry....and since there is no wide spread prevalence of election fraud it is even more imperative for the government make a strong case for these voter ID laws.

A poll tax by any other name is a poll tax, especially when it is enacted during an election year.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Given that there people who don't have identification papers who have managed to vote in many elections it is incumbent upon the government not the governed to prove citizenry....and since there is no wide spread prevalence of election fraud it is even more imperative for the government make a strong case for these voter ID laws.

A poll tax by any other name is a poll tax, especially when it is enacted during an election year.

The only reason I can see why people object to this law is that they beleive that some people are to dumb to bring an ID to vote. Hell, even if they forget their ID they can still vote and their ID checked following the election. BTW that quote did not say one thing about voter ID.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The only reason I can see why people object to this law is that they beleive that some people are to dumb to bring an ID to vote. Hell, even if they forget their ID they can still vote and their ID checked following the election. BTW that quote did not say one thing about voter ID.

It's not that they are too dumb, it is that they have never had an ID or needed one. And the implication of your statement can't be misconstrued to mean anything other than for a citizen to show some kind of an identificaiton to "prove" their ability to vote.

There are two ways to prove citizenry and both require the government to be proactive in the verification process. One way places unnecessary burden upon the citizens and the other does not.

The burdensome way is what unscrupulous Republicans are doing which is to force citizens to spend money and energy to obtain a passport, birth certificate or a drivers license obtained by first proving citizenship. And if they don't have any documents at all they have to look to the government, the same government asking them to prove citizenship, to get more documents that show they are indeed citizens.

The unburdensome way is what we do here in Washington state. Anyone can show up to the DMV and register to vote or reigister online. Once the state has your information it checks your name and information against a database that contains all voters eligable to vote based on national citizenship and felons records. Once the election is complete the voting records are made available for participating parties to see and any party can challenge a voter's vote. The voter is then notified of the challenge and they have until the date the election is suppose to be certified prove that the challenge is unfounded.

At the end of the day what we in Washington state is what every state should be doing regardless of a citizens ability to show an ID. Common sense tells you that the government should proactively verify whether a voter can vote in an election cycle and if they can do that then why do you even need an ID? You can't tell me that the government that issued you an ID that proves your citizenship status doesn't know your citizenship status or can't verify it.


Innocent until proven guilty, you understand?

[12thMan]

Sammy, here you go. Premiums set to drop for women. I'll get to those other links later.

Health Insurance Prices For Women Set To Drop : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

[CRedskinsRule]

Looking at one sampling of the detail points on the medical survey (it won't let me cut and paste, so here is the specific link:MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE)

Under timeliness of care:
Waiting time to see a specialist less than 4 weeks: US rank #1, (with 74% saying true, next closest was 69%, with others in the 40-50% area)

Had to wait over 4 months for elective surgery: US rank #3 (with only 8% saying true, others had percentages of over 25%)

But one we come in last : Primary care practices that have an arrangement where patients can be seen by a doctor or nurse if needed when the practice is closed, not including ER (high is 89%, we are at 29%) but why do they say not including ER, that clearly would skew against how our system works. Add in ER as an option, and I imagine it would be a much closer comparison.

an axe to grind is an axe to grind whether liberal or conservative based.

[That Guy]

if you have money, the US healthcare system as currently implemented is the greatest thing ever. ask anyone in the nfl how long they have to wait to see a doctor or get surgery.

[mlmpetert]

@ NCSkins. The first 30 seconds:

Ali G- Politics and Voting - YouTube

[Slingin Sammy 33]

15 year olds, free sterilizations under Obamacare in Oregon....WITHOUT parental consent.

Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free--Without Parental Consent | CNSNews.com

[Hog1]

It takes the.....FED to raise a child?

[DynamiteRave]

What 15 year old would want to be sterilized? Really?

I could believe in an extreme case, like women (or girls) who are transgender and have no desire to have children.

But if I offered to chop your nuts off right now, I doubt you'd be jumping at the opportunity.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

What 15 year old would want to be sterilized? Really?

I could believe in an extreme case, like women (or girls) who are transgender and have no desire to have children.

But if I offered to chop your nuts off right now, I doubt you'd be jumping at the opportunity.

What? Didn't you know? That's the new hipster thing to do. Run down to your local clinic and get sterilized. All the cool kids are doing it! I imagine our deficit is going to really increase with all these hipsters. DAMN YOU KIDS!

[That Guy]

SS, you don't possibly think this is a bit of a strawman here?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

One of the first battles against the ObamaCare HHS Mandate, win for religious freedom...for now.

Catholic business owners who beat back ObamaCare denied award from Denver | Fox News

[Daseal]

The second a business tries to roadblock healthcare, I'd start dropping tax breaks/etc. If you're catholic/religious and don't believe in contreception, great. However, you don't have the right to push your views on other people. No one is forcing anyone to use contreception, but they want to make sure it is available to everyone that wants it. That is not stepping on anyones freedom or beliefs. If YOU don't believe in it, than don't use it -- but don't force YOUR beliefs on other people.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Daseal

The second a business tries to roadblock healthcare, I'd start dropping tax breaks/etc. If you're catholic/religious and don't believe in contreception, great. However, you don't have the right to push your views on other people. No one is forcing anyone to use contreception, but they want to make sure it is available to everyone that wants it. That is not stepping on anyones freedom or beliefs. If YOU don't believe in it, than don't use it -- but don't force YOUR beliefs on other people.

Hold on here. It is no secret to anyone who seeks employment with a Catholic owned business, charity, hospital, etc. that you won't get contraception, abortion drugs or sterilization in a health plan. YOU don't like it, don't work there. The business in the lawsuit is a private business and doesn't get any tax breaks from the fed.

Let's be real about this, contraceptives cost $ 30/mo. or less. If you as an employee choose to work at a Catholic run organization, you make the choice to pay the $ 30 /mo.

This is a case of the federal gov't attempting to force/fine/coerce not just Catholic, but any business/hospital/charitable organization that holds religious beliefs that are counter to providing these services, to violate those beliefs. Whether you believe in contraception or not isn't the issue. The issue is; can the federal gov't force a business/charity/hospital to provide a service/product that is against a core belief. FYI, most Americans are on the side of a religious exemption.

To avoid this, Catholic organizations would need to employ and serve Catholics only....another deeply held religious belief that employment is available to all and service is to all.