While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

[Raz]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

jk, you aren't utilizing language appropriately and that is probably why you are confused. The Hobby Lobby decision has restricted and denied absolutely nobody any health care coverage. No restrictions have been placed on what people can receive from insurance, and no control over one's health care coverage has been given to an employer as a result of this decision.

Why can't people see this decision for what it is? It is purely and entirely an exemption in a legal mandate for religious reasons. That's it. It's nothing more. It doesn't prevent anyone from getting any coverage they want. It doesn't restrict people employed by certain religious employers from receiving health care coverage. All this decision does is take the gun away from the head of employers on one of the thousands of legal mandates placed upon them. That's it. ...

... The people interested in controlling others and their health care decisions are those who rail against the Hobby Lobby decision. There is no logical reason to oppose the ruling if one accepts that people should be afforded the right to believe whatever they wish to believe and act accordingly.

+1.

[Raz]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Warren already has the base of the left and she would do well if she stuck to economic policies, attacked FIRE and corporatocracy, and thereby appealled to a wider swath of middle and lower classes, and leave the gender identify, gay marriage, global warming stuff alone - still can't fault her for being honest about her priorities, which unfortunately have occupied the leftist agenda for the past 40 years while the middle and working classes were sold out by both parties. Still, watching her debate ms Clinton would be quite entertaining as well as revealing

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...mandments.html

"We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect
this Earth." Global warming
"We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations,
and that means real net neutrality." REgulation of the Internet

"We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in
the workplace, it's true in all of America." Gay marriage
"And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to
their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it.
We will fight for it!" no conscience rights

+1.

[Raz]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Warren already has the base of the left and she would do well if she stuck to economic policies, attacked FIRE and corporatocracy, and thereby appealled to a wider swath of middle and lower classes, and leave the gender identify, gay marriage, global warming stuff alone - still can't fault her for being honest about her priorities, which unfortunately have occupied the leftist agenda for the past 40 years while the middle and working classes were sold out by both parties. Still, watching her debate ms Clinton would be quite entertaining as well as revealing

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...mandments.html

"We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect
this Earth." Global warming
"We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations,
and that means real net neutrality." REgulation of the Internet

"We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in
the workplace, it's true in all of America." Gay marriage
"And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to
their bodies. We will overturnHobby
Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!" no conscience rights

+1.

[Ghent12]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Reminds me of a prayer a teacher of mine once wrote:



Amen.

Good luck seeking deliverance from yourself. If you have nothing to contribute, no comment is necessary.

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

there was a moment, i forget when, when the automobile companies were pointing out that their overseas competitors had an advantage by virtue of not having to provide health insurance. somehow their complaint didn't get any traction.

OTOH - would say it DID 'gain traction' - cept it was in reverse, seeing as 2/3 of detroit's Big3 went down the tube - ford likely would've as well, had they not bet the company by going all-in (to the deep end of the debt pool, just before the entire economy - or whats left the productive economy, anyway - tanked...) ?

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Again, what possible harm can come from allowing people to do what they choose to do, provided that choice is not to harm another? Failing to answer makes me question your sincerity.

"provided that choice is not to harm another." do you mean "provided that choice DOES NOT harm another"? if so, i'll agree, because you then have to account for all externalities. in our employment based medical-care funding system, fraying requirement of coverage serves to harm A LOT of others.

so let us first construct a system which accounts for externalities- e.g. the effects of pollutants released, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced, accurate accounting for wear and tear on public good such as highways, and so on, and THEN we can afford agreements freely reached.

if otoh you restrict your limit to forbidding an agreement explicitly to harm another, you leave out all the externalities, and i'm not on board. in that context you need regulations.

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I would note that Quakers have rather strong beliefs about war. I wonder if they can now avoid paying the large fraction of taxes that are needed to fund our wars (or whatever we call them now). They have no corporate backing though...



Yes! Yet another reason to separate insurance from employment. '

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why the non-insurance corporate-people aren't pushing for this. Why don't the other corporate-persons gang up on Insurance?

there was a moment, i forget when, when the automobile companies were pointing out that their overseas competitors had an advantage by virtue of not having to provide health insurance. somehow their complaint didn't get any traction.

[LazyBoy]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i still want to know whether hobby-lobby-decision supporters think christian scientists should be able to refuse to offer health insurance altogether? and if not, why not? and should jehovahs witnesses be able to exclude coverage for transfusions? and if not, why not? those are sincerely held religious beliefs.

I would note that Quakers have rather strong beliefs about war. I wonder if they can now avoid paying the large fraction of taxes that are needed to fund our wars (or whatever we call them now). They have no corporate backing though...

3. Separate insurance from employment. If employers want to offer insurance as an incentive, they can offer what they like and employees can purchase supplemental plans for whatever they want that isn't covered. And if people don't agree with a company's philosophy they can hopefully find a job elsewhere and shop elsewhere as well.

Yes! Yet another reason to separate insurance from employment. '

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why the non-insurance corporate-people aren't pushing for this. Why don't the other corporate-persons gang up on Insurance?

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

...You are wrong about the justification for this ruling. It is about religious liberty, pure and simple, or at least that's how the majority on the court who ruled perceived it to be. Citing a different court's decision doesn't discount that motivation in the slightest.

Reminds me of a prayer a teacher of mine once wrote:

“Deliver me from men who are without doubt. Doubt makes a man decent."

Amen.

[Ghent12]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

i can't quite tell is your post is meant as very dry satire. if not, i just want to point out that we don't live in an ayn rand novel, but in the real-life united states of america. i will add that this country is the only developed country in which the provision of health insurance is based on the choices provided by the employer. there is no other country with this curious arrangement, and this arrangement has consequences. thus there are mandates that employers over a certain size provide health care insurance, and that said insurance provide a certain minimum standard of coverage. hobby lobby has over $2billion/year in revenue, and a commensurate number of employees. as for voluntary association, i suggest you go down to your local unemployment office, and do a survey about how the people in line there conceive of their potential relationship with a currently non-existent employer. i'd really like to hear what they have to tell you.

I am in agreement that the curious employment-linked health insurance arrangement is a terrible setup. If able, I would end all policies which incentivize that link over other arrangements immediately.

We do live in the real world, and that is why we cannot afford to burden employers and potential employers with unwieldy requirements just to hire someone to sweep the floors or any other menial job, leave alone the fulfilling careers changing the world. Better someone find employment without a health insurance program than to find no employment at all. Do you disagree with that basic premise?

Again, what possible harm can come from allowing people to do what they choose to do, provided that choice is not to harm another? Failing to answer makes me question your sincerity.

[Ghent12]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

The same court ruled in 1990 that Native Americans had no right to use Peyote in their religious ceremonies. In Employment Div. v. Smith. 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supremes ruled that The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use.

Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court and wrote that religious people had no presumptive exemption from general laws. As long as the law wasn't specifically directed against a religious group and was “neutral and generally applicable”—the Constitution offered no religious exemption. Little wonder so many seem confused about the court's logic in Hobby Lobby, inasmuch as they turned logic, the law and Constitution it on its head and inside out in order to get the outcomes they wanted. Whereas in 1990 no actual person (natural, God created entities in possession of divine spirit) has the right to exempt themselves from law based on claims of religious faith and practice, they now rule that fictional persons (corporations, dead and soulless creatures of law) indeed have the right to exempt themselves from laws based on claims of religion.

When the respondents were peyote eating Native Americans practicing their religion in private, the court thought there was every logical reason to place limits on persons acting on their religious beliefs when they were contrary to generally applied law. When respondents are rich, white, straight Christians who want to force relatively poor and powerless employees - never mind the whole of the country - to accommodate their their religions beliefs, they reverse themselves.

This case was never about religious freedom.

Past precedent or legal precedent as a concept or contention is a very dangerous thing, I will agree. Courts by their nature lack human character traits like the courage to do what is right, citing precedence. However, like all human institutions, courts can sometimes do the right thing.

You are wrong about the justification for this ruling. It is about religious liberty, pure and simple, or at least that's how the majority on the court who ruled perceived it to be. Citing a different court's decision doesn't discount that motivation in the slightest.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Yes the court is more conservative, but there is a swing vote that could see this issue as religious rights that have been denied, and rule in favor of Native Americans. I feel a clear majority of Americans would agree, as would I.

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Of course this is not the same court as 24 years ago. Plus with public viewpoints on marijuana having become far more liberal, there is a decent possibility a court today might rule for The Native Americans
use of Peyote in religious ceremonies.

We have to be careful of the apples and oranges of past court decisions applied to today's.

Thanks you, vt. Of course, you're correct to make the point. Nevertheless the court has become more conservative, not less, in the past 24 years.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Of course this is not the same court as 24 years ago. Plus with public viewpoints on marijuana having become far more liberal, there is a decent possibility a court today might rule for The Native Americans
use of Peyote in religious ceremonies.

We have to be careful of the apples and oranges of past court decisions applied to today's.

[shiny!]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

The same court ruled in 1990 that Native Americans had no right to use Peyote in their religious ceremonies. In Employment Div. v. Smith. 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supremes ruled that The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use.

Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court and wrote that religious people had no presumptive exemption from general laws. As long as the law wasn't specifically directed against a religious group and was “neutral and generally applicable”—the Constitution offered no religious exemption. Little wonder so many seem confused about the court's logic in Hobby Lobby, inasmuch as they turned logic, the law and Constitution it on its head and inside out in order to get the outcomes they wanted. Whereas in 1990 no actual person (natural, God created entities in possession of divine spirit) has the right to exempt themselves from law based on claims of religious faith and practice, they now rule that fictional persons (corporations, dead and soulless creatures of law) indeed have the right to exempt themselves from laws based on claims of religion.

When the respondents were peyote eating Native Americans practicing their religion in private, the court thought there was every logical reason to place limits on persons acting on their religious beliefs when they were contrary to generally applied law. When respondents are rich, white, straight Christians who want to force relatively poor and powerless employees - never mind the whole of the country - to accommodate their their religions beliefs, they reverse themselves.

This case was never about religious freedom.

Beautifully stated, Woodsman.