pizzazz wrote: Belial wrote:
pizzazz wrote:Perhaps you could explain how it is that not paying for something, constitutes repressing one's freedom to obtain it? "Freedom" to obtain or do something does not in any way mean that someone else has to pay for it. It means no one will stop you.
Because it's not how the system is set up to operate. Eschewing your employer's health plan and buying your own is prohibitively expensive. Buying medications off-plan is prohibitively expensive. It's why the law had to be passed in the first place. Refusing to comply is preventing people from getting birth control, and pretending that's not
the effect is stupid.
Yes, the system is set up stupidly. I said that. The solution is not a vast increase in government control over private businesses. Pretending that's a reasonable reaction is just as stupid.
What the hell do you mean "Vast increase". It's been the same rules for the last 30+ years. If you don't like that level of government influence fine, but the hyperbole that the government has suddenly started doing this in recent administrations is bullshit.
Secondly, reasonable responses in Washington DC...
A reasonable response would have included reforming the tax code to eliminate some of the insanity. It would have included some addressing of costs for procedures and drugs that are higher in the U.S. than most other developed nations. A reasonable response would have tweaked a lot of very powerful people and corporations greatly changing the rules of doing business and how a business in their industry makes profits.
And the last one is why the debate started with a broader examination of healthcare, but ended up being a single-topic cludge built on top of the existing system to attempt to achieve stated goals without actually 'reforming' the underlying system.
Like Belial said, get the underlying shit taken care of so we can have a system where individuals buying health insurance is economically on par with employee provided health insurance and we can deal with social outrages without having to worry about whether someone's social outrages are going to create an economic circumstance that physically harms people. Until that happens people still need equal -economic- access to health care regardless who their employers or insurance providers are.
Finally: "Expression" of religion. Nobody's saying the Catholic church can't complain about the law while preaching their religion, which last I checked their freedom to speak was in no way limited by any medical insurance laws. What they don't get to do is use the first amendment to skirt a law on the books that they disagree with. omgryebread
has -repeatedly- brought up the point that the freedom of speech does not automatically trump every other law out there, and that -multiple- administrations have defended the position that the U.S. Government has an overriding interest in seeing that health insurance is available regardless of employer.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. Later, Garrus was eaten by a shark. It is believed that the Point has perished in the accident. Back to you Bob.