So is this proof some rebublicans don't care about anyone?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. steve knight, Feb 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2012

    steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    How can this benefit anyone? I mean it could effect Christians (you know this is all about Christians) or anyone with refusal of insurance for anyone or anything. The potential for prejudice is amazing. Of course they would only do it for birth control right right?

     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    Good luck trying to get this passed.

    I have to admit being torn between horror at seeing them attempt something this stupid...

    ...and joy at seeing them attempt something this stupid.
     
  3. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #3
    Yep but would it really benefit them? I mean it could backfire and hurt everyone including the supporters. But then they would scream Religious persecution.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Insane. But let them keep doing things like this.
     
  5. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #5
    I am not so quick to laugh this feeble effort off.

    They will follow this with something softer, which will appear to be conciliatory.

    This is ********, for the remaining proposed legislation will still stomp all over Woman's rights.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  8. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #8
    Not really the best epithet, you know? A "publican" is a person who sells beer and ale (in his pub), so the Republicans must be trying to sell ...
     
  9. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #9
    santorum?
     
  10. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #10
    This is what I think. It's another "If we propose something totally-bats***-crazy™, then we can water it down to only f'in-crazy® and the people will eat it up, thinking we compromised".

    True story...a friend of mine (from high school, not close, but good enough to be a facebook friend) actually works for Roy Blunt. I would be interested to hear her position on this one.
     
  11. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #11
    The Federal government has no constitutional right to mandate any of this. Period.
     
  12. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #12
    You know...sometimes I wish they'd just do away with the constitution altogether, except maybe the Bill Of Rights section. This enumerated powers crap has stifled far too much.

    There, I said it.
     
  13. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #13
    There's also nothing in the constitution to prevent them from mandating these things. Ever think of that?
     
  14. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #14
    Do these people have a lobotomy, to be in the Republican party?:confused:


    These people are crazy if they think this is a good idea.
     
  15. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #15
    Fixed that for you.
     
  16. jeremy h, Feb 16, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2012

    jeremy h macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Sorry, I'm probably being thick here - can someone say if I've got this right...

    In the US pretty much everyone who's employed gets health insurance through your job. The state provides basic emergency care otherwise if you're unemployed etc.

    This health care is provided by third party companies independent of the employer you work for and they are mandated to provide a full range of health care. However, this bill if it became law, would mean that your employer could pick and choose what the health care provider would cover you for, without any recourse to you?
     
  17. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #17
    No surprise there... Has pandering to religious zealots ever fallen out of fashion within the Republican Party in recent times?
     
  18. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #18
    I would certainly not say "pretty much everyone who's employed". I don't know what the stat is, though.

    Yes, but you will get a bill for it. It's not covered by taxes or anything. Whether you can pay that bill or not is another matter.

    Sounds about right.
     
  19. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #19
    At present, this is entirely optional on the part of the employer. People working part-time rarely get coverage through their employer. Also, contract workers (temps, for instance, and others like, say, cab drivers) do not typically get healthcare support from their contract employers.

    Independent in the sense that they are usually a separate business. Employers select an insurer (or sometimes two or three the employee can choose).

    This may vary from state to state. AFAIK, there has not been a requirement for the range of coverage. Often, insurance companies have hedged their bets with things like a thousand-dollar annual deductible before benefits begin to be paid and lifetime limits on how much can be paid for certain types of conditions.

    US healthcare has been tailored toward market forces and profitability. AHCA was supposed to correct some of that. How well it works remains to be seen.
     
  20. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #20
    More than 200 years of jurisprudence disagrees with you.
     
  21. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    That has never stopped anyone with RWMD1 before


    1. (Right Wing Mental Disorder).
     
  22. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #22
    You are wrong about that. Period.

    However, perhaps you meant to say that insurance is an unwise method of providing for health care?

    Fair enough. I understand how we got where we are today, but, as a point of reference, things generally worked better under the old (e.g. county hospital) system. It was a lot cheaper, partly because there was little paperwork. Of course, how good the care was varied a great deal depending on what county you lived in. How would that work today when travel is so cheap and plentiful?

    But, Free Markets just don't do a very good job of providing health care for the poor. Perhaps we should rethink and redesign the whole thing -- that is, how to provide health care for the poor (often includes the elderly).
     
  23. h00ligan macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    A hot desert
    #23
    We don't know, because it doesn't exist. We have too many federal laws screwing up real competition in the insurance field.
     
  24. WestonHarvey1 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #24
    You guys asked for this when you demanded your unconstitutional health care law. Now part of it tramples the First Amendment and you're just going to have to deal with the repercussions.

    This was a non-issue through all of American history until now, thanks to you.

    Deal with it.

    ----------

    Yes there is. There's a very, very specific part of the Constitution that prevents them from mandating these things. It's called the Tenth Amendment, which reads:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    I think the reading is wrong. The requirement, especially the compromise, doesn't require a "tamp[ing]" of the First Amendment. The framing that religious freedom allows Catholic organizations to refuse to provide birth control is flawed.


    This is subject to interpretation, as the widely quoted decision from the Supreme Court in United States v. Darby (1931):

     

Share This Page