The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Advertise here

Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #51    
Old January 24th, 2012, 08:25 PM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed

Advertise here
Welp I feel officially ignored. I know you mentioned that it's not about the tax, but the point is analogous anyway. There are religions such as Jainism that believe in avoiding death at all costs, to the point that they filter their water excessively so they don't accidentally kill tiny life forms by drinking them, and their religious leaders sweep the ground they're about to walk on so they don't accidentally step on any bugs and kill them. They're all vegetarians and avoid eating root vegetables, since you can take the leaf or fruit of a plant without killing the plant, but not the root. Say a group of these people were practicing in the United States. Do you think they should have the right to keep their tax money from being used in wars? How far does this extend? What about the Westboro Baptist Church, should they be able to make sure their taxes don't go towards anything that may help the LGBT community because it's against their beliefs?

Although to be honest, I'm not sure I understand the whole issue here, maybe I'm just not really that versed on how the insurance works. But isn't it how it works that the employee buys the drug, and then the company pays for it? Wouldn't the logical solution be to hire only practicing Catholics? While that is unfortunate for non-Catholics that currently work at a Catholic institution, it does seem like a solution that would be viable.

I would just like to point out in addition that there are instances in which birth control is used as a medication beyond its main purpose, I've known a lot of people that have.
__________________
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
Reply With Quote
  #52    
Old January 24th, 2012, 08:57 PM
jpp8's Avatar
jpp8
Producer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Nature: Modest
1. No, I don't have the advantage because of your religion. I have the advantage because of facts. Abortions of unborn fetuses, especially those in the first trimester, is just a removal cluster of cells. ALL cells have potential for human life. All of them. Exfoliation? Killing cells with potential for human life.

2. As Toujours pointed out, your beliefs shouldn't entitle you to a special privilege of dictating companies as to where their funds can and cannot be invested. Government should ensure equal opportunity for its citizens, not pander to beliefs of entitlement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53    
Old January 24th, 2012, 09:48 PM
Shanghai Alice's Avatar
Shanghai Alice
Exiled to Siberia
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Section Eight
Nature: Rash
1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.


2. In that case, why was there a big flareup when Sharia Law got taken out?

I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.



Anyway.

@Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"?

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.

1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.


2. In that case, why was there a big flareup when Sharia Law got taken out?

I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.



Anyway.

@Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"?

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.

Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.
__________________


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

Last edited by Shanghai Alice; January 24th, 2012 at 10:00 PM. Reason: Your double post has been automatically merged.
Reply With Quote
  #54    
Old January 24th, 2012, 10:00 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpp8 View Post
Abortions of unborn fetuses, especially those in the first trimester, is just a removal cluster of cells.
Ehhh, I don't know about that. I'd say only during the first trimester. Otherwise you're getting into formed organs and eventually live-births and stages where if a baby were born significantly premature that there would be effort made to save it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55    
Old January 24th, 2012, 10:11 PM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice View Post
@Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"?
They have over a year at least to phase in the new insurance programs. That's plenty of time to tell people that aren't Catholic to start looking for a new job without screwing them over.
__________________
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
Reply With Quote
  #56    
Old January 25th, 2012, 01:36 AM
Went's Avatar
Went
Blue
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Madrid
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Send a message via Skype™ to Went
If we allowed people to opt-out of paying taxes if the Government is going to use that money for things they consider are morally wrong, lots of people would not pay for most of them. More money for them!

No, seriously. I'm a pacifist, so give me back the army fund percentage. And the money which is used to murder fully-born-and-alive people sentenced to death penalty. And I don't believe in police so give me that part back. And I have my kid homeschooled and so on and so on.

I feel I'm repeating already existing arguments but our taxes go in a full package which the Government uses for whatever they feel fit. One part from my taxes is given to the Catholic Church (here in Spain) and hell if I disagree and protest against it. But I wouldn't stop paying my taxes for that. That's not how it works.

The result of your plan? The State would have seriious funding problems, and social services would be greatly damaged. Because you aren't the only one who sees how their taxes are being used to pay something that's morally wrong for them. And, if we allow you to cheat the system, we'll have to allow everyone to. It's a good way to take a Government down, though, denything them money based on moral grounds.
__________________
"Your loyalties... are they clear?"

"Yes sir. They are."

Reply With Quote
  #57    
Old January 25th, 2012, 05:55 AM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice View Post
1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.
1. Why is it that when it's human, it's a abortion, and if it's a chicken, its a omelet? If a fetus is a human being, why doesn't the Census count them? If a Fetus is a human being, why don't they have a funeral when their is a miscarriage? If a fetus is a human being, then why does a woman say I have one child and one on the way instead of just saying I have two children?

And yes, all taken from George Carlin's '96 show. But the questions that he asked still apply to today.

2. So, its OK for your sister to take pills that prevent the medical condition known as Pregnancy, but its wrong for anyone else to? Unless you are referring to other medical conditions, in which case your arguments against birth control pills being bad pretty much goes out the window. Even then, it matters not the condition because even IF its being used for something else, the fact is that it's still birth control which is meant to stop the creation of life.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #58    
Old January 25th, 2012, 06:43 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
1. Why is it that when it's human, it's a abortion, and if it's a chicken, its a omelet? If a fetus is a human being, why doesn't the Census count them? If a Fetus is a human being, why don't they have a funeral when their is a miscarriage? If a fetus is a human being, then why does a woman say I have one child and one on the way instead of just saying I have two children?

And yes, all taken from George Carlin's '96 show. But the questions that he asked still apply to today.
Chicken eggs we eat are unfertilized.

And there may not be a funeral over a miscarriage because usually that's something you keep private. I don't have any personal experience with this, but generally people feel shame and embarrassment. Even that early on in your pregnancy you don't announce generally, because there is the possibility of a miscarriage. And even then, the parents do grieve for a while.

Because it is on the way. It's like if you order something from Amazon. You've paid for it, it's yours, but it hasn't arrived yet. It exists but it hasn't arrived yet. And maybe it'll get lost along the way. Don't count all your chickens until they've hatched.... to bring your analogy full circle.
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; January 25th, 2012 at 06:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #59    
Old January 25th, 2012, 10:42 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
If you want to be with the program, but not have your money go to contraception, would you still be okay paying the same amount as people who do want contraception?

So yeah. I find it hard to see how someone could want to be part of a program, like health insurance, that includes things they object to, like contraception. Even if your money doesn't go directly to paying for the pill or condoms it's still going to pay for something like cancer screening and that will free up money to go to contraception. The bottom line doesn't change.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #60    
Old January 25th, 2012, 12:15 PM
jpp8's Avatar
jpp8
Producer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Nature: Modest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice View Post
1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.

This is not a thread for abortion, however.
Nah, I said EVERYTHING has potential for human life. If you outlaw abortion on the grounds that it kills human life, then you'd have to outlaw a bunch of other basic everyday things as well because that too is killing human life. I can see how you would get the two mixed up though.
Quote:
I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none.

Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned.
In an ideal situation, yes, nobody should judge based on race, but there is and likely will always be inherent racism in the system. "Blank Slates" are anything but. To give marginalized persons an even playing field, they are given aid in order to reach the same level as privileged persons. To say this aid is preferential treatment is similar an older sibling's jealousy toward their newborn sibling because they get new baby toys and all they have are their laptops and smartphones.
Quote:
And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes.
"The only moral abortion is my abortion". Birth control is still birth control. Do you think your sister would appreciate it if you supported government making it harder for her to obtain her medication?
Quote:
Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? First you go off saying that this isn't the thread for it and then you keep bringing it up? Second, a common misconception of the pro-choice movement is that people think we're going to force people to get abortions. That is not the pro-choice movement. The pro-choice movement advocates a woman's right to her body and her choice of whether or not to follow through with her pregnancy. It's not rocket science to give women complete control over their bodies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post

Because it is on the way. It's like if you order something from Amazon. You've paid for it, it's yours, but it hasn't arrived yet. It exists but it hasn't arrived yet. And maybe it'll get lost along the way. Don't count all your chickens until they've hatched.... to bring your analogy full circle.
And to complete your analogy, what if a mother didn't intentionally order the package and it was an accident? What if someone forced it on her? What if, somewhere along the line, her situation changed or she realized she would no longer be able to afford this package? Should she not be able to return or cancel her order? People always say "regifting" as if it's a guarantee that the package will receive an owner, but the process of delivery is already incredibly painful to go through and there's no guarantee that the package will find an owner since there's already a terribly large backlog of regifted orders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
If you want to be with the program, but not have your money go to contraception, would you still be okay paying the same amount as people who do want contraception?

So yeah. I find it hard to see how someone could want to be part of a program, like health insurance, that includes things they object to, like contraception. Even if your money doesn't go directly to paying for the pill or condoms it's still going to pay for something like cancer screening and that will free up money to go to contraception. The bottom line doesn't change.
This pretty much. It's all or nothing. Your money either goes to an organization that funds availability of contraception as well as provide you with healthcare, or you pay nothing at all and thus receive no healthcare. As Went pointed out, taxes don't pander to your beliefs since people can exploit these tax loopholes to try to obtain non-existent taxes. Additionally, with Obama's mandated health insurance policy to ensure that no American is denied coverage, you'll just have to accept that taxpayer money will be used to fund projects such as contraception and abortion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #61    
Old January 25th, 2012, 12:24 PM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpp8 View Post
"The only moral abortion is my abortion". Birth control is still birth control. Do you think your sister would appreciate it if you supported government making it harder for her to obtain her medication?
Just pointing out that when I said 'birth control is used as medication as well', it's under the assumption that the person in question isn't having sex. It can be used especially to help with intense cramping menstrual cycles. If you're using birth control but not having sex, then there's no chance of an abortion or contraception.
__________________
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
Reply With Quote
  #62    
Old January 25th, 2012, 12:47 PM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Just pointing out that when I said 'birth control is used as medication as well', it's under the assumption that the person in question isn't having sex. It can be used especially to help with intense cramping menstrual cycles. If you're using birth control but not having sex, then there's no chance of an abortion or contraception.
Not to get too far off topic, but what is one to think if, in the middle of taking one's not-for-use-as-contraception birth control, one decides she's just too tempted by the flesh and ends up putting that contraception to another use?
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #63    
Old January 25th, 2012, 12:53 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpp8 View Post
And to complete your analogy, what if a mother didn't intentionally order the package and it was an accident? What if someone forced it on her? What if, somewhere along the line, her situation changed or she realized she would no longer be able to afford this package? Should she not be able to return or cancel her order? People always say "regifting" as if it's a guarantee that the package will receive an owner, but the process of delivery is already incredibly painful to go through and there's no guarantee that the package will find an owner since there's already a terribly large backlog of regifted orders.
That's not entirely related to the line in question of Mr. X's post that I was commenting on. But whatever.

I am pro-choice, but with restrictions. I am not anti-abortion. And I am certainly not against contraception. However, for the reasons I already discussed in my previous post I'm not fond of abortion after the first trimester, with the exception being for situations like emergencies, complications, health reasons, etc. And very much against partial-birth abortions. That you're killing a baby in one room, but in the room next door trying to save a baby of the same age who was born prematurely is just mind-baffling.

I see abortion as serving a medical purpose. But, if you want it to use it just as contraception, I think an abortion should be the last resort; but that's their choice if they choose to do it. Personally, I think adoption is the better alternative as your last resort, but I don't want to deny them that option either.

But, to continue this analogy game... Yes, they should be able to cancel or return her order. But, within the parameters. Most retailers have a return and cancellation policy. Return within the first 30 days, for example. Or cancel your order before it ships. So... continuing with this analogy, if you're going to abort - do it during the first trimester, not after. That's your window of opportunity.

But, we're drifting from the topic of the thread now. Which, to reiterate... my stance was that they shouldn't be exempt, no.
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; January 25th, 2012 at 01:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #64    
Old January 25th, 2012, 01:12 PM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
Not to get too far off topic, but what is one to think if, in the middle of taking one's not-for-use-as-contraception birth control, one decides she's just too tempted by the flesh and ends up putting that contraception to another use?
According to Catholics, that would be a sin and one would have to confess it, sincerely regret it and resolve not to do it again, and then will be forgiven by a priest and it's as if the sin was never committed since it's washed from the record by God.

Of course, it's the 'regret and resolve' part that usually gives Catholics trouble.
__________________
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
Reply With Quote
  #65    
Old January 25th, 2012, 01:17 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post


According to Catholics, that would be a sin and one would have to confess it, sincerely regret it and resolve not to do it again, and then will be forgiven by a priest and it's as if the sin was never committed since it's washed from the record by God.

Of course, it's the 'regret and resolve' part that usually gives Catholics trouble.
Personally, I've got issues seeking forgiveness from a priest. But that's another matter XD
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66    
Old January 25th, 2012, 01:39 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Given the number of priests that were on the news in the last few years for molestation, it seems like they don't even follow the words that they preach. Arguably though, this stuff is what happens when you tell a person to repress any and all sexual urges that they have. Sooner or later, some of them will stop repressing them and seek whatever release they can get.

The ones in the news though are just the ones we know of. Odd's are, the corruption reaches much further then is currently known.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape

Last edited by Mr. X; January 25th, 2012 at 02:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67    
Old February 13th, 2012, 08:01 AM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
Of the pigeon, by the pigeon, for the pigeon
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Hi you guys there's more news on this!

Obama announces birth control compromise

Thoughts? I find it pretty agreeable and agree with the idea that if people still aren't happy with it they seem to be "advocating for a system where religious groups could actually bar all their employees from taking birth control, regardless of who pays for it". But I'd like to see if any people who aren't quite as liberal as me agree with that. The article mentions that a few Catholic universities have come out supporting it already as well.
__________________
Theme
Pair
VM
PM
Reply With Quote
  #68    
Old February 13th, 2012, 08:25 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Great compromise. Personally, I don't think there needed to be one and that whiners should have shut up about their "religious freedoms" that they didn't seem to care about when 28 states already had laws like this on the books, but that's just me. I mean, when you get all these tax breaks from the government because you're a religious institution you're still playing in the secular world and have to play by some of its rules. Can't have it both ways.

Aaaaaannnnnnddddd........There's a bit more to add to this news. Mitch Mcconnell, leading Republican in the US Senate, is supporting a proposed law that would allow any employer to exclude covering any birth control they wanted to based on "moral grounds." Yeah. First it was all up in arms about religion being trampled over (which I think was just a political stance anyway) and when Obama finds a clever way around that to make everyone happy (except insurance agencies, probably) they can't let him have his victory and need to spin it into something that still vilifies him as an anti-religious crusader who forces you to do something against your morals.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #69    
Old February 16th, 2012, 03:28 AM
Blue Nocturne's Avatar
Blue Nocturne
Not THAT one.
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
I'm sure this has already been brought up, but I'm fundamentally opposed to the way money in the military is spent. I don't like that my tax money is being spent on wars we have no real place in. Where can I sign up to bump down my payments? (I'm neither American, nor a tax payer, but this is more for the sake of argument)
__________________


"Lightning. It flashes bright, then fades away.
It can't protect. It only destroys."
Reply With Quote
  #70    
Old February 16th, 2012, 05:50 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
Great compromise. Personally, I don't think there needed to be one and that whiners should have shut up about their "religious freedoms" that they didn't seem to care about when 28 states already had laws like this on the books, but that's just me. I mean, when you get all these tax breaks from the government because you're a religious institution you're still playing in the secular world and have to play by some of its rules. Can't have it both ways.
Well, who cares about what those other states do. It's only a problem because Obama proposed it.

I don't know, the compromised wasn't needed, but whatever works I guess. As long as more people have access to health care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
Aaaaaannnnnnddddd........There's a bit more to add to this news. Mitch Mcconnell, leading Republican in the US Senate, is supporting a proposed law that would allow any employer to exclude covering any birth control they wanted to based on "moral grounds." Yeah. First it was all up in arms about religion being trampled over (which I think was just a political stance anyway) and when Obama finds a clever way around that to make everyone happy (except insurance agencies, probably) they can't let him have his victory and need to spin it into something that still vilifies him as an anti-religious crusader who forces you to do something against your morals.
Oh boy. I don't like this. Let's deny access to healthcare based on your employers point of view. The religious freedom argument... had some legs to it even though I didn't agree with it. But, this is just stupid. This is a slippery slope. What if you have an employer who only supports holistic methods? We're putting a lot of faith in assuming that corporations are moral.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71    
Old March 11th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire
でんきタイプ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
Last I saw on this issue, some kind of compromise was reached, IIRC. I'll have go look an the details, but I vaguely remember a court backing up the President on this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72    
Old March 26th, 2012, 05:25 AM
Netto Azure's Avatar
Netto Azure
<<38th Generation Leaf Knight>>
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Holy Temple, Kingdom of Forgotten Sound
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Gentle

Quote:
A Republican-led challenge to the Democrats' most ambitious social legislation in a generation goes before the Supreme Court on Monday, with President Obama's healthcare law hanging in the balance.

The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, may decide whether the Constitution puts any limit on Congress' power to regulate not just healthcare, but the entire economy.

- The arguments begin with a technical discussion of whether the proposed penalty for not buying health insurance amounts to a tax. If the justices find that it is, under an old law they may have to postpone ruling on most of the issues until after the penalty goes into effect in 2014.

- On Tuesday, the justices will get to the heart of the matter, debating whether Congress has the authority to make people purchase a product: health insurance.

- On Wednesday, they will talk about whether the rest of the law can stand on its own even if the insurance mandate is struck down, and the separate issue of whether the federal government’s plan to fund a massive expansion of state Medicaid programs violates states’ rights under the Constitution.

Since 1936, the justices have not struck down a major federal regulatory law on the grounds that Congress went too far. The court's forbearance on matters touching Congress' authority to regulate commerce has allowed Washington's power to grow, to protect civil rights and the environment, to ensure safer automobiles and drugs, and to help boost the wages and benefits of workers.

All the while, however, conservatives and business groups have insisted there must be a limit. Otherwise, they say, an all-powerful federal government would be free to write its own rules.

Such a limit -- if the Constitution indeed sets one -- is at the heart of the healthcare case.
I am quite amazed at how fast the US Supreme Court has moved on taking this very landmark case up. And the fact that it's in the middle of a full-scale Presidential Campaign Post-Citizens United. Usually it takes a case 4 years or so to get into the court's plate.

Anyways if the Individual Mandate does get struck down, it takes away any viable "Market-oriented" reform for the Healthcare field. In my opinion it was a seriously short-sighted attempt to score some political points to target the individual mandate considering the fact that the current system is stuck between Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, not having all of the younger generation in the insurance pool, a patchwork of payment systems that includes thousands of insurance companies, the Veterans Affairs Hospital System, The Native American Reservation health system, Medicaid and Medicare.

Anyways, you guys know my position. I support the law etc.

But in the end if it does get struck down and the opposition celebrates it only gives alternatives that are very unpalatable to the opposition as it's going to be a more Social Security/Medicare route as our health system becomes thoroughly unsustainable in the near future.
__________________
Elmairy Leaf
Class: Leaf Knight
LV. Moderator








“Sun, are you really all right? Does it hurt? Do you need help? Are you sure?”

Reply With Quote
  #73    
Old March 26th, 2012, 07:54 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
I don't think it'll get shot down. I think enough judges will pull for it.

Forgive my non-American understanding... but if it doesn't mesh well with that sacred piece of paper why not just ammend it like has been done many times over?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74    
Old March 26th, 2012, 09:20 AM
Jay_Foxx's Avatar
Jay_Foxx
Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Nature: Timid
Send a message via Skype™ to Jay_Foxx
I've been watching this conversation from the sidelines with some interest for a while now. Although I haven't contributed to the conversation, I feel it necessary to point out this one interesting fact:

Religious run organizations, such as hospitals and schools, object to the taxes they pay to the government going towards allowing women to kill unborn babies. And yet, they do not raise the same objection to their taxes paying for a soldier to go kill a Muslim.

I find that very interesting.
__________________

JAY
3411-1525-5963

Dark-Type Safari with: Sneasel, Vullaby & Liepard
Personal Website
Canadaquaria Forum nScale.net
"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
Reply With Quote
  #75    
Old March 26th, 2012, 12:13 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
But (Forgive me, I'm misquoting this... I know.) killing a heratic is not murder. Or something. (It was in a movie about the crusades.)

But still, this is how things usually are for them. They want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.

I think that this case could easily decide our next president though. If this law is struck down, odd's are that Obama is getting replaced. If it isn't, odds are that Obama will be staying for another 4 years.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Advertise here
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.