RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too?

RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MsMJAY -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 8:30:49 PM)
We are sort of in agreement concerning the a la carte. Except my definition of a la carte means that health insurance should not be linked to employment at all. Every person should be allowed to purchase and pick their own health insurance and then there would be no need for ridiculous crap like this to junk up the court system. In this particular case, however, that option is not yet available. The law is that insurance companies have to provide certain minimum preventive care. Birth control is on that list. This is not about a company providing a benefit. It is about a company controlling how an employee uses a benefit once it has been given. The employer has as much right dictating medical care as they do telling an employee how to spend their paycheck. (They are both part of your "package.") And somehow these types of situations seem to usually be directed at women and their vaginas. Just once I would like to see a Supreme Court case arguing about what kind of medical treatment or medication is allowed concerning a man's penis. The only hope I have for this is that this type of craziness will eventually pave the way for single payer. quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY Why should a corporation be able to tell an insurance provider to ignore the law that everyone else has to follow? I'm not suggesting that a corporation should be allowed to "tell" an insurance provider anything. I'm a supporter of an a-la-cart insurance system. Companies should have the option to tailor the insurance package they offer to employees however they want it...or nothing at all if they choose. If an employee doesn't like the package they should be able to purchase any kind of supplemental coverage they want. quote: Why should the corporation be allowed discriminate against women solely based on the corporation's religious beliefs? Religion or not, a corporation should be allowed to offer whatever benefits to it's employees it wants to...or none. quote: For that matter why should "a separate entity, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of the law" (text book definition of a corporation) even be allowed to have religious beliefs? I'm not suggesting they should be. In general, I find the whole concept of treating corporations as people with the right to religious beliefs completely ludicrous...except perhaps if the business itself is a religious organization like the Catholic or Mormon churches.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 8:54:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie As I said, no rational person could take my factual citing of what was in the ruling, and honestly think it was advocacy of the unrelated bizzaro world crap that you fabricated and claimed I had posted. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Someone hacked your account you should look into that. quote: Used what the CU case actually said... that just because 2 or more people have formed a group, doesn't automatically take away their individual rights... like voting. And yes, it will be an interesting case, I suspect. If a shareholder does not give up his "individual rights" in relation to the company he owns then it follows that a single Christian Scientist owning a single share of a company can prevent that corporation from providing health insurance at all. Otherwise you are privileging one owner over another. And what happens when I buy a share in the same company with my newly minted religious belief that any company I own must provide comprehensive health insurance... Which is why the rulings in favor of this claim are beyond stupid and should have been rejected by every appellate court that heard them.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 9:16:14 PM)
And exactly which appellate courts have rejected which Supreme Court rulings? You've gone from trolling, to lying, to la-la land. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie As I said, no rational person could take my factual citing of what was in the ruling, and honestly think it was advocacy of the unrelated bizzaro world crap that you fabricated and claimed I had posted. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Someone hacked your account you should look into that. quote: Used what the CU case actually said... that just because 2 or more people have formed a group, doesn't automatically take away their individual rights... like voting. And yes, it will be an interesting case, I suspect. If a shareholder does not give up his "individual rights" in relation to the company he owns then it follows that a single Christian Scientist owning a single share of a company can prevent that corporation from providing health insurance at all. Otherwise you are privileging one owner over another. And what happens when I buy a share in the same company with my newly minted religious belief that any company I own must provide comprehensive health insurance... Which is why the rulings in favor of this claim are beyond stupid and should have been rejected by every appellate court that heard them.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 9:42:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY We are sort of in agreement concerning the a la carte. Except my definition of a la carte means that health insurance should not be linked to employment at all. Even as an added benefit offered by the company? quote: Every person should be allowed to purchase and pick their own health insurance and then there would be no need for ridiculous crap like this to junk up the court system. Agreed. quote: The employer has as much right dictating medical care as they do telling an employee how to spend their paycheck. Also agree quote: Just once I would like to see a Supreme Court case arguing about what kind of medical treatment or medication is allowed concerning a man's penis. At the rate things are deteriorating, I imagine those cases are coming soon. [:)]

MsMJAY -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 10:00:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY We are sort of in agreement concerning the a la carte. Except my definition of a la carte means that health insurance should not be linked to employment at all. Even as an added benefit offered by the company? Added? Yes; but it should not be the only (or even primary) means of obtaining coverage the way it has been for so many Americans for so long. Affordable healthcare should be available to the masses, not based on your employment the way it has been in the US. You should be able to purchase decent coverage at affordable rates regardless of whether or not your employer offers it as a benefit.

Phydeaux -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 10:59:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Bullshit back at you. Since I"m more inclined to tangle with trolls... Any person can purchase stock in publicly traded companies. That does not mean that person's point of view reflects the coorporate strategy or values. Much less a privately held corporation. Suppose I were an individual. I want to hire people. But, being catholic, I don't want to offer insurance that offers birth control subsidies. Now, are you really saying that because I am catholic, I am not afforded the ability to enjoy the same protections and legal remedies that other people are? Ie., the ability to form corporations and protect assets? Prima facie fails on a X amendment basis. Your religious liberty ends at your nose. You as a business owner cannot dictate how money or benefits you provide to your employees are used. A catholic business owner can no more dictate that their health insurance policy not cover contraception than you can dictate that the money you pay your employees cannot be used to purchase condoms. The idea that a corporation, which no matter what you think is not special if it is private or public, could do so is patently absurd. And the fact is that if the Court finds that a shareholders religious beliefs carry over to the corporation then a single Christian Scientist owner a single share of a corporation could force it to not provide health insurance at all and that is clearly not what the laws establishing corporations intends. Personally, I think that the government will rule in favor of obama care. As they will use the wrong standard. But again - not as clear as you represent. The supreme courts demolished government's ability to compel a fine on the basis of the interstate commerce clause; they upheld it solely as a function of the ability to tax. However, it is unclear that the ability to tax will trump the enumerated freedom of religion.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 4:54:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny We are sort of in agreement concerning the a la carte. Except my definition of a la carte means that health insurance should not be linked to employment at all. Even as an added benefit offered by the company? Added? Yes; but it should not be the only (or even primary) means of obtaining coverage the way it has been for so many Americans for so long. Affordable healthcare should be available to the masses, not based on your employment the way it has been in the US. You should be able to purchase decent coverage at affordable rates regardless of whether or not your employer offers it as a benefit. The option to go out and purchase health insurance for oneself and/or one's family is there. It always has been there. The only reason it's the primary means of obtaining coverage isn't because that's the only way it's available. Would you rather your employer pay for your coverage, or you pay for your coverage? Most people would rather someone else pay for it. Like I said, the problem is that insurance is expensive, and it's expensive because medical care is expensive. The only reason insurance is "necessary" is because medical care is so expensive. If medical care was less expensive, more people would be able to afford it without insurance. If medical care was less expensive, more people would be able to afford insurance. Obamacare was supposed to make medical care more affordable. It doesn't do that. It does attempt to make insurance more affordable for some, but not for all. And, that right there, is the biggest reason I oppose it.

mnottertail -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 5:36:00 AM)
quote: At the time Dom Ken and Mnotter you said there was no chance that the Supremes would rule on this. Do you now concede you were - how to put it. Wrong? That your judgement over what would constitute something for judicial review was in error? It doesnt matter what sort of lying asswipe is smeared around by nutsackers. I never said what is claimed, and it is shitbreathing to claim I did. The question before the supreme court is: Essentially whether private, for-profit corporations are their own religions. For instance, Hobby Lobby does not object to funding other forms of contraception -- such as condoms and diaphragms -- for their roughly 13,000 employees, which Hobby Lobby says represent a variety of faiths. (uh-oh, that hurts, a variety of faiths, not a one true faith.) I smell accomodation. Because the religious freedom act (which is where the precedent is gonna lie; is a fuckin loser). http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/RFRA1993.html The first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Wiki doesn't do to bad here for historical backround. The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit : 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or; 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. My learned opinion is that the SCOTUS will say essentially, you have an easy remedy: Don't take the pills, fuckwad. And why are they gonna say that? Here is a hint: The Supreme Court was asked to take up the issue by a private Christian university in Virginia but the court, without explanation, decided not to hear that appeal.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 6:13:53 AM)
Am I reading this right? You'd rather go back to 49 million people having no insurance at all because you can't get your premiums lowered when some people can? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny We are sort of in agreement concerning the a la carte. Except my definition of a la carte means that health insurance should not be linked to employment at all. Even as an added benefit offered by the company? Added? Yes; but it should not be the only (or even primary) means of obtaining coverage the way it has been for so many Americans for so long. Affordable healthcare should be available to the masses, not based on your employment the way it has been in the US. You should be able to purchase decent coverage at affordable rates regardless of whether or not your employer offers it as a benefit. The option to go out and purchase health insurance for oneself and/or one's family is there. It always has been there. The only reason it's the primary means of obtaining coverage isn't because that's the only way it's available. Would you rather your employer pay for your coverage, or you pay for your coverage? Most people would rather someone else pay for it. Like I said, the problem is that insurance is expensive, and it's expensive because medical care is expensive. The only reason insurance is "necessary" is because medical care is so expensive. If medical care was less expensive, more people would be able to afford it without insurance. If medical care was less expensive, more people would be able to afford insurance. Obamacare was supposed to make medical care more affordable. It doesn't do that. It does attempt to make insurance more affordable for some, but not for all. And, that right there, is the biggest reason I oppose it.

MsMJAY -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 6:20:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny We are sort of in agreement concerning the a la carte. Except my definition of a la carte means that health insurance should not be linked to employment at all. Even as an added benefit offered by the company? Added? Yes; but it should not be the only (or even primary) means of obtaining coverage the way it has been for so many Americans for so long. Affordable healthcare should be available to the masses, not based on your employment the way it has been in the US. You should be able to purchase decent coverage at affordable rates regardless of whether or not your employer offers it as a benefit. The option to go out and purchase health insurance for oneself and/or one's family is there. It always has been there. The only reason it's the primary means of obtaining coverage isn't because that's the only way it's available. Would you rather your employer pay for your coverage, or you pay for your coverage? Most people would rather someone else pay for it. Like I said, the problem is that insurance is expensive, and it's expensive because medical care is expensive. The only reason insurance is "necessary" is because medical care is so expensive. If medical care was less expensive, more people would be able to afford it without insurance. If medical care was less expensive, more people would be able to afford insurance. Obamacare was supposed to make medical care more affordable. It doesn't do that. It does attempt to make insurance more affordable for some, but not for all. And, that right there, is the biggest reason I oppose it. I totally agree about healthcare being too expensive. That is the way anything that is driven by Capitalism is. Especially when you are selling people their "needs" rather than their wants. When people's lives and health lay in the balance you can charge them any outrageous fee you want and they will have no choice but to pay it. I am all for single payer/universal- (but that's off topic.) However; I am also for everyone (or as many as possible) being able to have access to healthcare regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. Healthcare should be socialized and universal. Until that day comes, I will settle for Obamacare which at least gives some options we did not previously have; but I am definitely pushing for something better.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 8:04:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Am I reading this right? You'd rather go back to 49 million people having no insurance at all because you can't get your premiums lowered when some people can? Nope. You're only reading what you want to read.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 8:17:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY I totally agree about healthcare being too expensive. That is the way anything that is driven by Capitalism is. Especially when you are selling people their "needs" rather than their wants. When people's lives and health lay in the balance you can charge them any outrageous fee you want and they will have no choice but to pay it. I am all for single payer/universal- (but that's off topic.) However; I am also for everyone (or as many as possible) being able to have access to healthcare regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. Healthcare should be socialized and universal. Until that day comes, I will settle for Obamacare which at least gives some options we did not previously have; but I am definitely pushing for something better. As FreedomDwarf (I think) has pointed out, food prices here are much less than in the UK. Isn't the grocery business run by Capitalism? How much did your computer cost? You mobile phone (assuming you have one)? How much does Lasik and Radiokeratotomy cost now, compared to when they first came out? TV's? Telephonic services? quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY When people's lives and health lay in the balance you can charge them any outrageous fee you want and they will have no choice but to pay it. This asserts that the profits within the provision of health care are high, and/or collusion among providers. I know there are lots of levels of supply within the provision of health care. Where are the high profits? Why isn't competition bringing down the prices? "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.

mnottertail -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 8:26:41 AM)
quote: As FreedomDwarf (I think) has pointed out, food prices here are much less than in the UK. Isn't the grocery business run by Capitalism? Yeah, their land is at a premium there, not having 4000 acre farms and land lying about as fallow as a homeless man, as we do here. So crops, and cattle, and milk and butter and eggs and a great deal of that making up foodstuffs is at a premium or imported. It isn't like we have a shortage of doctors and nurse professionals and so on in this country, so giving equal stature to the two to conflate them under the guise of (what a god now? Capital C capitalism?) capitalism is insofar as it is innocent, naifish, and insofar as it is not innocent, disengenuous.

MsMJAY -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 10:09:15 AM)
You are talking wants vs needs. Some TV's are expensive, but if it they are too expensive I can get a cheaper model or do without it. I can choose cheaper food. I can choose to grow my own food. (which I do to some extent). I can hunt or buy venison from a hunter. I cannot choose give myself an appendectomy. If my daughter needs her asthma medications to stay alive, there is no way to change that other than letting her die (obviously not an option.) Collusion, profiteering or whatever it is; there is obviously something causing inflated prices in the US healthcare industry. That does not change the fact that prices charged to Americans are much higher for the same procedures and medications in foreign countries. (We all know this) Where or to whom the money is going is debatable. (shareholders? Monopolies? Politicians? I really don't know.) But it could not be dishonest people because providers would never do something like rip off Medicare or their own patients. [8\|] I am not sure if single payer or nationalization will work either. I am not sure if either are constitutional; but we have got to start finding out what will work and what is constitutional (or even beneficial). Sometimes that takes trial and error. The ACA may or may not turn out to be a failure; but if it fails, at least that will be one thing we know does not work. Then we can try something else; but we cannot continue to ignore the problem. We have to at least try. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY I totally agree about healthcare being too expensive. That is the way anything that is driven by Capitalism is. Especially when you are selling people their "needs" rather than their wants. When people's lives and health lay in the balance you can charge them any outrageous fee you want and they will have no choice but to pay it. I am all for single payer/universal- (but that's off topic.) However; I am also for everyone (or as many as possible) being able to have access to healthcare regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. Healthcare should be socialized and universal. Until that day comes, I will settle for Obamacare which at least gives some options we did not previously have; but I am definitely pushing for something better. As FreedomDwarf (I think) has pointed out, food prices here are much less than in the UK. Isn't the grocery business run by Capitalism? How much did your computer cost? You mobile phone (assuming you have one)? How much does Lasik and Radiokeratotomy cost now, compared to when they first came out? TV's? Telephonic services? quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY When people's lives and health lay in the balance you can charge them any outrageous fee you want and they will have no choice but to pay it. This asserts that the profits within the provision of health care are high, and/or collusion among providers. I know there are lots of levels of supply within the provision of health care. Where are the high profits? Why isn't competition bringing down the prices? "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 10:48:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie And exactly which appellate courts have rejected which Supreme Court rulings? You've gone from trolling, to lying, to la-la land. I made no such claim. Please brush up on English.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 10:50:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Bullshit back at you. Since I"m more inclined to tangle with trolls... Any person can purchase stock in publicly traded companies. That does not mean that person's point of view reflects the coorporate strategy or values. Much less a privately held corporation. Suppose I were an individual. I want to hire people. But, being catholic, I don't want to offer insurance that offers birth control subsidies. Now, are you really saying that because I am catholic, I am not afforded the ability to enjoy the same protections and legal remedies that other people are? Ie., the ability to form corporations and protect assets? Prima facie fails on a X amendment basis. Your religious liberty ends at your nose. You as a business owner cannot dictate how money or benefits you provide to your employees are used. A catholic business owner can no more dictate that their health insurance policy not cover contraception than you can dictate that the money you pay your employees cannot be used to purchase condoms. The idea that a corporation, which no matter what you think is not special if it is private or public, could do so is patently absurd. And the fact is that if the Court finds that a shareholders religious beliefs carry over to the corporation then a single Christian Scientist owner a single share of a corporation could force it to not provide health insurance at all and that is clearly not what the laws establishing corporations intends. Personally, I think that the government will rule in favor of obama care. As they will use the wrong standard. But again - not as clear as you represent. The supreme courts demolished government's ability to compel a fine on the basis of the interstate commerce clause; they upheld it solely as a function of the ability to tax. However, it is unclear that the ability to tax will trump the enumerated freedom of religion. There is no freedom for religion for legal fictions. How could there possibly be such. When was the last time a corporation prayed or worshipped?

RottenJohnny -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 11:16:54 AM)
Just a quick correction, DS. You got my and MJ's quotes backwards..but no harm so no foul. I just wanted to clarify. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The option to go out and purchase health insurance for oneself and/or one's family is there. It always has been there. The only reason it's the primary means of obtaining coverage isn't because that's the only way it's available. Would you rather your employer pay for your coverage, or you pay for your coverage? Most people would rather someone else pay for it. The reason health insurance has been linked to employment is because employers can offer insurers a large group of customers in one shot. Therefore, the insurance companies are willing to offer reductions in price for the bulk purchase of their products. The employee gets cheaper insurance and the employer gains a benefit it can offer it's employees, which in turn, is one way to increase productivity. Originally, the whole idea was assumed to be a win-win for everyone. Unfortunately, something has come along and spoiled the party because not even employers can get a good deal for insurance anymore.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 11:20:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY You are talking wants vs needs. Some TV's are expensive, but if it they are too expensive I can get a cheaper model or do without it. I can choose cheaper food. I can choose to grow my own food. (which I do to some extent). I can hunt or buy venison from a hunter. I cannot choose give myself an appendectomy. If my daughter needs her asthma medications to stay alive, there is no way to change that other than letting her die (obviously not an option.) You stated: "I totally agree about healthcare being too expensive. That is the way anything that is driven by Capitalism is. Especially when you are selling people their "needs" rather than their wants." "anything driven by Capitalism is [too expensive]" "Especially when ... selling ... "needs" ..." The "especially" word indicates that it's true to a greater degree for one thing compared to another. I chose to refute your claim. Please note that food is definitely a "need," and not just a "want." The rest are definitely wants, but the underlying rules still come into play. quote: Collusion, profiteering or whatever it is; there is obviously something causing inflated prices in the US healthcare industry. That does not change the fact that prices charged to Americans are much higher for the same procedures and medications in foreign countries. (We all know this) Where or to whom the money is going is debatable. (shareholders? Monopolies? Politicians? I really don't know.) But it could not be dishonest people because providers would never do something like rip off Medicare or their own patients. [8\|] On what do you base your description of "outrageous" fees, then? If there is collusion, there is basis for a lawsuit. Collusion is illegal in the US. quote: I am not sure if single payer or nationalization will work either. I am not sure if either are constitutional; but we have got to start finding out what will work and what is constitutional (or even beneficial). Sometimes that takes trial and error. The ACA may or may not turn out to be a failure; but if it fails, at least that will be one thing we know does not work. Then we can try something else; but we cannot continue to ignore the problem. We have to at least try. If you don't know what is making prices high, then how can you come up with an adequate solution? I don't think single payer will work without nationalization, to be frank. The Constitutionality issue has to be first and foremost. If it's not Constitutional, the Federal government is prohibited from doing it. If it's not Constitutional, but is a damn good idea, then we need to pass an Amendment, making it Constitutional. I do believe that, because of Obamacare, there will be a more precise definition of phrase, "General Welfare of the United States." Personally, I don't believe it has any application to the individual, as an individual, but to the USA as one unit. Your health insurance and/or care costs are individual, and do not come under anything applied to the Nation as one unit. The SCOTUS is going to be hearing a couple more cases here pretty soon. There will be more.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 11:30:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny Just a quick correction, DS. You got my and MJ's quotes backwards..but no harm so no foul. I just wanted to clarify. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The option to go out and purchase health insurance for oneself and/or one's family is there. It always has been there. The only reason it's the primary means of obtaining coverage isn't because that's the only way it's available. Would you rather your employer pay for your coverage, or you pay for your coverage? Most people would rather someone else pay for it. The reason health insurance has been linked to employment is because employers can offer insurers a large group of customers in one shot. Therefore, the insurance companies are willing to offer reductions in price for the bulk purchase of their products. The employee gets cheaper insurance and the employer gains a benefit it can offer it's employees, which in turn, is one way to increase productivity. Originally, the whole idea was assumed to be a win-win for everyone. Unfortunately, something has come along and spoiled the party because not even employers can get a good deal for insurance anymore. Thanks for the correction, Johnny. The origins of employer sponsored insurance was a result of wage caps placed by government. To attract the talent a business wanted, the business had to find a way to offer more than the next business. This ended up being in the form of perks, like profit-sharing, pensions, and health insurance. Yes, an employer can gain the benefit of being a large group, which allows them to get better pricing. That helps make medical care more affordable for the employer, and the employee. While some will argue that government would be the largest possible "large group," and that's not something I would deny, a huge difference between government paying for something, and business paying for something, is that business is paying with it's own money. Government isn't as concerned with being miserly, since it's not spending it's own money. Business, however, is spending it's own money.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/27/2013 12:21:19 PM)
Returning to the start of the thread: the issue of 'personhood' of corporations does go back to the early days of the Republic. And one rather astute politician who also was a well educated legal mind (A. Lincoln) warned that continuing to grant corporations equal standing in court to human beings Would be the death of the Republic. It's taken longer than he thought, but Citizens United probably is the final nail in the coffin. Individuals have always been free to use their individual profits from owning a corporation or part of one (Shares) for 'political speech', but that isn't enough. They want to use pre-tax assets and claim the usual deductions and exceptions for the 'political speech' that are allowed direct expenses of doing business. Quite a gift for monied interests who were in a superior position already. I guess it's progress, the people with the guns used to make the rules, now it's those with the gold. Somehow the idea at the core of the Revolution and subsequent Constitution, that the people would govern themself on some basis of rough equality, seems lost.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02