Notre Dame Files Lawsuit Over Obamacare

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
This is a pretty good example of everyone being a part of the healthcare market place whether they conciously choose to be or not. That being the case Congress can regulate this under the commerce clause.

Chicken meets egg? Government mandates create this problem. For example, ERs HAVE to take all comers. They have no ability to restrict bad debts proactively.

Sorry, not a believer in a "Right" to healthcare. Do I have a "right" to food? Shouldn't the grocery store provide it for free since I need it? How dare they profit from my need! Just as I can't take food from the grocery store, people should not be able to unilaterally take health care from providers. This is the place of charity not government. Medicare was wrong, Social Security was wrong and this is wrong. In the past, people went to church and took care of family to have security when sh!t hit the fan. Big incentive to not be a d!ck to friends and family. How exactly did we end up with an agnostic, entitled society again?

Also consider the inability of the consumer to price shop or negotiate. Government and insurance companies restrict providers from negotiating individually with patients for what they can afford or barter. Providers HAVE to send it to collections before writing it off or risk their Medicare/caid and insurance contracts.

I tried to figure out the most cost effective place for a minor surgery a few years ago and it was damn near impossible. Try asking a pediatrician what ANYTHING will cost and they look blankly at you and say "what? Its covered by your insurance.." Guess what. I pay 100% up to a $4000 and 50% of the next $6000 of charges so those $150 pediatrician visits to get a damn allergy med or antibiotic add up pretty fast. And I pay for vaccines and $26 per shot to "administer" it. I ask if my wife (a pediatric nurse practitioner) can administer the shot and they look appalled that you would suggest such a thing. Absolutely not!

so long story short, the system disables the patient from controlling their care by design. PROVIDERS are the secret sauce to the mess. They are the ones with power and influence much stronger than the insurance companies. Doctors are held harmless in this discussion for some reason? Medical schools control supply, medical boards and regulators control competition. Nurse practitioners are prohibited from competing (unless they need someone in rural areas or prisons, then they can work autonomously). I give up.

....end of disjointed rant....
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Let me start out by saying that I don't like the health care reform legislation, simply b/c it does little to reduce costs in the long term. The AMA monopoly on medical care is the main reason why costs are so high, and the incentive structure for health care providers is out of whack in a way that encourages people to get unnecessary care and pays doctors exorbitant amounts to provide it. The AMA is powerful, doctors think they deserve it, and thus the system stays in place.

A liberal blames the poor state of our health care system on a shadowy lobby of wealthy people!? Shocking!

The reality of this situation is that ND is making a political move to advance a socially conservative agenda, nothing more.

Go back and read Jenkins' statement on the first page. The man went out of his way to state that that's exactly what they're not doing. This is the school that invited Obama to speak at its commencement in 2009, despite receiving a tremendous amount of criticism from the Church and the religious right. You can choose to view anyone who disagrees with your politics as a right wing shill, but this lawsuit is based on religious liberty.

Institutions like Notre Dame constantly provide funds to states, and thus indirectly "support" or "pay for" things like the death penalty, which runs counter to Catholic beliefs. For instance, even though they are tax exempt, they pay payroll taxes and provide payments to localities and states in lieu of property and income taxes. Under the logic being espoused by a whole bunch of members of this board, they should not have to provide any money to the state if the policies of the state are in conflict with the religious doctrines of the university. This is wrong, this is not how institutions work in the US. Institutions are required to comply with federal law. ND has to pay payroll taxes to the state that allows the killing of criminals, despite the fact that this runs against Catholic doctrine.

Wrong. Money is fungible. Thus, ND has no standing to complain if its employees use their paychecks to buy contraceptives, abortions, or pornography. Nor does ND have standing to complain about what the Federal government does with its tax dollars. It does have standing to complain when the Feds try to force it to alter the compensation package it offers its employees in a way that contradicts its sincerely held religious beliefs.

ND is currently receiving enormous benefits from operating under the law of the federal government, including the ability to raise money and own land without being taxed. As an employer and a nonprofit organization, they are subject to federal law. The fact that the government is providing an exemption that would mean the insurers provide contraception to employees is silly, but it's a token gesture meant to allow the university to maintain that it is not taking any action that might directly or indirectly lead to activity that is inconsistent with its own doctrines. This is satisfactory to many Catholic groups, like the US Catholic Bishops. But not Notre Dame.

As you said, it's a token gesture; as in, a meaningless distinction. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is not satisfied with this meaningless concession, so they are suing to enjoin enforcement of the mandate, just as ND is.

Rhode Irish is right that the only reason this has an even remote chance of going forward in court is that the Supreme Court is advancing a radical right wing agenda. It's extremely embarrassing to me that ND is playing any part in it. There are lots of things about the Catholic church as an institution that I value tremendously - its backward positions on gender and sex are the ones that make me truly ashamed. There's a sex issue that the Catholic church has to deal with, and this isn't it.

Your blinkered partisanship is embarrassing. There are four conservative justices, and four liberal justices. If you really think Kennedy is interested in advancing a "radical right wing agenda", I suggest you study his judicial record.

If ND strikes you as part of the radical right, then that says a lot more about how far your politics are from the mainstream than it does about ND.
 
Last edited:

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Let me start out by saying that I don't like the health care reform legislation, simply b/c it does little to reduce costs in the long term. The AMA monopoly on medical care is the main reason why costs are so high, and the incentive structure for health care providers is out of whack in a way that encourages people to get unnecessary care and pays doctors exorbitant amounts to provide it. The AMA is powerful, doctors think they deserve it, and thus the system stays in place.

Let's separate this discussion from our feelings about the merits of the health care legislation as a whole. The reality of this situation is that ND is making a political move to advance a socially conservative agenda, nothing more. Institutions like Notre Dame constantly provide funds to states, and thus indirectly "support" or "pay for" things like the death penalty, which runs counter to Catholic beliefs. For instance, even though they are tax exempt, they pay payroll taxes and provide payments to localities and states in lieu of property and income taxes. Under the logic being espoused by a whole bunch of members of this board, they should not have to provide any money to the state if the policies of the state are in conflict with the religious doctrines of the university. This is wrong, this is not how institutions work in the US. Institutions are required to comply with federal law. ND has to pay payroll taxes to the state that allows the killing of criminals, despite the fact that this runs against Catholic doctrine.

ND is currently receiving enormous benefits from operating under the law of the federal government, including the ability to raise money and own land without being taxed. As an employer and a nonprofit organization, they are subject to federal law. The fact that the government is providing an exemption that would mean the insurers provide contraception to employees is silly, but it's a token gesture meant to allow the university to maintain that it is not taking any action that might directly or indirectly lead to activity that is inconsistent with its own doctrines. This is satisfactory to many Catholic groups, like the US Catholic Bishops. But not Notre Dame.

Rhode Irish is right that the only reason this has an even remote chance of going forward in court is that the Supreme Court is advancing a radical right wing agenda. It's extremely embarrassing to me that ND is playing any part in it. There are lots of things about the Catholic church as an institution that I value tremendously - its backward positions on gender and sex are the ones that make me truly ashamed. There's a sex issue that the Catholic church has to deal with, and this isn't it.

Bingo in bold. The rest I completely disagree with. For one, you argue they pay no taxes but that their payments to state and feds support things they disagree with? Which is it, they pay taxes or they don't? They do pay payroll taxes as an employer but that is (very loosely) tied to entitlement programs benefiting the worker.

The same people arguing slippery slope are the ones presenting the loosest and most ridiculous slippery slope arguments to defend their stance?
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
Your blinkered partisanship is embarrassing.

Funny to be called partisan when I began by critiquing what is probably the most important social policy passed by this administration. Which party am I secretly backing, WJ? I'm curious.

ND contracts out its health insurance, at least to students (I don't know how they handle employees). The insurance company is required to comply with federal law. Therefore, ND will make payments to a company that will make contraception available. Money is fungible, remember? You're arguing against yourself.

I honestly find it remarkable that this conversation is taking place in 2012. I read this morning that over 80% of Catholics do not consider contraception to be a sin - to be honest I forget how the actual question is worded, but suffice to say that the stance ND is taking pertains to an issue that is so far on the fringe that less than 1 in 5 individuals who consider themselves beholden to the doctrine of the Catholic Church feel it is a relevant issue. It's fine to make grand claims about protecting religious freedom, except that the freedom you're defending is not supported by a large majority of Catholics (speaking of which, who's really on the fringe here Whiskey?) This whole controversy arose because of rules about providing contraception, one of the fundamental advances in health care over the past half century! Bizarre.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
What percent of Catholics consider abortion a form of birth control?

Funny how paying for abortions is ignored and the focus is placed on contraception. Just another example of the incremental erosion of liberty.
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
What percent of Catholics consider abortion a form of birth control?

Funny how paying for abortions is ignored and the focus is placed on contraception. Just another example of the incremental erosion of liberty.

What law are you talking about? Not this one, b/c it doesn't mandate the coverage of abortions. The lawsuit argues that the use of contraceptive drugs *causes* abortions. It's one of the more humorous claims that are part of the lawsuit - humorous, that is, until you realize that a lot of people don't actually read the details and instead assume that ND would actually be required to cover abortions.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Funny to be called partisan when I began by critiquing what is probably the most important social policy passed by this administration. Which party am I secretly backing, WJ? I'm curious.

You came off as a blinkered partisan by claiming that ND is "making a political move to advance a socially conservative agenda" and that "the Supreme Court is advancing a radical right wing agenda." Aside from being Democratic talking points, those statements are also untrue.

ND contracts out its health insurance, at least to students (I don't know how they handle employees). The insurance company is required to comply with federal law. Therefore, ND will make payments to a company that will make contraception available. Money is fungible, remember? You're arguing against yourself.

Do you understand what fungible means? If I give you a $10 bill in payment for services, and you use that money to buy cocaine, then the immorality of that act is entirely upon you, due to the fungibility of money. If I instead pay you by directly handing you cocaine, or by directing a third party to give you cocaine, then the immorality of that act is also attributable to me. Directing a third party to do something immoral doesn't absolve one of its implications.

I honestly find it remarkable that this conversation is taking place in 2012. I read this morning that over 80% of Catholics do not consider contraception to be a sin - to be honest I forget how the actual question is worded, but suffice to say that the stance ND is taking pertains to an issue that is so far on the fringe that less than 1 in 5 individuals who consider themselves beholden to the doctrine of the Catholic Church feel it is a relevant issue. It's fine to make grand claims about protecting religious freedom, except that the freedom you're defending is not supported by a large majority of Catholics (speaking of which, who's really on the fringe here Whiskey?) This whole controversy arose because of rules about providing contraception, one of the fundamental advances in health care over the past half century! Bizarre.

This is essentially a political argument, and it's irrelevant to whether or not the Feds can constitutionally force ND to violate its sincerely held religious beliefs. Regardless of how many American Catholics (note that there are far more Catholics world-wide, for whom the same doctrine applies, than live in this country) disagree with the teaching, it's philosophically consistent with the rest of the Church's teachings on human sexuality, and they've remained unchanged for over 2,000 years. As Jenkins emphasized in his statement, ND respects its employees absolute right of conscience to disagree with the Church on this subject, and it respects the government's absolute right to provide this service directly.

What ND objects to, and what the Feds can't do constitutionally, is force ND to alter the compensation package it offers its employees in a way that violates its sincerely held religious beliefs. That's a violation of the Establishment Clause.

And more generally, when the government goes around inventing "rights", it ultimately ends up forcing individuals and private organizations to provide those "rights". Freedom of contract and association get torched in the name of "social justice". This is a huge problem with the ideological underpinnings of Progressivism generally, and with Obamacare specifically. Such legislation is fundamentally incompatible with America's constitutional framework.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
What law are you talking about? Not this one, b/c it doesn't mandate the coverage of abortions. The lawsuit argues that the use of contraceptive drugs *causes* abortions. It's one of the more humorous claims that are part of the lawsuit - humorous, that is, until you realize that a lot of people don't actually read the details and instead assume that ND would actually be required to cover abortions.

Why is it humorous? Hormonal contraceptives can and do act as abortifacients.
 
Last edited:
G

Grahambo

Guest
OBAMACARE+-+socialized-healthcare-obamacare-rationed-care-socialism-repe-political-poster-1294474642.jpg
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
I defer to Wiskey and Buster the rest of the way here. Can't think of anything either contributed that I disagree with so far. And I can't rep them any more until I spread it around some.
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
Regardless of how many American Catholics (note that there are far more Catholics world-wide, for whom the same doctrine applies, than live in this country) disagree with the teaching, it's philosophically consistent with the rest of the Church's teachings on human sexuality, and they've remained unchanged for over 2,000 years.

this is a fantastic comment. i'll use this as an opportunity to excuse myself from the conversation...
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
this is a fantastic comment. i'll use this as an opportunity to excuse myself from the conversation...

Great debate tactic. If you can't win on the merits, knock down a straw man, take your ball, and go home.

You won't be missed.
 

FLDomer

Polish Hammer
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
510
Whiskey I wish I could rep every comment but the damn thing says i have to spread around my reps...blast!
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Ahhh yes the old "take federal money, and they know own you" trick.

F*ck the federal government.
 
Last edited:

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
Great debate tactic. If you can't win on the merits, knock down a straw man, take your ball, and go home.

You won't be missed.

We disagree, man, let's not belabor it and act like d*cks in the process. I find myself becoming more and more combative and evoking more and more anger from your end - it's not productive. I don't think you're a bad guy, but we just feel differently and approach this from very different perspectives - your comment implied support for the fact that the church's teachings on human sexuality haven't changed in 2,000 years. That tells me that we have very different ideas about this issue and about the Catholic church as an institution. The debate has turned vitriolic, so let's end it - I've got work to do and I'm sure you do too.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Great debate tactic. If you can't win on the merits, knock down a straw man, take your ball, and go home.

You won't be missed.

I don't think it is "take your ball and go home." I can't speak for this poster, but in my case there really isn't much else to say. We could go on and on forever, but I'd rather not. I said my piece (more than I really wanted to when I first posted in this thread, honestly). This is not a debate that either side is going to "win on the merits," since the differences are philosophical. You look at the other side as being "blinkered partisanship" and obviously the other side feels at least as strongly about your position, if not more so.

We knew going into it that we didn't agree; we expressed our opinions and I think we understood each other. My respect for you and Buster and some of the other guys here that I always seem to be debating in these threads is intact. That is good enough for me.
 

FLDomer

Polish Hammer
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
510
We disagree, man, let's not belabor it and act like d*cks in the process. I find myself becoming more and more combative and evoking more and more anger from your end - it's not productive. I don't think you're a bad guy, but we just feel differently and approach this from very different perspectives - your comment implied support for the fact that the church's teachings on human sexuality haven't changed in 2,000 years. That tells me that we have very different ideas about this issue and about the Catholic church as an institution. The debate has turned vitriolic, so let's end it - I've got work to do and I'm sure you do too.

Thats a debate right there! Whiskey, work? ;)
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
We disagree, man, let's not belabor it and act like d*cks in the process. I find myself becoming more and more combative and evoking more and more anger from your end - it's not productive. I don't think you're a bad guy, but we just feel differently and approach this from very different perspectives - your comment implied support for the fact that the church's teachings on human sexuality haven't changed in 2,000 years. That tells me that we have very different ideas about this issue and about the Catholic church as an institution. The debate has turned vitriolic, so let's end it - I've got work to do and I'm sure you do too.

I thought our debate had been largely civil until you attempted to dismiss an entire post in a condescending manner.

You stated that a majority of American Catholics don't adhere to its teachings on contraceptives. My comment about the Church's teachings on human sexuality being philosophically consistent and remaining unchanged for over 2,000 years was addressing that point only. Yes, it's counter-cultural, but it's not arbitrary, and the fact that the Church hasn't bowed on this issue in the face of serious political and cultural headwinds indicates that there's a genuine principal at stake here.

I did not intend that statement as an irrefutable proof of the Church's moral superiority. Simply that it's a sincerely held religious belief, and that it's entitled to protection under the Establishment Clause.
 

autry_denson

Active member
Messages
514
Reaction score
150
I thought our debate had been largely civil until you attempted to dismiss an entire post in a condescending manner.

Your first comment to me was this: "A liberal blames the poor state of our health care system on a shadowy lobby of wealthy people!? Shocking!"

Where was the part that was civil? Anyway, I was being condescending, you're absolutely right. We both were - and the discussion was not moving forward, but instead was getting more combative. As Rhode Irish stated, that seems like a good reason to end it.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
This is not a debate that either side is going to "win on the merits," since the differences are philosophical.

If we were arguing over the morality of contraceptive use, I'd agree with you. Since we've been focusing on the constitutionality of the mandate, I had hoped we were on firmer ground where a consensus might be reached.

You look at the other side as being "blinkered partisanship" and obviously the other side feels at least as strongly about your position, if not more so.

I called him a blinkered partisan because he made indefensible claims about ND and the Supreme Court advancing extreme right-wing agendas. As a libertarian who generally loathes both the red and the blue team, I'm not sure how anyone could accuse me of partisanship.

We knew going into it that we didn't agree; we expressed our opinions and I think we understood each other. My respect for you and Buster and some of the other guys here that I always seem to be debating in these threads is intact. That is good enough for me.

This thread has been largely civil. Until autry_denson attempted to dismiss a rather lengthy post of mine by mischaracterizing two sentences in it, everyone was playing nicely.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Your first comment to me was this: "A liberal blames the poor state of our health care system on a shadowy lobby of wealthy people!? Shocking!"

I suppose that was condescending. While I agree that the AMA shares some responsibility, blaming the poor state of our health care system entirely on the them, with no mention of the third party payor system, strikes me as simplistic and naive. Apologies if I gave offense.
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
since this constitutinality issue of religiuos freedom could be the straw that breaks the obamacare act (lose it and the whole law gets thrown out) perhaps its worth a look at what "greater good" could be served for all if/when it becomes enacted in 2014.

Below are the "talking points" of what what "Obamacare" is, does and will do once enacted into law.
While i dont like the idea of demanding or even exempting the faith based institutions to pay/cover procedures not in their beliefs, for reasons eloquently described above, i do feel that something, anything needs to be done to try and fix our system.
To me, a father of 5 kids, and elderly parents (one with cancer) who has had to deal with tons of doctors, bills, and some really bad situations, i would welcome a change to our current system.
I'm paying more for less now in terms of health care and the paperwork is a compete nightmare-even for my parents on medicaid .You have to fight, file for every dime on every damn claim it seems.
For those of you who dont have kids ((yet) or your parents arent old enough (yet) brace yourselves for when the real bills start coming in. Once you start having kids, if they run into any serious problems WATCH OUT! that insurance you THINK you have...it doesnt pay a damn thing. "oh sir im sorry your plan doesnt cover that...blah blah blah"

anyway here you go (from the Obama website) (granted these are talking points fo take it FWIW):

If your already insured....

Insurer has to justify any hikes to your premium before an independent panel—helping keep your rate down

Insurance companies can no longer put a lifetime cap on the amount of care they’ll cover, or cancel your coverage over a mistake in your paperwork—and by 2014, no one can be denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition

Your children can no longer be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition like asthma or diabetes.

Preventive services like checkups and childhood immunizations are covered without a co-pay or deductible

Starting in 2014, you/your family will be able to shop for coverage in a new Affordable Insurance Exchange. If you lose the health insurance you have from work, or want to change jobs or start a business, you'll be able to shop in a market where insurance companies will have to compete on price and quality, and where you can see all your options in one place—and you can't be denied coverage or charged more based on a pre-existing condition.


Starting in 2014, insurance companies won't be able to charge more or deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition, like heart disease

Starting in 2014, youyour family will qualify for tax credits that can make insurance more affordable—helping save a typical middle-class family up to 60 percent on premiums. You'll be able to use these tax credits to shop for the best plan for youyour family in your state's new Affordable Insurance Exchange.

If your on Medicare...

People enrolled in traditional Medicare will save an average of $4,200 in health care expenses over the next 10 years.

You now have access to annual wellness visits with your doctor, free of charge.

If you fall into Medicare's coverage gap for prescription drugs, you now get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs—and by 2020, the doughnut hole will close for good.


For all:

Before health reform, insurance premiums were skyrocketing, and the shared cost of caring for the uninsured added $1,000 to the typical family’s policy. The Affordable Care Act promotes better value through preventive and coordinated care, and eliminates waste and abuses.

The Affordable Care Act also helps keep insurance premiums down. Insurance companies must publicly justify excessive rate hikes and provide rebates if they don’t spend at least 80 percent of premiums on care instead of overhead, marketing, and profits. As many as 9 million consumers are expected to get up to $1.4 billion in rebates because the President passed the Affordable Care Act.

Fact: The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) provides insurance to people with health conditions who have been uninsured for six months, helping those with cancer or other serious conditions to get the treatment they need.

Before the Affordable Care Act, more than half of all private insurance plans included a lifetime limit on coverage—and nearly 20,000 people hit a lifetime cap each year. The Affordable Care Act banned these caps, and those who had already hit a lifetime limit will be eligible for unlimited coverage.

Young adults are now eligible to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans as they enter the workforce, until they turn 26. Since the health care law passed, 2.5 million young adults—traditionally the group least likely to be insured—gained insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.


Fact: All new insurance plans are required to cover certain preventive services without charging a co-pay or deductible.


Fact: Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could deny coverage to children with medical conditions. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, as many as 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance
Millions of small businesses are now eligible for a tax credit to help pay for their health care premiums. The credit will increase to cover 50 percent of premium costs in 2014.

Under the Affordable Care Act, help for small businesses—including the new insurance exchanges—will reduce small business health care spending by nearly 9 percent, according to independent estimates.

Working families are protected from losing their health care or being forced into bankruptcy when a family member gets sick or is in an accident. Families have the security of knowing their health insurance will be there when they need it most.

Insurance companies are now required to justify rate hikes, and consumers have the ability to appeal to an independent third party when insurance companies refuse to cover services or care.

Starting in 2014, all Americans will have access to affordable health insurance no matter their circumstances—whether they change jobs, lose their job, decide to start a business, or retire early. Purchasing private insurance in the new state-based health insurance exchanges could save middle-class families who can’t get employer-provided insurance thousands of dollars.

Once fully implemented, the law will slow health care premium growth rates, adding another $2,000 to family savings by 2019.

The law is expected to reduce the deficit by $127 billion from 2012 to 2021.

Because of the new law, 34 million more Americans will gain coverage—many who will be able to afford insurance for the first time.

Once the law is fully implemented, about 95 percent of Americans under age 65 will have insurance.

When fully implemented, the Affordable Care Act will keep insurance companies from taking advantage of consumers—including denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and cancelling coverage when someone gets sick.




Some of these reforms are a step in the right direction in my opinion. im no epxpert like some of you seem to be on this issue i only know what i live (have lived thru). I know this is a white hot political football right now, but as a republican and conservative i have o problem with this law with the excpetion of the issue that ND is addressing. i believe in the separation of church and state and religious freedom.
I also believe that our country can do better when it comes to delivering health care to its citizens. This obamacare "aint perfect" to be sure but to leave the current system in place is worse.

ps Golson to start at QB vs Navy
 
Last edited:

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
If we were arguing over the morality of contraceptive use, I'd agree with you. Since we've been focusing on the constitutionality of the mandate, I had hoped we were on firmer ground where a consensus might be reached.

On the Constitutional issue surrounding the healthcare law in general, there are philosophical differences about the powers of the federal government that date back to the founding of the country. As far as the issue in the catholic lawsuits, there are obviously constitutional issues there, too, but I am fine with ND's position based on the little I know about it. I suspect that ultimately there will be a technical solution to the issue at hand and the constitutional questions will not be decided.

I called him a blinkered partisan because he made indefensible claims about ND and the Supreme Court advancing extreme right-wing agendas. As a libertarian who generally loathes both the red and the blue team, I'm not sure how anyone could accuse me of partisanship.

You may be a libertarian, but on this issue your a lot of your argument parrots the arguments I hear being made by the hard right on my TV. I'm not trying to insult you, but that is the way it comes off to me, as a liberal. I'm sure you probably feel the same way about some of my arguments. I think that is OK. Reasonable people can differ and still like each other.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
On the Constitutional issue surrounding the healthcare law in general, there are philosophical differences about the powers of the federal government that date back to the founding of the country. As far as the issue in the catholic lawsuits, there are obviously constitutional issues there, too, but I am fine with ND's position based on the little I know about it. I suspect that ultimately there will be a technical solution to the issue at hand and the constitutional questions will not be decided.

Isn't that proof that there's room for consensus on this issue? Your politics are further left than most in this thread, though you have no problem with ND's claim to exemption under the Establishment Clause. I don't see why this issue is suddenly irreconcilable. Just as in the gay marriage debate, I'm not interested in convincing anyone of the Church's moral superiority. I think everyone can agree that the government shouldn't interfere with the sincerely held religious beliefs of Catholics.

You may be a libertarian, but on this issue your a lot of your argument parrots the arguments I hear being made by the hard right on my TV. I'm not trying to insult you, but that is the way it comes off to me, as a liberal. I'm sure you probably feel the same way about some of my arguments. I think that is OK. Reasonable people can differ and still like each other.

Arguing for the separation of church and state places me with the hard right?
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
Isn't that proof that there's room for consensus on this issue? Your politics are further left than most in this thread, though you have no problem with ND's claim to exemption under the Establishment Clause. I don't see why this issue is suddenly irreconcilable. Just as in the gay marriage debate, I'm not interested in convincing anyone of the Church's moral superiority. I think everyone can agree that the government shouldn't interfere with the sincerely held religious beliefs of Catholics.



Arguing for the separation of church and state places me with the hard right?

i think your onto something whiskey meaning i think liverals, liberterians, conservatives can and do have a probelm with this issue.
from a purely political perspective, this very issue may well be the one that kills the obamacare act in full. if this one part of bill is unconstitutional, then the whole bill is.
i think all sides of the political spectrum would agree that this piece of the legislation as pertains to the faith based institutions is definitely problematic (this is why the court recently heard arguments on the issue itself).
in my view it would be a shame to kill all the good the bill could do in order to eliminate this one part. if only they could just remove this provision. there is no way the bill, now enacted, could be revised, remove this piece... and even if it could, this congress would never in a million years do it, not after what happened last go around.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
if this one part of bill is unconstitutional, then the whole bill is. i think all sides of the political spectrum would agree that this piece of the legislation as pertains to the faith based institutions is definitely problematic (this is why the court recently heard arguments on the issue itself). in my view it would be a shame to kill all the good the bill could do in order to eliminate this one part. if only they could just remove this provision. there is no way the bill, now enacted, could be revised, remove this piece... and even if it could, this congress would never in a million years do it, not after what happened last go around.

That's likely true, particularly because the Democrats intentionally left a Savings Clause out of the bill. I'm fairly confident the Supreme Court will strike down the mandate based on Kennedy's questions to Verrilli, but I wouldn't put money on them having enough courage to strike down the whole bill.
 
Top