SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | A US National Health Care System?


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Brumar89 who wrote (23037)2/14/2012 3:39:15 PM
From: Peter Dierks
2 Recommendations   of 37896
 
This is probably the most important article I have read this year:
Message 27947259
You may have already seen it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (23039)2/14/2012 3:44:30 PM
From: Peter Dierks
2 Recommendations   of 37896
 
Exactly. We need to organize to get the mandate added to Obama/PelosiCare for food. Those no good politicians want us to starve and we won't stand for it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Brumar89 who wrote (23039)2/14/2012 5:02:55 PM
From: Lane3
   of 37896
 
Hey, without food you'll starve to death, so food is healthcare. Just like the morning after pill.

I think that anyone would say that what's dispensed by the health care system is health care and what is traditionally dispensed by the telecommunications system or the agricultural system or the justice system or the transportation system is not health care. There are boxes and boxes.

The place to make a stand on the morning-after pill was at FDA approval and box placement. After that, game over.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (23040)2/14/2012 7:06:13 PM
From: Brumar89
   of 37896
 
Nope, hadn't seen it. Didn't know that Brock guy was so strange. The coordination with the WH ... obvious that is happening.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (23041)2/14/2012 7:08:28 PM
From: Brumar89
2 Recommendations   of 37896
 
;>) And free dental floss, toothbrushes and paste. Poor dental hygeine contributes to inflammation that causes heart attacks. Just think of all the people with poor dental hygeine because they can't afford those things ... exactly like the free birth control that so many people can't afford.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Lane3 who wrote (23042)2/14/2012 7:13:13 PM
From: Brumar89
   of 37896
 
Game over ..... hey, our news magazines told us 3 yrs ago we're all socialists now, so let's give up.


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Brumar89 who wrote (23043)2/14/2012 7:38:07 PM
From: Peter Dierks
2 Recommendations   of 37896
 
The fact that so many urinalists are blatantly selling their integrity down the river to push the Obama/Soros agenda is very sad. It is useful to have even a partial list of worthless urinalists who will publish whatever they are told to publish without even attributing it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Brumar89 who wrote (23044)2/14/2012 7:39:31 PM
From: Peter Dierks
2 Recommendations   of 37896
 
How about free gasoline and oil changes? If they are taking over our expenses maybe we should just send our electric bills to Uncle Sam. I am sure Algore would love that.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: TimF who wrote (23012)2/15/2012 9:19:41 AM
From: Peter Dierks
2 Recommendations   of 37896
 
Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal
It violates the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
FEBRUARY 15, 2012, 6:35 A.M. ET.

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR.
AND EDWARD WHELAN

Last Friday, the White House announced that it would revise the controversial ObamaCare birth-control mandate to address religious-liberty concerns. Its proposed modifications are a farce.

The Department of Health and Human Services would still require employers with religious objections to select an insurance company to provide contraceptives and drugs that induce abortions to its employees. The employers would pay for the drugs through higher premiums. For those employers that self-insure, like the Archdiocese of Washington, the farce is even more blatant.

The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.

That case limited the protections available under the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion to those government actions that explicitly targeted religious practices, by subjecting them to difficult-to-satisfy strict judicial scrutiny. Other governmental actions, even if burdening religious activities, were held subject to a more deferential test.

The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.

The law also provides that any later statutory override of its protections must be explicit. But there is nothing in the ObamaCare legislation that explicitly or even implicitly overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The birth-control mandate proposed by Health and Human Services is thus illegal.

The refusal, for religious reasons, to provide birth-control coverage is clearly an exercise of religious freedom under the Constitution. The "exercise of religion" extends to performing, or refusing to perform, actions on religious grounds—and it is definitely not confined to religious institutions or acts of worship. Leading Supreme Court cases in this area, for example, involve a worker who refused to work on the Sabbath (Sherbert v. Verner, 1963) and parents who refused to send their teenage children to a public high school (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972).

In the high-school case, the Supreme Court found that even a $5 fine on the parents substantially burdened the free exercise of their religion. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers who fail to comply with the birth-control mandate will incur an annual penalty of roughly $2,000 per employee. So it is clearly a substantial burden.

Objecting employers could, of course, avoid the fine by choosing to go out of business. But as the Supreme Court noted in Sherbert v. Verner, "governmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against" noncompliant parties.

The birth-control mandate also fails the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive means" tests.

Does the mandate further the governmental interest in increasing cost-free access to contraceptives by means that are least restrictive of the employer's religious freedom? Plainly, the answer is no. There are plenty of other ways to increase access to contraceptives that intrude far less on the free exercise of religion.

Health and Human Services itself touts community health centers, public clinics and hospitals as some of the available alternatives; doctors and pharmacies are others. Many of the entities, with Planned Parenthood being the most prominent, already furnish free contraceptives. The government could have the rest of these providers make contraceptive services available free and then compensate them directly. A mandate on employers who object for religious reasons is among the most restrictive means the government could have chosen to increase access.

The mandate also fails the "compelling government interest" test. Given the widespread availability of contraceptive services, and the far less restrictive other ways to increase their availability, the government can hardly claim it has a "compelling" interest in marginally increasing access to birth control by requiring objecting employers to join in this effort.

The "compelling interest" claim is further undercut by the mandate's exclusion, for purely secular reasons, of employers who offer "grandfathered" plans. These are employer-provided plans that existed at the time ObamaCare was enacted and can continue to operate so long as they do not make major changes. They cover tens of millions of enrollees, according to a recent estimate by Health and Human Services.

In an effort to rally its base in the upcoming November election, the Obama administration seems more interested in punishing religiously based opposition to contraception and abortion than in marginally increasing access to contraception services. It is the combination of the political motive, together with the exclusion of so many employers from the mandate, that has profound constitutional implications. It transforms the mandate into a non-neutral and not generally applicable law that violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

In short, the birth-control mandate violates both statutory law and the Constitution. The fact that the administration promulgated it so flippantly, without seriously engaging on these issues, underscores how little it cares about either.

Mr. Rivkin, who served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, represented the 26 states in their challenge to ObamaCare before the trial and appellate courts. Mr. Whelan served in the Justice Department under President George W. Bush and is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

online.wsj.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


From: Brumar892/15/2012 10:32:43 AM
1 Recommendation   of 37896
 

President Obama’s HHS Mandate: Religious Intolerance and Economic Ignorance February 12, 2012 by Dan Mitchell


The Obama Administration is in a bit of hot water because it wants to coerce just about everyone – including a lot of religious institutions - to provide health insurance policies that cover the cost of birth control and certain abortion-inducing drugs.

The White House already has tried to defuse the controversy by shifting the coverage mandate from insurance buyers to the insurance companies, but everyone with an IQ above room temperature realizes that is a meaningless cosmetic change.

Regardless of how one feels about abortion or birth control (or even how one feels about religion), this is a bad policy. Decisions about what sort of insurance to provide shouldn’t be the result of a one-size-fits-all government mandate.

Yes, the Administration’s religious intolerance is unseemly, but it is also symptomatic of why government intervention in the health sector is the underlying problem.

John Cochrane, an economist at the University of Chicago (and an Adjunct Scholar at Cato!) addresses the economic issues in a Wall Street Journal column. Here are some key passages.

Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill. Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses. There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn’t add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn’t charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You’d have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you’d end up spending more. …Doubling the number of wellness visits and free pills sounds great, but who’s going to pay for it? There is a liberal dream that by mandating coverage the government can make something free.Sorry. Every increase in coverage means an increase in premiums. If your employer is paying for your health insurance, he could be paying you more in salary instead.

For all intents and purposes, Professor Cochrane is explaining the economics of third-party payer, which occurs when government intervention undermines the ability of markets to promote efficiency and low prices.

He also delves into the moral issues and explains that the only solution is to get the government out of health care.

Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don’t have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society. The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and they resign themselves to chipping away at its edges. No, we should throw it out, and fix the terrible distortions in the health-insurance and health-care markets. Sure, churches should be exempt. We should all be exempt.

I’ve explained four principles that should guide policy makers as they try to put the toothpaste back in the tube and restore free markets to healthcare.

And I’ve cited a real-world example of how the system would work if the third-party payer crisis was fixed.

We can implement free-market reforms, though they won’t be easy. Or we can keep on the current path, lose more of our freedom, and eventually have life-and-death decisions controlled by bureaucrats.

Should be an easy choice.







danieljmitchell.wordpress.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.