Politics & Current Events
MommyLiberty5013
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Thoughts on...
Wake up P&CE!
What do you think of the Supreme Court decision?
Re: Thoughts on...
So, since all these regulars left, there can't be a discussion here?
Do the current Nesties have anything to say or think on the matter?
Greetings, Nesties! There were quality comments on The Knot Etiquette board--not sure how this topic qualifies under Etiquette, but people seem to use it as a catch-all. I haven't posted on The Nest before, so I'll start by pasting what I posted under TK's thread. (No one responded after me, so I felt cheated out of a good discussion
Fingers crossed that this will kick off a good one here:
I appreciate that much of the law is well-intentioned toward increasing healthcare access and therefore improving more people's lives--after all, government is supposed to serve the people (you may insert a sarcastic comment here). And having pre-existing conditions and not having benefits through my husband's or my employment, I would personally benefit. However, in practice, I find the law invalid. Yes, everyone will at some time in their lives participate in the healthcare market (Alaskan survivalists who give birth at home and die in their sleep excepted), and we can't live without it. The fact that we're alive should not obligate us to subsidize others' healthcare. Whether that's morally preferable to allowing someone who cannot afford treatment to suffer is not the question; people have the right to determine how and in what manner their personal funds support others. While it's good to do, we are not legally obligated to contribute to charity. Of course, government has an interest and responsibility to "promote the general welfare," which is why we have taxes that provide services like education, highways, defense, even environmental protection. I think this law goes too far in promoting the general welfare in that it infringes too much on individual rights.
Oh, I do 100% support the little part of the law that taxes tanning bed use. I think it's about time for that!
It's cute how fvkcing ignorant you are.
Also, the Hyde Amendment. That you've probably not done any research at all on. So I am really glad that your precious religious beliefs and idiocy don't trump other people's medical care.
I think your post was well-said. The main objection to the healthcare that people have isn't providing it to the poor, it's being told where/how to spend their dollars. If this nation is truly "free" and everyone wants the freedom to "choose," then yes, it should apply here as well. I should decide where to put my money.
There isn't really a moral aspect to being taxed for building bridges, paving roads, paying an elected officals' salary, supporting the USPS, having a fire department, police department, military, services to protect us from terrorists, which is why these issues are not debated seriously. But, asking someone to put forth a hard-earned buck to pay for a service, procedure, or medication they morally and religiously find offensive, is, in itself, offensive and intolerant. If you force someone to do this, you are in effect saying to them, "Your beliefs do not matter. I do not tolerate you or them. You will respect mine and me, but I will not return that courtesy."
I applaud people for standing up and saying that something goes against their beliefs. Why should a vegetarian be forced to eat meat? A Jew forced to work on the Sabboth? A Catholic forced to pay for a part of medical care that contradicts their religion?
Another point to consider is this.
Many, many people come from abroad to the U.S. seeking healthcare due to its international reputation. I have heard several citizens of other nations sharing words of caution against healthcare reforms such as this one because over- regulation creates the sort of red-tape that causes heathcare here to start to take a turn for the worse....long lines, poor care, increased costs, wait-lists, priority lists, etc.
What we have here is a debate over fundamentals: Capitalism and Socialism. While no form of economy or government is perfect and without flaws, history has shown that while capitalism survives on greed (and needs to be somewhat bridled for this reason), it does effectively harness innate human drive, creativity, and the desire to be the best. In other words, it's competition. When we compete for a gold medal (Olympic reference...GO USA!
), the highest test score in a class, the most customers...when businesses compete for Americans' dollars, many people have jobs, new ideas flourish, better products are made, and overall this is good for everyone.
It seems backward, but capitalism actually CAN help the poor. As businesses do better and folks have work, they are more inclined to reach out and give of their time and money to help the less fortunate.
People erroneously think that having the government give out healthcare will help the less fortunate. It won't. It will make healthcare take longer and be demoted from excellent to good and then to fair....and then, the sultan, price man from UAE won't come to the Cleveland Clinic where my mom works to have his ticker worked on.
I think her thoughts are very well-said and it does actually appear that she has been using her head to think some things through. If you simmer down for a second, just ask yourself this question, "Do I think it is fair to ask myself to pay my hard-earned money to something that does something to something or someone else that I find goes against my morals and religion?" Are you really ready to say that an entire branch of a major world religion (Catholicism) should be forced to fund services that they believe contradicts their leader, holy book, personal morals, and also their God? Are you ready to say that??? Are you? Seriously. Wow sounds mighty intolerant to me.
I agree that the above poster has some very valid points. To call her ignorant reflects more on you than her.
I also don't like the government or a board appointed by the government deciding what is to be covered and what the price of that will be.
Why should birth control be absolutely free with no copay while other much more important drugs are not addressed at all?
Also, if you look at what is already happening with government insurance it is not very comforting. For example, I know someone with breathing problems who can only use xopenex in their nebulizer. They have medicare and personal insurance and drug coverage.
But because they have medicare, that takes precedence over the others. Xopenex is covered 100% on the medicare part B. However, they can not get the drug because not one single drug store will cover it. They don't get paid enough from medicare to make it worthwhile. Actually they say they would lose money providing it.
So even though this person has and pays for drug coverage, because of medicare they can not get the drug they need to breathe.
This sounds crazy to me. Yet, all you hear are the poor women yelling about their free birth control.
Along this line (bolded text), my dear friend and past co-workers has a daughter with significant mental and physical disabilities. This woman is fearful that this new legislation will cause her daughter to not have the care/medications she needs to lead as long of a life as possible. Her life expectancy is only 8 years old, but with excellent care, she may live longer. My friend is already concerned about how things will change.
Quite frankly, this poster sounds like she's been reading church pamphlets and propaganda, not anything of any factual information surrounding either the ACA or modern medicine.
When her "beliefs" aren't founded on any actual part of the law, then yes, she is the literal definition of ignorant. She might be "thinking things through" but she is operating under the false premise that federal monies pay for abortions or that the Afforable Care Act will somehow support them. Since the Hyde Amendment has been around since 1976 and prevents federal money from being used to pay for abortion, her underlying premise is flawed and thus the rest of her argument is also flawed.
Moreover, there are literally thousands of women who are alive because termination of their pregnancies was the only option. Her argument that she doesn't believe that "those procedures" are "good or necessary medical treatment" is 100% contrary to science and modern medicine. She can believe it all she wants, but she's wrong.
Also, I am very glad her holy book has no bearing on my ability to make decisions surrounding my uterus. I don't have to support or "tolerate" ignorance. Her religion has no place in the law. I am 100% ready to say that her god and her religious book should absolutely be forced to comply with any laws in any country where they live. Religion, even Catholicism, does not trump law.
Awesome. So how do I opt out of paying for war?
I have an opinion on this.
#1 The decision itself... I think it is ironic that leading up to the decision, there was all this talk about how awful it would be if there were a divided 5-4 decision and a political one. Then that actually happened, with the preponderance of the evidence suggesting that Roberts flipped (see Jan Crawford piece) not based on constitutionality but because he was upset by broadsides against the court by Obama and the media. He was worried about the future of the Court and the way it would be perceived----that itself is "political."
I feel like he wanted a certain result and came up with the "tax" as a way to justify it. Even Anthony Kennedy heatedly and passionately tried to change his opinion, to no avail. Kennedy had been worried about the fact that there was no "limiting principle."
It would've been one thing had it been Kennedy siding with the four "liberal" justices. The way this was done was very disheartening, esp. since I and others have been stating for years that one of the best Bush moves was appointing Roberts and Alito.
#2 On the one hand, there's the problem of the mandate and being forced to buy something or be penalized/taxed. But now I am pivoting away from that argument and feel like the PPACA has three major problems:
#1 the expansion of Medicaid
I find the expansion of Medicaid to 400% of the poverty level to be problematic. There are so many people who could be subsidized that really don't need it. In my view, unless you are in a very HCOL area, $92k is not POOR. I also have trouble with expanding a fraud-ridden program that is already in danger of going into the red.
I actually am hoping that many of the states with Republican governors won't implement this now that they no longer can have all money yanked away. It would be financially ruinous for them to take the 90% of government money for this expansion and then have to pay the rest. In Ohio, for example, the cost of implementing the PPACA is twice our rainy day fund. The cost of setting up the exchanges, too, is ridiculous.
#2 the intended ruination of private health insurance
It seems like the ultimate intention here is to ruin the health insurance market and bring in single payer/"Medicare for all." This is just the first step. That would explode the budget.
#3 employers kicking people off their good coverage
Obama's being disingenuous when he said that if you like your doctor, you could keep him/her. My fear is that in the future employers will find it cheaper to dump people onto the exchanges than to keep coverage. That means that the majority would suffer through less coverage at the price of subsidizing a fewer amount of people who already don't have it.
It's hard to discuss the PPACA before 2014 because proponents can give all their happy talk about the law, while the unintended consequences are what might get us in the long run, and those won't be evident for a few years. It's all speculation...
This is well said. We really have no idea how much this law will be controlling everyone's healthcare. I don't want the government in total charge of my health care and my insurance options. But I think this is the direction things will go.
So true. I much prefer an unelected, unaccountable private company whose sole purpose is to make money off of denying people coverage making those decisions.
I get that big companies can take advantage and do harm in a variety of ways. That idea irks me just as much as big government deciding for me on things. But, if I'm choosing between the two, I'll take private businesses every time.
Competition for Americans' dollars will help the best companies, with the best plans, and best employees survive, which means better care all around. With government control of healthcare, all we're doing is opening ourselves up for lower standards of care, and higher taxes, as well as a growing entitlement demand.
Lastly, the bolded part in your post isn't accurate. An insurance company makes money from permiums paid to them by their customers (businesses providing employer-sponsored plans and/or individuals/families). They do not make money off of denying coverage. They make money off of providing coverage, which is paid for in the form of premiums.
I think that everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, should have health insurance (if they want it). And while keeping it totally private, perhaps it would be wise for these big companies to create, if they haven't already, hardship plans for people to get into who meet certain income requirements.
MommyLiberty,
If you feel that strongly about the health care decision, there is only one thing that you should do, and it's not move to Costa Rica. Haha.
The only way this gets repealed is if there's Mitt Romney in the White House. He can extend waivers to states to exempt them from at least some provisions, at least that is my understanding.
Besides that, you need to look at the Senate races and try to influence the elections in the eight tossup states. Find a few candidates you really like and volunteer or give donations to them, even small donations.
The eight tossup states on RealClearPolitics are Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Montana, Nevada, and Virginia. There are also two "leaning Dem" states that might be closer with time, Ohio and Michigan.
Look into the candidates; that's the way to repeal at this point.
I was clear about my identity all along when I used this AE for April Fool's Day, but I want to make totally clear again that this is a Nest regular JulieF/JulieFe posting under this account because I purposefully forgot the password to my original account.
At least with a private insurance company you have some sort of recourse if you don't like the coverage, and that is find another company. With the government behemoth, you cannot. In my view, the expansion of Medicaid is to suck the middle class into dependency so that come election day, they will vote for the politicians who are providing the goodies. Meanwhile, the actual taxpayers, a shrinking part of the electorate, will be on the hook.
I wish that I did not fear the unintended consequences of the PPACA, but I feel compelled to state what I actually feel will happen. Only time will tell...
Make no mistake, the ultimate goal of the far left is to eliminate private companies and have the populace under the umbrella of the government for all health care and insurance. Look into the statements by zealots like Jan S. of Illinois.
Yes, a good friend on this board, I believe it was ESF, said that I was posting on a debate board when what I really wanted was a blog. So right; this is becoming my de facto blog.
Why would private companies ever want to do this? Why would they intentionally lose money just to be nice? Their shareholders would not appreciate that.
Anyone who says "well just switch plans if you don't like your insurance company!" has clearly never had to deal with buying private insurance with anything less than a pristine medical history.
This is an interesting article about discord at the Supreme Court.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57468202/discord-at-supreme-court-is-deep-and-personal/
(CBS News) Discord at the Supreme Court is deep and personal after Chief Justice John Roberts' surprise decision to side with the liberal justices in upholding a large portion of the president's health care plan. This discord is going to affect this Court for a long time - and no one has any idea how it will be resolved.
Conservatives feel a sense of betrayal. They feel that Roberts changed his mind for the wrong reasons.
If Roberts had been with the liberals from the beginning, sources tell me that would have been one thing; but switching his position - and relatively late in the process - infuriated the conservatives. (bold added)
Of course it's unclear why he switched. He may have been focused solely on the law. But that is not what some of his colleagues believe.
Roberts initially sided with the four conservatives to strike down the heart of the health care law - the individual mandate, the requirement that all Americans buy insurance or pay a penalty.
What the healthcare ruling means for you
When he changed his mind and joined with the liberals to uphold the law instead, he tried furiously - with a fair amount of "arm twisting" - to get Justice Anthony Kennedy to come along. Kennedy sometimes breaks with conservatives, so Roberts likely saw him as his best hope.
But on this issue of federal power, Kennedy was firm. The conservatives refused to even engage with Roberts on joining his opinion to uphold the law. They set out writing their own opinion - they wrote it to look like a majority decision, according to sources, because they hoped Roberts would rejoin them to strike down the mandate. Kennedy relentlessly lobbied Roberts until the end to come back. Of course he did not, and the conservatives' decision became a dissent.
Now this conflict has been brewing for some time. You can trace it back to the first full term of the new Roberts Court. That term had several controversial cases, including school busing and abortion. Liberal justices thought Roberts had signaled he would be open to compromise and be more moderate. But he sided with conservatives that year, making the liberals feel misled. They were furious. As one said at the time: "He talks the talk, but won't walk the walk."
Conservatives were angry at Roberts, too - they thought he gave the liberals false hope. He ended up just pushing them further away.
That tension eased over the summer of 2007. But this conflict among conservatives - after Roberts "walked the walk" with liberals - may take much longer to resolve.
It's not unheard of for the Court to erupt into conflict; Bush v. Gore in 2000 was a famous example. But some people say you would have to go back nearly 70 years to see this kind of tension, and almost bitterness, that now exists among the justices.
Jan Crawford is CBS News Chief Political and Legal Correspondent. She is from "Crossroads," Alabama.
I think the bolded is esp. true, for conservatives in general as well as on the court. It'd be one thing if we had lose 5-4 because of Kennedy, or if Roberts had been solid on upholding it all along. But by changing... yes, it's possible that he changed his mind on the law, but is it more likely that he all of a sudden had an epiphany "it's a tax!!!" or that he worried about his Court's legitimacy in the face of the warnings from the media and screeds in the media and from Obama? I believe the latter. After Verrelli had his clock cleaned and it looked like a disaster for the administration, there were warnings and plenty of "woe is me" articles about the 5-4 divide, the politicization of the Court, worries about its reputation, and so forth.
the politicization of the Court, worries about its reputation, and so forth.
Why does the above only seem to matter when it is on the conservatives' side? When it is in the liberal direction, it seems just fine.
That is the point. It was thought that the 5-4 split and politicization of the Court was a bad thing when pundits overwhelmingly thought the mandate would be overruled. When it wasn't, all of a sudden it wasn't so bad, and Roberts' possible reasons for changing weren't talked about, at least not that I saw.
I feel like "bi-partisanship" is always hailed when it's a Republican/conservative caving to the Dem side of an issue.
To the first responder. Your tax payer dollars also help subsize food stamps and WIC for pregnant women and children. If you are a vegetarian should you be able to opt out of taxes because your beliefs are contradicted when a woman buys meat for her kids?
That's a parallel, too. People pay taxes. Taxes go to tons of things, some of which we agree with and some we don't. This is reality. I disagree with drilling for oil near wildlife preserves, but plenty of politicians are all for it. If they get their way, my taxes will support oil drilling that I find morally abhorrent. Again, this is how taxes work. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. No one is making you DO anything against your beliefs.
Also, pacifists and quakers may be able to opt out of military service but they can't prevent their tax dollars for paying for war expenses. See where I'm going here.