Two things stand out to me today over the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Health Care Act, or as the less educated term it Obamacare.
1.) The healthcare law was not perfect.
2.) We are granted the opportunity to continue a serious conversation. Repeal is a thing of the past. We must find ways to make it work.
Why is repeal a thing of the past?
ReplyDeleteWell, historically, the Supreme Court's decision ends up prevailing in the lower courts. But on the other hand, I think we can work together Heather and make this law work ;)
DeleteDoesn't mean people shouldn't try anyway. I mean, it took an awful long time for the Abolitionists to win out...
DeleteHow does this affect the whole religious organizations supplying birth control? Have they figured that out? I wasn't watching too closely because I'm trying to control my blood pressure. hehe!
I just noticed I posted like...three minutes after this post went up. Hahaha! I promise I was not lurking around waiting for your opinion.
When religious organizations want to stop being employers then they can get an exemption ...
DeleteReally? Wow. Well, I guess we have to obey God rather than man. So, hmmm...sounds like some of the religious leaders are going to have to take a very interesting stand.
DeleteI think this is one of those things that need hammered out. I'm just happy the law stood so we're able to start having such discussions on its implementation.
DeleteI definitely think the discussions ought to take place before the law is implemented. I mean, you can't implement a lousy law (hypothetical...I'm not necessarily talking about this one) just to get discussion going. That's just a really bad policy.
DeleteI agree in principal. But it's so such a hard and convoluted process to get things done in this country.
DeleteOk, but you would pass a bad law in order to make people talk about it? I'm not trying to be offensive (It's SO hard not to sound like that on these online forums) I'm really just confused as to how someone could think that was a good idea.
DeleteI wouldn't say it is a bad law, but a basic framework set out to be built upon. The Bill of Rights was written as such.
DeleteA strict law, in my opinion, isn't always a good thing. It's better to be more flexible in this case. Then through trial and error we find what works best.
DeleteThis was hardly flexible.
DeleteAnd I still disagree with passing it and THEN through trial and error finding what works best. Because IF it is a bad law then no amount of trial and error will help.
DeleteHow does separating Employment from religion go against the word of god? The employees may not even be of the religion that is fighting not to provide birth control...and how is it not flexible? I have no problem with and Support the right of anyone having their own spiritual beliefs, where I have a problem is when those religious beliefs start infringing on the rights of others. those workers have just as much right to birth control as a worker at Walmart. The fight against birth control is something that has been driven by catholic cannon, not the word of God.
DeleteWhat did Christ have to say on the matter? Nothing! the only mention about mans seed is in the old testament that was replaced by the new...the condemnation against birthcontrol didnt even start until about a hundred and fifty years after Christ's death and was heavily influenced by the greeks...who were Pagans at the time...
Modern scholars trace St. Clement’s antipathy to birth control to the Stoics, a school of Greek philosophers whose thinking heavily influenced Christian theology. They counseled that indulgence, including sex for pleasure, led to unhappiness. St. Augustine, in his fifth-century Letters, also drew on Stoic thought when he forcefully denounced all forms of contraception. In his view, sex was a sin even for married couples who were sterile, because they couldn’t produce children.
Another question would be how can you compare the struggle to free slaves to fighting a bill that provides health insurance for uninsured americans? Believe it or not this bill will save lives provide jobs and protect the health and productivity of our country's people...if your so against it choose not to use the coverage.
ReplyDeleteThe original statement was "Repealing hasn't worked historically. So, let's not try to repeal." I was only pointing out that if you used the same logic you could have told Abolitionists that it hadn't worked historically, so let's not try to abolish it. I wasn't comparing the two.
DeleteAnd you are correct, I do not believe the bill will do the things you say. And isn't the point of the bill so that you can't choose not to use it? Aren't you taxed if you choose not to?
Ooo I didn't mean it like that. I was just trying to say that generally the precedent stands in lower courts and carries the weight of law as it did in Roe v. Wade. And it would be a more likely route to compromise on the law, now that it has so much behind it.
DeleteAh ok, I see now. Yes, I was just questioning the logic and not comparing the AHCA and Abolitionism.
DeleteAh ok, makes sense.
Delete...I wrote this comment before but Blogspot ate it.
no the point you are referring to is only one small part of the bill, not the bill it self why not try reading what the bill provides not just the talking points...I say that because you say you don't believe me...prove me wrong, and I am open minded if you do I will wholeheartedly change my stance...I only ask the same open-mindedness of you.
DeleteI hope you understand I am not attacking your religious beliefs, in fact if called upon I would fight to protect your rights...I have read the bible (three times)was baptized and accepted holy communion, and have been saved more times than I deserved, I think god has more on his plate to worry about than how people choose to have sex