"Does America have the political maturity for single-payer healthcare?"

[bobabode]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-singlepayer-healthcare-20140703-column.html#page=1

Michael Hiltzick from The LA Times points up a disturbing aspect of the recent HL decision by the Supremes in this well written imo article.


"Consider the birth control methods at the heart of the Hobby Lobby case. The ACA mandates 20 contraceptive methods for coverage; Hobby Lobby's owners objected to four of these because they were what the business owners called "abortifacients" -- drugs or devices that promote abortion.
But medical science says that's erroneous: The four methods aren't abortifacients. But the business owners were able to sell their scientifically ignorant assertion to a science-challenged Supreme Court majority."

[BlueStreak]

Sadly, my answer is "no". America is anything but "mature" much less responsible.

Dave

[Ike Bana]

Nope. The fact that the majority of Americans are happy as pigs in shit with their fucked up employer sponsored insurance industry ripoff coverage is the only proof one needs.

PS - And the country obviously doesn't have the maturity to manage a 2nd Amendment either.

PSS - I pointed out several days ago that a copper wire IUD is not, by the definition of "abortion" that Hobby Lobby used in it's case, is not an abortifacient that Hobby Lobby says is the basis for it's "morally unacceptable" contraceptive argument. Not a peep outta one of the harebrained lunatic fringe cons on this forum to challenge it.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Nope. The fact that the majority of Americans are happy as pigs in shit with their fucked up employer sponsored insurance industry ripoff coverage is the only proof one needs.

PS - And the country obviously doesn't have the maturity to manage a 2nd Amendment either.

PSS - I pointed out several days ago that a copper wire IUD is not, by the definition of "abortion" that Hobby Lobby used in it's case, is not an abortifacient that Hobby Lobby says is the basis for it's "morally unacceptable" contraceptive argument. Not a peep outta one of the harebrained lunatic fringe cons on this forum to challenge it.

When did management at Hobby Lobby become experts on the human reproductive system? Or their friggin' church for that matter? Come to think of it; What in the hell does Antonin Scalia know about the human reproductive system? He thinks because he's a dick that means he knows the reproductive organs?

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

When did management at Hobby Lobby become experts on the human reproductive system? Or their friggin' church for that matter? Come to think of it; What in the hell does Antonin Scalia know about the human reproductive system? He thinks because he's a dick that means he knows the reproductive organs?

Dave

Having in my first marriage been faced with the problem of getting her pregnant and not avoiding it I submit that I know more about the human reproductive system than the Farting Five all put together. Scalia is an idiot.

Oh shit now we have some bible thumper FM station operating on the same frequency as WBJC and they have not reduced their transmitter power as they should for daylight operation. What is it with these stupid people do they believe they can flout all the rules?

[finnbow]

The reason the 'Baggers and their ilk dislike Obamacare is their fear that someone (other than themselves, of course) will get something they don't deserve.

[VanishingPoi]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The reason the 'Baggers and their ilk dislike Obamacare is their fear that someone (other than themselves, of course) will get something they don't deserve.

I hear you. I hear them say it all the time. They have to pay for pregnancies, all such bs.

I am as left as one can be and I don't like the ACA because it was written for and by the insurance companies. The insurance companies are making out like bandits.

However, I do not want it going away. We need it as a starting point. Some of the provisions in it. We can't go back but we can go forward and eventually have single payor universal health coverage like we should have had from the beginning if it were not for those right wing scum.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoi

I hear you. I hear them say it all the time. They have to pay for pregnancies, all such bs.

I am as left as one can be and I don't like the ACA because it was written for and by the insurance companies. The insurance companies are making out like bandits.

However, I do not want it going away. We need it as a starting point. Some of the provisions in it. We can't go back but we can go forward and eventually have single payor universal health coverage like we should have had from the beginning if it were not for those right wing scum.

This has been pretty much my exact position on the ACA as well.

As far as their convenient objections to "paying for" contraceptives and abortions it's utter bullshit. Because if you've had your employer sponsored health care insurance you've been paying for covered contraceptives and legal covered abortions all along. Your premium dollars go into the pot that pays for everything that's covered. And your tax dollars pay for the same coverage as well, in the form of the hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks and other corporate welfare gobbled up by the health insurance industry.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoi

I hear you. I hear them say it all the time. They have to pay for pregnancies, all such bs.

I am as left as one can be and I don't like the ACA because it was written for and by the insurance companies. The insurance companies are making out like bandits.

However, I do not want it going away. We need it as a starting point. Some of the provisions in it. We can't go back but we can go forward and eventually have single payor universal health coverage like we should have had from the beginning if it were not for those right wing scum.

They spent a fortune on lobbying and that should be outlawed because despite what some version of SCOTUS said the First does not cover lobbying. Unfortunately being conversant with the English language is not a requirement to be a SC Justice.

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by merrylander

They spent a fortune on lobbying and that should be outlawed because despite what some version of SCOTUS said the First does not cover lobbying. Unfortunately being conversant with the English language is not a requirement to be a SC Justice.

If legalese was plain English, attorneys wouldn't take up a third of the yellow pages.