So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with?
The government doesnt have the right to do so. The fact that it sometimes (more and more frequently these days) does things that it doesnt have a right to do is not an excuse.
There is a process where the federal government can be granted new rights. This happens only when the States approve a modification to the constitution.
Hobby Lobby denies neither, proving that you are one of those hyper-reactionary liberals that doesnt know what went down. The employees of Hobby Lobby continue to have the liberty to consume drugs such as Plan B. What they dont have is the liberty to force their employer to pay for their Plan B.
Lots of things arent part of an employees compensation package. Even such necessities as food and shelter, but somehow in the liberal mind Plan B is so much more important than food and shelter that employers must pay for it specifically.
Shows us where the liberal priorities lie... the murder of what they have unscientifically dehumanized is top priority. I guess if the liberty of the unborn human isnt important, than why should anybody elses liberty be important.
There is no issue with risk pools being fine-grained. The issue is that low-risk (and even no-risk) things are included.
Are you at "risk" of a yearly physical?
The point of insurance is supposed to be that if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, that you arent out the cost of that unlikely and expensive thing. There is value in knowing that you will not have to sell or lose your house if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, enough value in it that a middle man can also profit. Its win-win in these cases.
Its not win-win when you have to pay that middle mans cut for non-risky things like that yearly physical. This is true when the middle man is an insurance company, but it is also true when that middle man is a government or some powerful government-corporate hybrid entity that can force you into giving them a cut.
In the case of auto-insurance, if you own your vehicle then you are only forced to get insurance for unlikely and expensive things, and only when those things can happen to other people while you are driving. Routine maintenance simply is not mandated because it used to be that people were smart enough to know what insurance was for and wouldn't let the government pull that sort of shit.
My premiums don't go up because I ate too many ice cream cones, because I don't pay premiums per se. I pay taxes and my taxes pay for medical treatment for anyone who lives in my jurisdiction.
Translation: Everyone pays more because you eat too many ice cream cones.
Mandating insurance forces premiums _down_ because the pool of insured people becomes much bigger.
Thats not how it works.
Increasing the number of insured people is meaningless to the premiums needed unless the amount of risk associated with the "new" policies is as-a-matter-of-fact less than the amount of risk associated with the "old" policies. Now if thats true AND both "new" and "old" are in the same pool, only THEN would the cost of policies change.
What you have done is taken an argument from another situation (perhaps the liberal justification for getting everyone on health insurance), and then misapplied it to this one. The reason you misapplied it is because you never understood it to begin with.
Whats worse is even if you understood the argument, you probably still wouldnt understand the injustice of it (which is that less risky people are forced to subsidize more risky people if you force them into the same risk pool.)
Yeah.. I know.. understanding the money is hard, which is why you don't.
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
and aside from a straw man/slippery slope argument no one will seriously consider the possibility that they could be mandated for widespread use.
Yes, just like when the government first started messing around with health insurance (tax exempt if the employer pays for it, large employers must pay for it, etc..) it was just a slippery that the government would eventually mandate that every person had health insurance.
So here we are.... using the "just a slippery slope" argument again?
Spoken like someone that doesnt know anything about the Hobby Lobby case other than what the hyper-reactionary and completely dishonest liberal propaganda machine started spewing the moment the ruling came.
letting government control population levels via that chip while you blather on about liberal talking points that so trivially demonstrate ignorance all by themselves.
Mandating efficacy is the best defense against snake oil sales.
Yep, thats why there was a big "snake oil" market until 1968 when efficacy was finally monitored by government.... oh, wait... "snake oils" pretty much disappeared half a century previous to that? How can that be?
So no, mandating efficacy is NOT the best defense against snake oil sales after all. If anything, mandating efficacy pushes "snake oils" underground or into adjacent markets such as "dietary supplements" where again the FDA does not ensure potency, purity or biologic activity of the ingredients.
The Kefauver Harris Amendment was inspired by the thalidomide tragedy that caused thousands of birth defects. However, the number of birth defects it caused in America was 0 because thalidomide was not approved yet by the FDA simply on the safety mandate. Thalidomide would have passed efficacy tests because it was, in fact, effective for more that a few purposes. So effective it was for so many purposes that Germany had lifted regulations and even started selling it over the counter.
Mandating efficacy is the backwards thinking of the Statist.
He is a full blow Statist willing to make things up to justify his Statist position, rather than form a position based on actual information.
perhaps he thinks that his Statist position is so solid that the information he is unaware of must support his position, so feels free to just make it up because hey it must be true.
If that's the math, we can just say every billion that the US Congress doesn't dedicate to medical research is costing lives.
Only if we know what the alternative was/is can such a claim be made.
See, the person you replied to detailed both sides of the coin (delays cost lives, rushing cost lives, compare) while you only want to look at one side with your "counter example" (lack of spending cost lives, lets not compare to anything..)
Yes, the FDA is supposed to be enforcing efficacy. That's its entire point
"Bureau of Chemistry" was split into the "Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration" and the "Bureau of Chemistry and Soils" in 1927, the former of which was later renamed "Food and Drug Administration"
The FDA's purpose was codified by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 until the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was passed.
Still at this point, the FDA's purpose was only regulating safety.
It wasnt until the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962 was passed that drug efficacy was considered by any federal law, Even here it wasnt until 1968 that the FDA enacted the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation that complied with the 1962 law - so the very first year that the FDA monitored efficacy was 30 years after the FFDCA, and 62 years after the PFDA.
So only 44 years of monitoring drug efficacy by the FDA, yet its original mandate has been around since 1906 and the administration has had its current name since 1927.
You've got some explaining to do: Are you being a intentionally dishonest fuck, or are you just an ignorant twat? yeah I now.. facts are hard to either know or have to defend against.
Everything you said is unimportant because the FDA's purpose isnt supposed to be enforcing efficacy, only safety.
Somewhere along the way, however, some blind fool tools such as yourself got the FDA into the safety efficacy racket, and the thing that took a back seat because of it was in fact safety.
Let me quote you: "if it can't be overseen by the government it need to either be banned." Not only is this a grammatic fail, even if it was grammatically correct it would still just be a full blown blind call for complete Statism.
Yes, it cant be that the science disagrees with your philosophy.
You can't have the debate on honest grounds where we debate if a human fetus has rights -- instead you just want to define, completely unscientifically, that a human fetus isnt human.
Is it that you are afraid that you don't have much of an argument if we just talk about if a particular set of humans should have rights?
Ah yes, the old "they made a new name, therefore it must be wrong" argument (as if that makes any difference).
Its not "global warming" or "climate change"... its "climate disruption" now.
Seems to me that if warming wasnt the best word to describe it, and change wasnt the best word to describe it either, then I have to start wondering what the hell "it" really is.
We're not talking about my belief system, we're talking about "scientific doctrine", or as I interpret it, scientific populism.
Then why are you going on about "brain capacity or structure" when we are discussing what is and is not human?
Clearly you want it to be about your belief system rather than what is and is not a human scientifically. You would be very hard pressed to find a biologist tell you that a human beings fetus is not human. Results would be different when talking about an embryo, but I suspect that just the mere distinction between fetus and embryo has already injected too much science into the discussion for you to adequately deal with without you putting in some research.
If you do need to do some research at this point, then you were never equipped to enter this discussion. That whole embyro to fetus to baby process is the science of it, while "brain capacity or structure" is pseudo-science used by philosophers rather than scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with?
The government doesnt have the right to do so. The fact that it sometimes (more and more frequently these days) does things that it doesnt have a right to do is not an excuse.
There is a process where the federal government can be granted new rights. This happens only when the States approve a modification to the constitution.
"I'm not denying treatment, I'm denying payment."
Hobby Lobby denies neither, proving that you are one of those hyper-reactionary liberals that doesnt know what went down. The employees of Hobby Lobby continue to have the liberty to consume drugs such as Plan B. What they dont have is the liberty to force their employer to pay for their Plan B.
Lots of things arent part of an employees compensation package. Even such necessities as food and shelter, but somehow in the liberal mind Plan B is so much more important than food and shelter that employers must pay for it specifically.
Shows us where the liberal priorities lie... the murder of what they have unscientifically dehumanized is top priority. I guess if the liberty of the unborn human isnt important, than why should anybody elses liberty be important.
On a related note, I wonder how many more accidents happen because of "safe" behavior done mindlessly than "risky" behavior done safely...
How many tailgaters would continue to tailgate if it was as simple as slamming on the breaks to ruin them financially...
I think you are missing the forest for the trees.
There is no issue with risk pools being fine-grained. The issue is that low-risk (and even no-risk) things are included.
Are you at "risk" of a yearly physical?
The point of insurance is supposed to be that if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, that you arent out the cost of that unlikely and expensive thing. There is value in knowing that you will not have to sell or lose your house if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, enough value in it that a middle man can also profit. Its win-win in these cases.
Its not win-win when you have to pay that middle mans cut for non-risky things like that yearly physical. This is true when the middle man is an insurance company, but it is also true when that middle man is a government or some powerful government-corporate hybrid entity that can force you into giving them a cut.
In the case of auto-insurance, if you own your vehicle then you are only forced to get insurance for unlikely and expensive things, and only when those things can happen to other people while you are driving. Routine maintenance simply is not mandated because it used to be that people were smart enough to know what insurance was for and wouldn't let the government pull that sort of shit.
My premiums don't go up because I ate too many ice cream cones, because I don't pay premiums per se. I pay taxes and my taxes pay for medical treatment for anyone who lives in my jurisdiction.
Translation: Everyone pays more because you eat too many ice cream cones.
Mandating insurance forces premiums _down_ because the pool of insured people becomes much bigger.
Thats not how it works.
Increasing the number of insured people is meaningless to the premiums needed unless the amount of risk associated with the "new" policies is as-a-matter-of-fact less than the amount of risk associated with the "old" policies. Now if thats true AND both "new" and "old" are in the same pool, only THEN would the cost of policies change.
What you have done is taken an argument from another situation (perhaps the liberal justification for getting everyone on health insurance), and then misapplied it to this one. The reason you misapplied it is because you never understood it to begin with.
Whats worse is even if you understood the argument, you probably still wouldnt understand the injustice of it (which is that less risky people are forced to subsidize more risky people if you force them into the same risk pool.)
Yeah.. I know.. understanding the money is hard, which is why you don't.
...says the national socialist.
And even most C64 owners dropped it ASAP and went straight for assembly.
Which only has equivalents to goto and gosub.... you were saying?
It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.
I rest my case.
and aside from a straw man/slippery slope argument no one will seriously consider the possibility that they could be mandated for widespread use.
Yes, just like when the government first started messing around with health insurance (tax exempt if the employer pays for it, large employers must pay for it, etc..) it was just a slippery that the government would eventually mandate that every person had health insurance.
So here we are.... using the "just a slippery slope" argument again?
You think that they get funding from poor people?
This is, of course, assuming the end goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies.
Doesnt matter what the motives are...what will it actually be used for?
Planned Parenthood chipping up as many poor people as they can, perhaps?
Spoken like someone that doesnt know anything about the Hobby Lobby case other than what the hyper-reactionary and completely dishonest liberal propaganda machine started spewing the moment the ruling came.
letting government control population levels via that chip while you blather on about liberal talking points that so trivially demonstrate ignorance all by themselves.
Do you know what the government has an army of? An army.
Yes, and its an Army lead by politicians who are predominately lawyers.
Yeah, it is easy to offer lower prices when you get to skip over the costs other people pay.
Its easy to prevent competition when you jack up the cost that other must pay to insane levels such as $1 million per medallion.
Let taxis suffer the regulatory capture that they themselves created. There is no reason for anyone else to suffer it.
I'm not questioning if they *should*; I question whether they DO.
That doesnt seem to have stopped you from continuing to be in the "question" state instead of the "answered" state.
Mandating efficacy is the best defense against snake oil sales.
Yep, thats why there was a big "snake oil" market until 1968 when efficacy was finally monitored by government .... oh, wait... "snake oils" pretty much disappeared half a century previous to that? How can that be?
So no, mandating efficacy is NOT the best defense against snake oil sales after all. If anything, mandating efficacy pushes "snake oils" underground or into adjacent markets such as "dietary supplements" where again the FDA does not ensure potency, purity or biologic activity of the ingredients.
Also to add:
The Kefauver Harris Amendment was inspired by the thalidomide tragedy that caused thousands of birth defects. However, the number of birth defects it caused in America was 0 because thalidomide was not approved yet by the FDA simply on the safety mandate. Thalidomide would have passed efficacy tests because it was, in fact, effective for more that a few purposes. So effective it was for so many purposes that Germany had lifted regulations and even started selling it over the counter.
Mandating efficacy is the backwards thinking of the Statist.
He is a full blow Statist willing to make things up to justify his Statist position, rather than form a position based on actual information.
perhaps he thinks that his Statist position is so solid that the information he is unaware of must support his position, so feels free to just make it up because hey it must be true.
If that's the math, we can just say every billion that the US Congress doesn't dedicate to medical research is costing lives.
Only if we know what the alternative was/is can such a claim be made.
See, the person you replied to detailed both sides of the coin (delays cost lives, rushing cost lives, compare) while you only want to look at one side with your "counter example" (lack of spending cost lives, lets not compare to anything..)
Yes, the FDA is supposed to be enforcing efficacy. That's its entire point
"Bureau of Chemistry" was split into the "Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration" and the "Bureau of Chemistry and Soils" in 1927, the former of which was later renamed "Food and Drug Administration"
The FDA's purpose was codified by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 until the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was passed.
Still at this point, the FDA's purpose was only regulating safety.
It wasnt until the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962 was passed that drug efficacy was considered by any federal law, Even here it wasnt until 1968 that the FDA enacted the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation that complied with the 1962 law - so the very first year that the FDA monitored efficacy was 30 years after the FFDCA, and 62 years after the PFDA.
So only 44 years of monitoring drug efficacy by the FDA, yet its original mandate has been around since 1906 and the administration has had its current name since 1927.
You've got some explaining to do: Are you being a intentionally dishonest fuck, or are you just an ignorant twat? yeah I now.. facts are hard to either know or have to defend against.
Everything you said is unimportant because the FDA's purpose isnt supposed to be enforcing efficacy, only safety.
Somewhere along the way, however, some blind fool tools such as yourself got the FDA into the safety efficacy racket, and the thing that took a back seat because of it was in fact safety.
Let me quote you: "if it can't be overseen by the government it need to either be banned." Not only is this a grammatic fail, even if it was grammatically correct it would still just be a full blown blind call for complete Statism.
Yes, it cant be that the science disagrees with your philosophy.
You can't have the debate on honest grounds where we debate if a human fetus has rights -- instead you just want to define, completely unscientifically, that a human fetus isnt human.
Is it that you are afraid that you don't have much of an argument if we just talk about if a particular set of humans should have rights?
Ah yes, the old "they made a new name, therefore it must be wrong" argument (as if that makes any difference).
Its not "global warming" or "climate change" ... its "climate disruption" now.
Seems to me that if warming wasnt the best word to describe it, and change wasnt the best word to describe it either, then I have to start wondering what the hell "it" really is.
We're not talking about my belief system, we're talking about "scientific doctrine", or as I interpret it, scientific populism.
Then why are you going on about "brain capacity or structure" when we are discussing what is and is not human?
Clearly you want it to be about your belief system rather than what is and is not a human scientifically. You would be very hard pressed to find a biologist tell you that a human beings fetus is not human. Results would be different when talking about an embryo, but I suspect that just the mere distinction between fetus and embryo has already injected too much science into the discussion for you to adequately deal with without you putting in some research.
If you do need to do some research at this point, then you were never equipped to enter this discussion. That whole embyro to fetus to baby process is the science of it, while "brain capacity or structure" is pseudo-science used by philosophers rather than scientists.