That's because, in hobby lobby, all you can see is a christian victim.
Let's fix that. No employer should even be offered the opportunity to
interfere with the health care choices of their employees. That's why we
need a single payer health care system. These are choices for individuals, not
some religious holier than thou boss. Let's move forward, and relieve
employers of this gripe entirely.
re: HutteriteInteresting. We all hear about the employer being a
martyr. Yet, you wonder how many employees are being repressed?
What happens when religious freedoms come in direct conflict with individual
freedoms? Who wins? As an employer, do my religious convictions control the
benefits my employees receive, or do I allow them their own religious freedoms
to choose what they do in their own lives?I believe everyone should
be free to live according to their religious convictions, but this threat to
religious freedom has been manufactured to create a fear of change. Let's
move on and learn to get along with people who don't believe the same as we
Hobby Lobby should be able to make the choice it wants. Its employees are not
forced to work for them. If it could not get employees willing to work under its
benefits package then where would they be. It is time we stop asking government
to impose rules on businesses and return to common sense. When government
decides where people work and for whom, then they have the right and duty to
impose rules on the employer dictating benefits. God is central to many
people's beliefs and that means that there are employers who will not
believe in contraceptives. If you feel that that is against your beliefs then
choose a different employer. For the Supreme Court to allow this to be imposed
on Hobby Lobby is a step closer to making the USA (or any other country) into a
So a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness should be able to offer a heath
care policy to its employees that refuses to pay for blood transfusions--because
it finds these objectionable? Remember that the Catholic church does not
recognize as valid any marriage involving at least one Catholic person, unless
the officiant was a Catholic priest. So a Catholic-owned company should be able
to refuse coverage to the civilly married Mormon spouse of a Catholic employee,
because their religion says that the couple isn't "really" married?
And a Christian Science business owner should be able to offer health care that
only pays for Christian Science healers?
Perhaps we should ask the Hobby Lobby employees what they need?They
are the one's using the Healthcare, They are the one's paying
the majority of the Costs, They are the one's who should be heard.IMHO -- This is just another example of Corporations controlling the
Government, calling the shots of America's Citizens.IMHO II --
It used to be UNIONS negotiated the needs of Employees to the Corporations.Since the GOP destroyed the Unions, People are turning more and more to the
Government for Justice.So, the GOP is creating it's very own
I'm starting to get the sneaking suspicion that the conservative movement
in the US isn't actually interested in personal freedom but rather invokes
the term to attract low-information voters to their cause. This case is riddled
with contradictions including the non-sensical argument that an organization
possesses the inalienable right to determine what is and isn't in the best
interest of its' employees. If I snort ground-up xanax to dispel thetons
from my body and can convince my insurance company to pay for the pills, then
that's my prerogative and none of my employer's business.
Employer supplied health care is an invention of the last 50 years. People have
forgotten that there was a time when we each took responsibility for our own
health care, when we were free to make whatever health care choices we
wanted.Well, guess what? I stand today to proclaim to each American
that we still are! We are still free to purchase whatever health care products
and services we desire! Even if they are not covered by our employer provided
health care plan. Shocking, I know.Hobby Lobby's choice to not
provide certain services and products under the health care plan they provide in
no way impacts their employees ability to purchase those products and services.
In no way at all. Period. End of discussion. La fin.
It is apparent that the DesNews does not want to understand how to explain the
"paradox" they mention in this article. Rather, they prefer to side
with "Christians" as opposed to deal with truth. Does the DesNews not
recognize the harm they do to our Church's reputation when they ignore
reality in order to side with preconceived biases? Conservatives
like simplicity so let's be painfully simple: Hobby Lobby is not a person
and was not baptized into any Christian faith. It matters not whether their
owners (ie not Hobby Lobby itself) are Christian. As individuals, they are free
to continue to practice their religion as they see fit. What they cannot do,
however, is utilize the channels of power inherent within the company they own
(to repeat, Hobby Lobby is an entity, not a human being) in order to force other
people to live by the owners' religious precepts - this is particularly
true when said action would clearly violate duly executed law, such as the ACA.
The reason some Christians believe they are under attack is because
they refuse to see the world as it is, opting instead to see the world as they
wish it to be.
So, not only are corporations considered people, my friend, but they are people
with religious beliefs who will not hesitate to exercise leverage on their
employees, whatever beliefs THEY may hold. Unless a certain level of religious
devotion is a requirement of employment, the bosses should leave their personal
@Hutterite,the most shocking thing about your comment is that there
are people who agree with you.Clearly, neither you are any of those
liking your comment have ever lived in a country which actually implemented a
single payer system.I lived in England for 2 years (that's code
talk for "I served a mission in...") and while there I found out what a
government run health care system looked like. I have been opposed to the idea
ever since. Its ugly (no really it is actually ugly, and dirty, and
overcrowded). It was so bad in fact, that the church paid for a private health
plan for each of the missionaries serving there so we wouldn't have to use
the public option if we had problems.
@ David: Contrary to Conservative talking points, individuals do not really
have a lot of choice in employment - if the choice is work for Hobby Lobby and
feed my family or continue looking for a job while my family goes hungry, people
are going to choose to work at Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby receives tax
benefits related to offering insurance to their employees. They are also able to
attract a higher quality of employee by making insurance part of the pay package
for employees. Employees work for their insurance - just as
employers cannot tell employees how to use the money they earn, employers should
not control how employees use their insurance. As long as employers
receive a benefit from the government for providing insurance, the government
should be allowed to require certain elements to that insurance coverage.
Its funny that so many posters here post opinion based misinformation about an
article criticizing the opinion based misinformation that is our there. It is
also alarming how many posters here thing that a company should be forced to
provide certain things for their employees. They forget that it is not a
companies duty to provide healthcare - it is a benefit. It is something that
companies do to encourage people to work there. All that is (or should be)
required is that the company provides remuneration for the service provided by
the employee. This is between the employee and the company. People should find
a place that they fit - not force others to meet their singular demands. One
way is reasonable, the other is selfishness. Just like I would be a bad fit at
a tattoo shop the tattoo shop employee would probably be a bad fit working at a
clinic that specializes in tattoo removal. Go where you fit.
Don't force others to accede to your choices.
While Hobby Lobby used to be one of my favor places to shop, now they are off
the list completely. I refuse to shop there any long. Reason: Price gouging
their customers, jamey, me. I wrote to them and they neglected to reply with
explanation or to fix the wrong. Proves to me that Christianity is just a name
and too difficult to put into practice by businesses.
To David Mohr:By your logic, someone whose religion teaches that
believes that blacks and whites should not mix should be able to deny employment
to anyone with more melanin than they are comfortable with. Or refuse
employment to a Mormon because their religion teaches that Mormons are evil. It
doesn't matter how specious the reasoning is. Because, after all, nobody
is forcing the black / Mormon / whoever to work there, right?
This is an excellent article and the responses are simply better. I don't
know if this will be printed, because the Des News doesn't seem to like it
when it's pointed out that the readers and posters make a better case than
the editorial author, but that's certainly what I see here. Good argument,
Des News, but you lose this one. Better argument, readers! And I do think this
whole thing will be no argument at all when we move to single payer.
If Hobby Lobby is so against "paying" for birth control and abortion,
then WHY do they buy their products from birth control mandated China, the
capitol of the legal abortion world? Put your real business decisions where you
SAY your heart is, Hobby Lobby!
Contrary to the editorial claim, the administration is not "hostile to
religion." The bill was passed by the congress, and the Department of
Justice typically defends government action of all sorts. Citizens
benefit from the DoJ. Here, we may learn how the Court the law as well as the
U.S. Constitution. That's good for everyone.
People make some interesting comments arguing companies shouldn't have the
right to deny certain coverages if it's against the owner's religion.
No one is forced to work for any certain coverage.They can find a place with
coverage they like. An employer shouldn't have to pay for a coverage that
is against their belief system.
@Really?? has the best sentiment. Political folks are trying to hijack the
legal system for headlines.1) The law is applied neutrally, and
doesn't have the intent or effect of hurting particular religious groups.
2) Giving exemptions would require the government to delve into religious
issues -- e.g., "are these 'it's against my religion' claims
valid?" -- which the First Amendment forbids.Today's
NYTimes editorial on this issue is a more well-reasoned editorial than this one,
in my opinion.
Funny how it's always the 'religious liberty' of Christians
that's in danger. Are all of you hair shirt wearing martyrs going to come
to the defense of the Muslim business owner who forces his religious beliefs on
his employees? This has just reached a point of ridiculous, you are aware that
many of these business's including Hobby Lobby had insurance that covered
birth control, right? And it was not until it was required by Obamacare that
you people lost your minds over it. And what is your problem with birth
control? It is a proven fact that low cost or free access to birth control
drastically reduces unplanned pregnancies, thereby drastically reducing abortion
rates, which is a good thing, right? (Plan B is NOT an abortion inducing drug,
by the way, just stop with that lie.) What really has you people in a twist?
The thought that you can't control the private lives of everyone any longer
just too upsetting?
Thank you Hobby Lobby for standing up to the liberals and letting the Lord have
his say. Only righteousness should prevail.
So any discrimination or restriction may be justified by asserting that practice
is a religious observance? That is opening Pandora's box.
Really??? "What happens when religious freedoms come in direct
conflict with individual freedoms?"I didn't realize it was
an individual freedom to force others to pay for something that you can cheaply
and easily get yourself.If that is the case: please provide your
bank account number so I can bill you for my Arizona trip next winter when the
air is bad and I need to rest my lungs.According to you logic; I
want it - therefore it is a violation of my individual freedom if you don't
The Catholic Health Assoc. finds the religious accommodations in the ACA
satisfactory. Which religion, which denomination gets to write the
rules? The U.S. has been an example of religious freedom because it has
guarded the public square. When religion becomes intertwined with
political and secular organizations it damages both the public sphere and
itself.Religious organizations, those that employ or serve adherents
are exempt. Additionally, any religiously-affiliated organization
(such as Catholic hospitals or universities) are not obligated to pay for or
cost-share coverage of contraceptives. Neither is the religious organization
required to administer the plan. If organizations are opposed
merely because there is still a way employees can obtain contraceptives could it
not also be argued that providing paychecks which employees use to purchase
contraceptives is also "aiding and abetting sin?" re:Stalwart Sentinel"Does the DesNews not recognize the harm they
do?"AmenAs churches become battle participants engaged in
political issues rather than peacemakers I find less value in what they have to
offer. It is rather confusing that one can claim political neutrality yet own a
publication that not only is not politically neutral but doesn't even offer
any political balance.
Hobby Lobby is privately owned by people whose religious values are as sincerely
held as any of those who seem to think they should be forced to provide
abortions for their employees. It is an affront to logic to claim that since
they are successful at running their business they should have to give up their
religious beliefs. The solution here is to enforce the Constitution as written
instead of using activist judges and the picking and choosing of which federal
regulations to enforce to make America ever more socialist.
Corporations aren't people, my friend.
Where is "insurance" listed in the Constitution as a "duty" of
government? Where is "insurance" listed in the Constitution as
something for which the government can tax us? The Supreme Court danced around
that by not ruling on whether the government can force us to buy insurance when
they told us that ObamaCare was a TAX and that Congress had the right to tax us;
however, because ObamaCare had not been implemented, the Supreme Court refused
to rule on whether that "tax" was legal. In other words, the Court
refused to do its duty.Congress is forbidden to legislate religion,
but they have used the "back door approach" to rule against religious
people who believe that life is sacred, that forbidding life to begin (through
the use of contraceptives) is abhorrent, and that government cannot overrule God
any more that a city court can overrule the Supreme Court.There will
always be those who turn and twist things to make it look like "Hobby
Lobby" is evil. All they're doing is fulling the prophecy of Isaiah
when he told us about the "last days".
marxist "So any discrimination or restriction may be justified
by asserting that practice is a religious observance? That is opening
Pandora's box."How are you being restricted or
discriminated against? You are not; you can still get birth control - you simply
cant expect others to be forced to provide it against their faith. You are NOT a victim.anotherview "The U.S. has
been an example of religious freedom because it has guarded the public square.
When religion becomes intertwined with political and secular organizations
it damages both the public sphere and itself."Fine - and
therefore it follows that if government is telling a religion or religious
person they must violate their conscience, when there are clearly alternatives
that do not require it, then government it the problem, not the religion or
religious person.The hallmark of politically correctness intolerance
is to claim victimhood in order to divert attention from blatant perpetration.
If Hobby Lobby doesn't buy your birth control - go buy it yourself for $9
at the local big box store - problem solved. You are the perpetrator, NOT the
re:PhilAllred"forced to provide abortions"FalseHobby Lobby is not being forced to provide abortions. There is no
mandated coverage for abortions. Hobby Lobby is falsely mischaracterizing
the morning-after pills as abortifacients. They are not classified as such by
medical scientists as there is no evidence to date that they induce abortions or
prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. They are designed to prevent
I find it curious that the Feds are putting HL in this position. HL has
historically paid its employees above-market wages and has provided them with a
benefits package that included health insurance. You know, things that Obama
says our businesses should be doing. What has changed? ACA
bureaucracy (i.e. not law, but a bureaucrat decision) deciding to require
abortificants as birth control. Will the HL owners be pushed into
paying for what they honestly believe is murder? -- Or pushed into dumping their
employees into "the pool" and paying an annual fine for doing it (which
the media would further demonize them for).
Re: Phil Allred "It is an affront to logic to claim that since they are
successful at running their business they should have to give up their religious
beliefs."Nobody is asking them to give up their religious
beliefs. We're talking about an employer-employee relationship through
health insurance. Requiring birth control through health insurance does not
require Hobby Lobby to give up their religious beliefs. If
government requiring birth control is an affront to God, Hobby Lobby will bear
no responsibility on Judgement Day (if such ever occurs). The authors and
supporters of the ACA would be held accountable, so Hobby Lobby is home free.
There is another dimension not yet discussed - is Hobby Lobby's refusal to
grant birth control through health insurance reasonable or rational? To the
Deseret News, it makes no difference - religious "liberty" above and
over all. But it does make a big difference.
I have a suggestion, why not get businesses out of the health care business
altogether? If HL wants to force it's religious beliefs on us,
great! With a single payer system, no one suffers or dies because of HL's
@OlderGreg 2:59 p.m. March 23, 2014None of the required
contraceptives are "abortificants." None of them terminate a pregnancy.
All any of them do is prevent a pregnancy from starting. The only thing that
is changed is the fact that Hobby Lobby's owners are trying to deny their
employees basic preventative health care (and impose their belief system on
their employees). If they wish to participate in interstate commerce, they need
to follow the law concerning health care.
As others have posted, we'd be better off separating employment and
healthcare. My boss shouldn't be my death panel.
The Hobby lobby case is about the right is an employer to push their religious
beliefs on their employees. The owners of Hobby lobby are and will always be
free to refrain from the use of birth control.
@anotherview: You are incorrect. For Hobby Lobby it is all about abortions.
Since when is Hobby Lobby required to accept some scientists' opinions
about what are abortifacients and what are not? That certainly is not freedom
of religion. Also, since individual health care providers and health care
facilities may not be discriminated against because of a willingness or
unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions,
Hobby Lobby would in fact required to pay for insurance chosen by their
employees that allow their employees access to abortions on Hobby Lobbby's
@Schnee: Corporations ARE persons in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court
has even ruled that corporate entities have free speech rights. Why should
Hobby Lobby's owners, who control all the stock, not be allowed to take
advantage of the same business organization laws as anyone else, without
compromising their religious beliefs?
is it any wonder that many young people are turning away from the control freaks
in our society, Republicans (tax advantages to corporations) and Democrats
(liberty and freedom only to those who think and act my way)! True patriots and
liberty lovers are drawn to the Constitution and God, without the aid of
government except as defined in the constitution, something both parties and
their followers don't support!
It's my freedom not to shop at Hobby Lobby. A freedom issue? It's a
birth control issue and women have the right to birth control wherever they
work. Whining about it being a religious freedom issue is nonsensical.
The Government just needs to get completely out of the Heath Care Business.
People should pay for their own care, or not.
I don't understand how all these "single payer" citizens who
otherwise consider themselves so independent justify giving to their God
(government) their liberty and any dictator that comes along to control their
lives! Tell me how American is it to give away your liberty for a few moments
of pleasure (Obamacare)? At least be consistent! you either believe in
Socialism or you don't? there is no in between!
This is about the right of institutions to impose their will on individuals, not
about individual freedom. I am growing weary of this paper and the others on
the right asserting that institutional interests prevail. Follow your path and
our freedoms as Americans under the Constitution will be gone.
No matter what side you favor, I just don’t see how the SC rules in favor
of Hobby Lobby without overturning decades of precedent including Scalia’s
majority opinion in Employment Division v Smith.But assuming the
five conservatives on the Court desperately want to side with Hobby Lobby, it
will be entertaining to watch the twisted logic and mental gymnastics they
employ to do so.
I absolutely disagree, companies are not people. Corporations do not have the
rift to impose their beliefs on the workers. Most women in the USA use
contraception, not always as a birth control device. If I was a Muslim and owned
this paper, could I forbid you to eat pork?
How is it my employer's business AT ALL what I discuss with my doctor or
what medications I take. What's next, your employer gets a list of all
your medications and decides which ones are acceptable and which aren't?
This is absolutely ridiculous.
@bandersonSo you oppose Medicare and Social Security, correct? I'm
just checking for you know... consistency.
@bandersenSaint George, UTAt least be consistent! you either
believe in Socialism or you don't? there is no in between!6:08
p.m. March 23, 2014===== And a Family is what?a
Family is Socialist....you either believe in the Family (Socialism)
or you don't? there is no in between!At least be consistent!
I think many people become confused on what level of health insurance an
employer provides to the workers. Health Insurance is a benefit that can
be added to the salary offered to entice someone to work for the company. Each company sets a certain level of health insurance services that it is
willing to pay for in order to assist the employee in feeling that they are
being well provided for. One of my first employers did not offer any
health insurance packages and it was left to the individual to arrange for
private coverage or not. Any other employer I have worked for
always had a level of coverage that they felt was desirable and most
prescription medicines including contraceptives required a co-pay based on a
drug formulary from the insurance carrier. So this whole mess is
dependent on one thing. Does the Gov't have the right to tell one business
what type of health insurance coverage they must provide and exempt another
business from having to provide any at all?
"As others have posted, we'd be better off separating employment and
healthcare. My boss shouldn't be my death panel."And may I add that the government shouldn't be my death panel either.Esquire - you realize that the biggest institution in the world is the
United States Government. They ones who should not be pushing their special
interests on us individuals. Follow your path and our freedoms as
Americans under the Constitution will be gone.
If Hobby Lobby decides it doesn't want to pay for you to obtain something
you don't need them, as your employer to obtain, you will not die. Your
life doesn't hang in the balance. The claim "they're forcing
their religion on me!" is entirely void of merit.If I run a
software development bit out of an office I construct, hire you, and provide you
a healthcare option that doesn't include support for this or that, it has
nothing to do with my religion, nor does anyone have the right to mandate that I
give you such coverage-or healthcare at all.No one is having
religion forced on them in this; if you want to argue against Hobby Lobby, you
have to argue using the reality before is. It is people's freedom not to
pay for something you want out of their pocket, it has nothing to do with
life-saving healthcare that people would die of malaria without, or binding
people to tables and forcing them to accept God.
@ Badgerbadger, the federal government isn't forcing you to have any sort
of medical treatment. It is providing opportunities to you to choose. The
Hobby Lobby approach is to limit choices, for someone else to decide what
medical choices you may have and which may be denied. It is my choice to make
my medical decisions, not some retail chain.
"If that is the case: please provide your bank account number so I can bill
you for my Arizona trip next winter when the air is bad and I need to rest my
lungs."If we use the Hobby Lobby logic in this scenario you have
presented, I get to choose where you spend your winter vacation. Arizona is too
far away, so I allow you to spend your winter trip at the South Jordan Rec
Center. Ridiculous argument, you say? Well, come back to me when you come up
with a reasoned argument that is relevant to the issue we are discussing.
jrgl:Women have a right to birth control (paid for by someone else)
wherever they work? Really? Where in the constitution can I find this
right?Wonder:It's your employer's business because
they are paying for it. If you don't want them involved, pay for your own
healthcare.Really???:If you were paying for my winter
vacation, you would have every right to determine where I went.
Seeing a lot of comments like "what about religious freedoms crossing paths
with other rights?" My response - be careful what you define as a right.
Here is the problem in this case, is free contraception coverage a right? No!
That has nothing to do with our constitutional rights - however, freedom of
religion is. In fact, health care in general is not a right - it is a product.
We used to call them health insurance BENEFITS when employers provided them. We
used to feel grateful for any coverage provided by our employers - no we have
mandated it. If we allowed employers to make their own decisions, and employees
to freely decide who they would and would not like to work for based on those
offerings this discussion wouldn't be necessary. Then we could go back to
trying to figure out why a baker should be compelled to bake a cake for a gay
wedding in a "free society."
@AZFarmBoyBut is it any of his business how I use my pay or
benefits? Once I get my paycheck is it any of his concern whether I decide to
pay my mortgage or go to Vegas? Once the benefit of health insurance has been
provided, is it their business how it is used?We, as a nation,
through tradition, and now law have decided it is a responsibility of employers
to provide health insurance. Whether or not that should be the case is an
entirely different discussion.I do not agree with Hobby Lobby's
stance, but I do have to admire their dedication. I believe they have said they
would close their businesses if it came down to it.
@AZFarmBoyGoodyear, AZIt's your employer's business
because they are paying for it. If you don't want them involved, pay for
your own healthcare.======= Wrong!We pay for
it.We pay $900 a month for the "priveldge" to enroll in a
Company's Healthcare plan.We pay the Premiums, We pay the
co-pays.We pay the deductibles.NOT the company.The
"Company" chooses the plans to provide based on an Insurance Saleman,
and sometimes contributes a portion towards those plan, but not all or
always -- the bulk of what is being paid for is by the employees
themselves - NOT the Company.
Darrel:If part of your compensation is health insurance, the employer has
the right to decide the type of insurance provided. If you desire to have
additional coverage, obtain it for it yourself. LDS Liberal:Generally speaking, employers pay a portion of the premiums for
employer-provided insurance plans. Even if they don't contribute to the
premium, the opportunity to participate in the employee-sponsored plan is part
of your compensation, and the employer has every right to determine the type of
If Hobby Lobby and their fellow travelers are able to defeat the American creed
for justice for all it may be the final nail in the coffin of the American
people. And it may also be the nail that hits the primer cord that sends us all
to glory. If a businessman can use his business as a powerful
economic force to spread his religion the most likely consequence will be that
businessmen can only spread the religion of organized churches. Otherwise,
businessmen will be able to flaunt any civil law they find in the way of their
agenda. Our government has given religious organizations an almost
unlimited free hand to advertise and empower the spread of their message. We
see this in their buildings, their clothing, jewelry, religious actions of
individuals and even in their actions in the public square. Given the right to
use the economic power of business to spread, enforce and force adherence to a
particular religion is the same thing as if the political government did it.
@AZFarmBoy"If part of your compensation is health insurance, the
employer has the right to decide the type of insurance provided."===========The ACA has stipulated that they no longer have that
right. They must provide insurance, and it must meet certain requirements. In
this case, the rights of the insured trump the rights business owner.I would love to have a discussion on how this can be remedied that wasn't
just simply reduced to bumper stickers and sound bites. Government must protect
rights to life, liberty and property. Healthcare can easily fit in each of
those categories; so who gets to decide what an adequate level of healthcare is?
Most would agree that healthcare decisions should be left between those cared
for, and those administering said care. Anyone else that is part of this
discussion, should be, and must be invited by those receiving the care. Why a
certain medicine is needed, really is none of my concern. What
would you propose instead?
Darrel:There is no right to health care found in the constitution,
but freedom of religion is protected. The solution is for the gov't to not
dictate what type of health benefits employers provide.
The immediate issue is Hobby Lobby and health insurance.But
expanding this Citizens United view that corporations are people, and have 1st
Amendment rights, why could a corporation *not* decide that they would prefer to
have employees who don't take an "we are in the end days" approach
to things?I've met a few people who have kind of a
"blasé" attitude about solving problems, ie, "we can only do
what we can do, and Jesus will be returning soon anyway, so I'm not going
to work that hard".If I'm a business owner / corporation,
and I want people who believe *we* need to solve problems, and if we don't
solve them, they won't get fixed - why could I not just go on a cleansing
campaign and fire any Christians who work for me, and refuse to hire any
Under the Constitution -- You are protected to have a
"Religion" which includes bigotry.You are not protected to run a
"Business" which includes bigotry.I pitty those who can not
/ will not differentiate between -- Religion, Politics, Government, and Business.
@AZFarmBoyThe Constitution does not, and cannot grant rights; it
only guarantees their protection. The Declaration of Independence at its heart
claims that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable
rights; they are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (none of which are
found in the Constitution; should they be discarded too?)A fear that
James Madison held in the ratification of a Bill of Rights was that their
enumeration would be considered exhaustive, and any right now found therein
would be "not a right"; which runs counter to the basis of our very
government. We the people are the sovereign and hold the Supreme Power; we
consent to give up some rights in order for the protection of the remainder of
our rights and thus created a Constitution which then created a Government.
Amendment IX is often overlooked, but perhaps the most important of the Bill of
Rights; it states that because certain rights of have been defined, that should
not in any way be used as a basis to claim others don't exist.Healthcare is a right if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are
rights. You cannot separate them.
Darrel:Where does the right to life end, as you define it? I'm
going to die someday, so are my rights being violated? Your interpretation that
the right to life includes healthcare is certainly not the consensus, and
doesn't even match your own view that rights are not granted by the
gov't, but only protected. If we have an unalienable right to healthcare,
who pays for it? Do you not see how your "right to
healthcare" is different from other rights contained in the constitution, or
declaration of independence? Liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
etc., are not a products that someone has to pay for. Healthcare is.
@AZFarmBoyMy right to life ends when I die. We are all mortal
beings, and have a built in expiration date. There are things that man simply
cannot prevent, but I believe we must do all in our power to protect that right
to life. I believe we will be judged on how we as a society treated our infirm
and sick."Liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.,
are not a products that someone has to pay for."Who pays for
that cop to come by when a stranger is trespassing on your property? Who pays
for the military that secures your freedom from outside threats? Who pays the
difference in property taxes that churches are exempt from? We all do.And if you want to break it down to dollars and cents (because simply being
humane is not enough) a healthy society, is much more productive. Why, when we
need a new missile to aim at North Korea is that fine to protect us, but a $20
dollar flu shot so a mother can continue to work and provide food for her kids
is suddenly socialism? Do all threats have to be foreign?
AZFarmBoy"Liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., are
not a products that someone has to pay for. Healthcare is."This
means a person walking into an emergency room without insurance can be refused
service. If you can't pay for gas or a meal at a restaurant, you most
likely won't get free gas or a meal. Who pays for health care?
We all do, always have, if you pay taxes or have existing insurance. Taxpayer
run hospitals etc. The only legitimate question is what is the best
way to pay for it, if we are already paying for the uninsured now. Do you like
the existing model if you don't like the ACA? Or do you think an
ambulance should be able to refuse ER transport if someone does not have
@AZ Farm Boy -- Health insurance under our system is part of the wage that an
employer pays. If they didn't provide health insurance they would pay a
higher wage. So, since an employer cannot dictate how an employee spends wages
in the form of money, how in the world do you think they should have a right to
tell an employee how they spend the health insurance portion of their wages. It
is too intrusive. Many women use birth control medications for things like
irregular menstrual cycles, etc. Is the employer supposed to interview the
employee and ask why they are taking a certain medication to find out if it is
being used for birth control or for another medical reason? Of course anyone
would think that would be ridiculously intrusive. Even if you are totally
against people having sex unless it is for procreation, do you as an employer
have the right to say I'll cover all of these medical conditions, but if
you are woman and have a medical concern with your reproductive system, I
won't cover it because it might mean you can have sex without getting
Schnee and lds liberal: I am consistent because I am absolutely against
Medicare and Social Security and as far as comparing Socialism to family does
not follow at all. In my family kids are free to choose, but their are
consequences to their choices, something that never happens in Socialism. The
pretty much know that they have all sorts of opportunities and they are welcome
to try them, but not on my dime! They do get free board and room for the most
part, but there isn't any bureaucracy and God is looked to, rather than
someone in an office 2,500 miles away! God is not a Socialist, nor was Jesus!
I wouldn't call God a capitalist either, but in his absence, I am certain
that freedom and liberty would be more important than government collusion and
corruption, as evidenced by socialized medicine.
The concept of a single-payer system of medical care is terrifying. Whom do you
think will control all your medical care decisions, except the payor? I am
reminded of an episode of "Star Trek, Next Generation" in which the
Enterprise encountered a race which, although remarkably advanced and civilized
in every other way, had decreed that all citizens would be ceremoniously put to
death at age 60 - no exceptions. This, they argued, had eliminated the
"burdens" of caring for the elderly, and allowed them to die a
"dignified" death at the prime of their life. Fiction has many times
become fact, in our world. The fact is, that some countries today have enabled
parents to "put down" newborn children with defects, as we would an
animal. If one follows the concept of a signal-payer system to its logical
conclusion, the inevitable result will not be pleasant. Those of you who
desperately want this, "Be careful what you wish for - you might get
@banderson"I am consistent because I am absolutely against Medicare
and Social Security "While I of course am strongly in favor of
Medicare and Social Security, I appreciate your consistency.@John
T"Whom do you think will control all your medical care decisions,
except the payor?"Right now it's controlled by insurance
companies with a profit motive. Personally, I'd prefer influence from
non-profit entities than for-profit entities."If one follows the
concept of a signal-payer system to its logical conclusion, the inevitable
result will not be pleasant. "I find the idea of German or
Canadian healthcare to be very pleasant compared to what we have now which works
pretty well... only for people who can afford it.
@banderson"...government collusion and corruption, as evidenced
by socialized medicine...".President Eisenhower warned Americans
about government collusion and corruption...It wasn't
socialism...It was the military-industrial complex...So
fondly loved by President Reagan.
Religious zealots have no right to limit health care services for the American
people.You can voice your opinions according to the first amendment,
but you have no right to compel Americans to share your regressive behaviors.Face it, religious zealotry is not America's boss, and nothing in
the Constitution supports theocratic control.Just get used to it.
Hey Mike Richards - You say that "the government cannot overrule
God." What makes you think YOU can speak for God?People who think they can speak for God should be kept far, far, far away from
the reins of government.
As things have been going in this country since 2008, things have been pretty
bad for traditional conservative Americans. The 2010 midterm being the only
bright spot in an otherwise bizarro world universe. I sure would like at least
one big smile on my face before our next chance to correct this misguied path
America has taken with the upcoming mid-term this November. But, don't
count on it. We know that Justice Roberts is very intimidated by the Washington
liberal establishment, (political and media). I doubt we can count on him for
big decisions that will label him an extremist, right wing, woman hating,
racist. So I predict a 5/4 with Roberts perserving his "A" list
cocktail party invitations.
GaryOI'd say that people who are hostile to religion should be kept
far, far, far away from the reins of government, (particularly our government)
too! Therefore I won't be voting for people like you.
Ok. The government will take care of you! I have just called the government and
they will make hobby lobby do the right thing.Everyone else who
doesn't want to depend on the government can go out and make it for
Who could stand to be a part of some of these religions these days? There is no
love in them! The main thing they do is pass judgment on everyone and pat
themselves on the back for being good! It is enough to make anyone ill!
Something just isn't right when people would go out of their way to hurt
somebody and use their religion to condone it! My mom always said "Two
wrongs don't make a right!" If my brother hit me, it didn't
automatically give me the right to hit him back!These self righteous
people are pointing out all the wrong that they see in people! Then, they allow
themselves to do wrong back to these people! God doesn't do that! Remember
what Jesus said when others were judging the woman who was speaking to him? He
said that whosoever is without sin cast the first stone! They all walked away!
Without love towards others, your self righteous beliefs mean nothing! Why
don't people put out a hand in love to see if they can pull somebody up!
There is something seriously wrong!
happy2bhereclearfield, UTLooks like what we have here is a
failure to communicate. I'm not asking for your vote. And I am not hostile
to religion.But I do oppose religious zealots who seek to make the
nation conform to their prejudices, even at the great expense of the nation and
its citizens.This nation is NOT a theocracy, no matter how much you
may want it to be. And it's been that way for quite some time.Get used to it.
Hobby Lobby is NOT interfering with the health care choices of its employees.
Those employees don't have to work there if they don't like the
benefits package or health insurance (similar to every other company, which
differs in health insurance benefits). OR employers can sign up for
Obummer's Affordable Care Act Plan. Which is cheaper, right? right? right?
At the expense of taxpayers, like Hobby Lobby. See, so if you want to stick it
to Hobby Lobby go get OwebamaCare.
It has long been understood that health insurance was one of the
generally-offered benefits used to attract workers to a company. Hobby Lobby
and companies like it are now saying that they are offering deficient insurance
as an inducement for employment. One wonders what other benefits they are
offering to offset this lack.
GaryOAnd I resent liberal zealots who don't want any standards
on society. The zealous left in America is much more aggressive in trying to
impose their values on society than any mainstream religion is. This nation is
not an athiest nation either. Get used to it!