|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Besides, health care is a fundamental right, not a "benefit". |
Sadly a lot of Americans seem to disagree with you. |
Some people have beliefs which contradict facts and logic.
For example, most Americans believe in ghosts and little green men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Besides, health care is a fundamental right, not a "benefit". |
Sadly a lot of Americans seem to disagree with you. |
Some people have beliefs which contradict facts and logic.
For example, most Americans believe in ghosts and little green men. |
Can't tell if you're serious or not. Sad either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Contra Jon Stewart, Chaos won't ensue if employers can act on conscientious objections -- in fact, they shouldn't be providing employees' insurance in the first place.
| Conor Friedersdorf wrote: |
Pro-contraception activists argue that the old system -- which governed a non-chaotic society -- did an inadequate job affording access to contraception.
I think they're right.
But folks who want to expand access should acknowledge that there are lots of ways to do it, and that it can be accomplished without forcing employers to do anything that they don't want to do.
This insight applies not just to birth control, but to health care generally.
The U.S. could make it much easier for individuals to purchase coverage apart from their employers. The employer-based system is, after all, a creation of government and unusual in the world. Contraception could also be separated from the health-insurance system and subsidized. As an advocate of greater access, I'd favor eliminating the need to get a prescription for birth control. Let people consult a pharmacist and buy it over the counter (a system within which all birth control, or birth control purchased by poor women, could then be subsidized).
Implicit in Stewart's rhetoric about all of us needing to live together is the notion that subsidized contraception for all is broadly popular, and a few conscientious objectors shouldn't be permitted to stand in the way of implementing that consensus. If that narrative is correct, there should be no problem passing a general law to subsidize contraception separate from the health-insurance system. What I suspect, however, is that while there is near-consensus that contraception is a good thing, a Congressional majority couldn't be found to declare it a "right" or a good that government should subsidize for everyone or that employers should be forced to provide. For that reason, the contraception mandate was introduced indirectly. The Affordable Care Act gave bureaucrats the ability to define what constitutes "preventative care." The bureaucrats decided birth control counts; therefore employers must include it when they offer insurance.
Isn't it possible that -- regardless of the merits -- making this judgment via executive branch rule-making rather than the legislative process is itself destructive of our ability to live together in a gigantic, pluralistic country? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ivyleaguer
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm always sad to see when people equate supplying health insurance to "taking away freedom." And now it's supply health insurance equals "attacks on religion."
But do take note. The OP runs a christian website and posted on Dave's that homesexuality is "harmful" and quotes links to Fox News.
I'm all for people having their own beliefs and opinions. But the problem lies when we don't be living in the same reality.
The basic issue with birth control and Obama was a legal fairness issue and not really an "attack on religion."
Say a school like University of Notre Dame (catholic school) doesn't follow the guidelines that all other business in the US adhere to by providing health insurance to fully coverage employees in the same way other businesses do, then they should. Obama wasn't forcing churches to change their doctrines. Just requiring their businesses to go by standard practices of other businesses.
Unfortunately, the opposing party likes to use these "family values" smoke screens to get people all riled up about gay marriage, attack on religion, etc, when the true important issues of unemployment, foreign wars, and bank bailouts are skirted under the rug.
I shouldn't waste my time writing so much, but just sad to see that people still fall for these smoke screens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
