SCOTUS - Hobby Lobby

Today the SCOTUS essentially ruled that for profit companies can have religious beliefs. And that those religious beliefs can overrule whichever federal laws the Supreme Court Justices decide they can on a given day.

This is as close to a declaration of a Zombie Apocalypse as we have gotten from this Supreme Court to date. It is The Night of the Living Religious Corporation…they’re alive! And they have more rights than the actual people who work for them! Get the canned food and the shotgun, they’re coming to your neighborhood next!

This latest extremist, Constitution-tearing decision from the five fanatics running the SCOTUS is of course ideologically driven. It is an affront to the very principle on which this nation was founded, separation of church and state and the rights of citizens to be free from the religious and wealthy “ruling class”. Our independence as a nation was about the right of the people NOT to be controlled and forced to abide by the religious dictates of those who seek to dominate the rights of citizens…and through this decision, the SCOTUS Five have essentially responded to The Declaration of Independence as, “Unfair to those who work so hard and spend so much to dominate the masses.”

In the 1700’s, it was the colonists vs. King George. In 2014, it is Americans vs. The Living Dead Carrying Billions and Bibles.

Many foresaw that the crushing of citizens under the heel of corporations would become more frequent once this activist court made its Citizens United ruling, declaring corporations to be people and money to be speech (few are also aware that the SCOTUS declared ventriloquist dummies to also be people and the loud expulsion of unpleasant gasses to be speech…as they’ve personally demonstrated in their rulings).

This latest ruling was not unexpected and though it may be narrowed by the SCOTUS Five, it nonetheless sanctions a corporation’s right to deprive citizens of their rights under their ruling that “the person” that a corporation is, has superior rights to the many citizens that work for it. It is part of an overall agenda to position corporations and the wealthy as the (continuing) dominant force over the American People and leaving citizens no recourse against it. It is both cowardly and overreaching for the SCOTUS Five to declare that there is an easy fix for this. Just as they did in Citizens United, they build phony justifications to assuage whatever remains of their consciences, to convince themselves that they aren’t being radicals and they aren’t betraying the citizens of the nation as they truly are when making unsound decisions. They seek to rationalize away how they are undermining our democracy in pursuit of advancing the interests of their “class”.

“We undermined democracy and the power of citizens with our Citizens United ruling? Hey, just let Congress work together on a bipartisan basis to fix the problems…heh-heh-heh! Not our fault!”

This won’t stop here, there will be more hacking away of the rights of real people and the empowering of the wealthy and corporations over them as long as this balance remains on the Supreme Court.

The big picture is very important so when something like this happens, it should energize folks to commit themselves to electing a Democratic President in 2016 and onward. Only when one of the SCOTUS Five are replaced with a minimally decent human being of some conscience can this ongoing decimation of the rights of Americans be stopped and reversed.

195
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
25 Comment threads
170 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
18 Comment authors
monicaangelaPete GellerfunksandsMopshellNoManIsAnIsland Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
monicaangela
Member

@sillylittleme

Yes they are afraid, and yes future generations that are coming along today do not think as they do, there defense is to try to change the laws, turn the country into a police state and hope that if they have the money, the weapons, and the “law” on their side they will be able to stem the tide…it is obvious they are not students of world history. If they were they would have studied the Middle Ages and the system called Feudalism. The prevailing system of government in the Middle Ages was feudalism. Though the actual term β€œfeudalism” was not used during the Middle Ages, what we now recognize as a feudalistic system of government was in control in Medieval Europe. Feudalism was a way for the Kings and upper nobility to keep control over the serfs and peasants.

The reasons for the decline of Feudalism during the Medieval period of the Middle Ages included:

The Crusades and travel during the Middle Ages opened new trade options to England

England started to move from land based economy to a money based economy

The Black Death – this reduced the population of England by one third. Labour became a valuable commodity

The Peasants Revolt – Peasants realized their worth and demanded changes. Charters were granted but ignored by nobles

More trade saw the growth of more towns

Peasants moved away from the country into towns they were eventually allowed to buy their freedom

Land was rented and the rights of lords over labour decreased

The Feudal Levy was unpopular and as time went by Nobles preferred to pay the King rather than to fight and raise troops

Armed men were paid a wage and Medieval warfare was financed by taxes and loans

Nobles became weaker – the Kings took back their lands and power

A centralized government was established

The decline of feudalism came when rich nobles were allowed to pay for soldiers rather than to fight themselves. Life changed and Mercenaries were hired from all over Europe. The Mercenaries had few allegiances, except to money, and these paid fighting men were feared throughout Europe. The threat of the Mercenaries led on to the employment of professional, trained soldiers – the Standing Armies and ultimately the end of Middle Ages feudalism in England.

Under feudalism the King was answerable to the Pope. At the end of the Middle Ages King Henry VIII clashed with the Pope and England subsequently broke with the Catholic church of Rome and the power of the Pope. This led to the establishment of the Church of England and the Dissolution of the Monasteries. It was the final ‘nail in the coffin’ of the Medieval Feudal System, feudalism, in England.

If the Republicans and those that would try to control the world would just take a look back in time they would see that conquering humanity is impossible…sooner or later those nations and the few people controlling them and the rest of the world will fall, and fall hard.

KillgoreTrout
Member

Just for a few giggles;

sillylittleme
Member

Oh so appropriate!!

KillgoreTrout
Member

Thanks slm! It really is. πŸ˜‰

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

LOL, KT!!!

And now for something completely different….

…And now for something completely the same: Help,
Help –The U.S. Supremes Are Repressing Women
By Shamelessly Vitiating Their Reproductive Rights
Under the Affordable Care Act and Thus Diminishing
Them Further, From Second Class Citizens to Third
Class Citizens!

And now for something completely different: Sorry,
no more something completely different from the
Supremes — just more piling on further onslaughts
against individual liberty and constitutional rights.

And now for something complete — Oh, SHUT UP!

monicaangela
Member

LOL !!! Exactly. πŸ™‚

KillgoreTrout
Member

Too funny NoMan. That seems to be about the size of it.

monicaangela
Member

LMAO….Perfect KT, exactly, I had almost forgotten abut this movie, I’m going to have to get it out and watch it again. Hillarious…Thank you for posting this. πŸ™‚

KillgoreTrout
Member

“You claim supreme power by some watery tart throwing swords at you…..?”

My pleasure Monica. Satire, definitely has it’s place. Python were masters at it. πŸ˜‰

sillylittleme
Member

Thanks for the history lesson. Although in truth these people don’t need to go back that far. They just want to turn back the clock to the robber baron days. And the Hobby Lobby decision is closer to the company store model than middle ages feudalism. We pay you, we take your money and then we take your rights to that which you’ve earned. At least that’s how I see it. They “give” employees insurance, even though those same employees pay a portion of that insurance and now they have the ability to dictate what aspects of health insurance they will cover. Like the company store where they have no choice but to buy what their employer is selling. It is paying for people;s wages out of one pocket, while returning same money back into the other pocket.

monicaangela
Member

Exactly, but believe me, they still aren’t satisfied with that, they want to own us, they want us to have absolutely no option except the option they allow us to have. They want us to become serfs, and even more they want us to thank them for the privilege.

sillylittleme
Member

The robber barons de facto owned their employees and not just the dads, but the moms and children too.

monicaangela
Member

The sharecropping system in this nation after the Civil War added up to about the same thing. Although the plantation owners lost their slave labor, they replaced it with not only the slaves they had but anyone else who needed to work the fields in order to feed themselves and their children.

funksands
Member

I think a lot of people are looking at this case the wrong way. In my very humble and often wrong opinion, this is less about a case of codifying religious preference like the tax code, and more about how this court has overwhelming found for a corporate plaintiff/defendent in nearly every single case it has heard.

The ruling itself is breathtaking for four reasons:

1) The people that run the company sincerely believe what they believe
2) That their belief isn’t based in any science or reality doesn’t matter

and

3) This doesn’t apply to ANY OTHER HEALTH ISSUE OF ANY KIND
4) And can never be used as a precedent in future cases

Basically the Supreme Court has reduced itself to doing this 1 corporation a favor by rendering a judgement in its favor “just because”.

That the most powerful governmental body on earth is willing to lower itself to doing a solid for 1 company is the scariest thing about this judgement. It means they are willing to do anything, anytime and no longer give a shit what anyone thinks about it.

kesmarn
Admin

Yes, funk. And of course this one solid for one company is now (no matter what the the fraudulent five say) going to result in some more solids for all the other cases in the pipeline as well.

My question is: when I slip and fall in Hobby Lobby this winter (which is looking more and more likely by the day), why can’t I sue Mr. Green personally as well as Hobby Lobby? Since that wall of protection of the owner’s assets — the one that is supposedly guaranteed by the act of corporation — is so very fuzzy and blurry, why not just erase it altogether? After all — there’s no line between Mr. Green’s “beliefs” and the corporation’s… Let’s just take that to its logical conclusion.

funksands
Member

Kes, I have no problem with corporations being separate “entities” for tax and legal purposes. There are advantages and disadvantages for doing so and the two generally balance each other out.

The problem began when they stopped being considered tax and liability “entities” and started being called “people”.

The problem has accelerated to the point where corporations are now considered “superior people” with more rights and less liability than a human. That’s scary.

Would a Constitutional Amendment to repeal corporate personhood remove the legitimate reasons to have a corporation? Would we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

The more the Amendment has to parse its language to carve out exceptions, the less likely it seems to me that it would be able to pass with 2/3 of statehouse votes

kesmarn
Admin

I’m with you, funk. I don’t have a problem with incorporation either.

Until they try to play it both ways. “My company and I are two separate “people” if you’re planning to sue.”

But: “When it comes to religion, we’re the same person.”

Can’t have it both ways. (Well, not until yesterday, anyway.) πŸ™

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Well said, kesmarn. And it certainly won’t
be your fault when you slip and fall on a
banana peel in Hobby Lobby this winter —
and sue David Green personally as well as
Hobby Lobby! πŸ˜‰

kesmarn
Admin

It’s only July, NoMan, but I can feel my balance starting to go already… πŸ˜‰

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

I hear you Kes, but don’t try to
fight it. You just have a few
months to go now, and your
balance will get worse and
worse until you stagger into
a Hobby Lobby lobby and
then….Ooooooops! — down
you’ll go, and the banana peel,
I mean ball, will be in David
Green’s court; and he’ll know
the joy of being sued personally
for your “accidental” fall.

And after you win your suit,
he’ll experience the ecstasy of
having to pay the damages
from his own pocket as well
as from Hobby Lobby’s
corporate coffers!

As a very caring, charitable,
and hypocritical religious
extremist, he’ll get more
pleasure from paying
twice than he could ever
have imagined! πŸ˜‰

kesmarn
Admin

‘Tis better to give than to receive…

And even better to give twice.

Pete Geller
Member
Pete Geller

Interesting how Hobby Lobby doesn’t object to the profits of the pharmaceutical corporations who make these ‘objectionable’ drugs for their 401k investments. Pity hypocrisy isn’t a sin….

kesmarn
Admin

Welcome to the Planet, Pete! And yes, funny too how those laws that protect the owners of corporations from being sued personally — thus placing a virtual “wall” between the owner and the corporate “person” — no longer seem to matter when the owner wants to mind-merge with the corporation and hold a “sincerely held belief,” which he then wants to inflict on everybody else!

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Oh, Kes, the benefits of hypocrisy and greed
can go on without end — especially if one’s
a greedy, blood-sucking plutocrat!

Just saying…and with no particular plutocrats
in mind — certainly not the Green family of
Hobby Lobby infamy!

sillylittleme
Member

How about the fact that many of their products are made in China. You know the country that has a one-girl per family governmental policy? And the same country that demands abortions from those who attempt to have a second female child? Hypocrisy should be tattooed on the Green families’ foreheads for all the world to see.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Hypocrisy is a sin, Pete Geller, but unfortunately not one
that can be prosecuted in a court of law.

funksands
Member

Perfectly said:[imgcomment image[/img]

sillylittleme
Member

Wow. Love the double string of pearls, makes her look classy. LOL!!

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

I agree, sillylittleme. And not just classy,
but really SASSY! πŸ˜‰

funksands
Member

What’s also interesting (and likely already discussed here) is that Hobo Lobby had contraceptive coverage in their health plan up until the point they dropped it and filed federal suit.

sillylittleme
Member

They actually state that in their filing, we were fine with this but Obamacare blah blah blah. Phony balonies!!!

funksands
Member

Its interesting that a corporation, which is solely and only a creature created by the state in which it is domiciled can be created by the state to avoid its laws.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

AdLib, you’re right on the money — if the facist majority of the SCOTUS will allow a plebian like me to use that word.

You speak the cold, hard and unvarnished truth not only to power, but
to irrationality, idiocy and blatant injustice as well.

RSGmusic
Member
RSGmusic

OK, Hobby lobby does not get a penny of my money or my wife’s for the rest of our life. you can boycott them. Many will. Then they will see this law takes money away from their business.

Many Good employees will not work for this religious business!

monicaangela
Member

@sillylittleme….that makes two of us. πŸ™‚

PollyTics
Member
PollyTics

Majority rule is what makes law. The idea that only ONE person does so is just a misnomer.

Nirek
Member

PollyTics, if just one of the five SCJ’s had gone with the dissenters he could have changed this “law”. Those five made a law. How is that majority rules?

sillylittleme
Member

Polly tics was responding to my post regarding how Pelosi never brought up single payer to the floor even as she promised Anthony Weiner that she would do so. Apparently the rest of the majority of citizens who wanted either single payer or at the very least a public option don’t count because only one man would stand up for the majority. I’m not sure Polly tics understood my argument…

PollyTics
Member
PollyTics

Yes I did sillylittleme, but we are merely of a different opinion on the matter. I am most assuredly not supporting the vote or what happened, but commenting about the crux of legislation.

sillylittleme
Member

If the majority of the country wants some action taken through legislation, it only takes one person to bring it to the floor. True in modern time they have many who sign on, which makes it easier to get to the floor. But it is not necessary for more than one person to bring a motion to the floor. Whether the Speaker allows it is another issue altogether. There is nothing in the Constitution that states it needs to have x amount of signatures before being brought to the floor. Unless you know of a stipulation in the Constitution that I missed.

PollyTics
Member
PollyTics

Sorry Nirek, I was responding to sillylittleme but it appears my fingers belied my intent (and its not the first time). Apologies.

Nirek
Member

It’s all good , PollyTics.

sillylittleme
Member

I just went to Hobby Lobby and posted my objections to their hypocrisy. I did it as the real me, so I won’t quote it verbatim. I never post on Facebook my political beliefs because I don’t want the hassle of fighting with friends and acquaintances. I feel better already and I had barely hit post when I got a bunch of likes. I’m going back to support all of those who like me expressed their outrage…

Michelle
Member

Good for you, sillylittleme!

Apparently Hobby Lobby are trying to reply to every post on their FB account but are having trouble keeping up with the sheer volume of the protest!

sillylittleme
Member

I’ve never got so many likes in such a short period of time. It was a bit overwhelming reading all of the posts. I finally had to stop late last night. Still too many people out there that need a remedial human biology class.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

monicaangela…now my wife and I make four of us. πŸ™‚

monicaangela
Member

NoManIsAnIsland…my man always agrees with me so actually that makes five of us. πŸ™‚

sillylittleme
Member

My man as well, that makes it six!!

monicaangela
Member

My son was just in the room and says he’d like himself and his wife added to the list, so that makes 8!!! πŸ™‚

sillylittleme
Member

The more the merrier!!!

Michelle
Member

This is what “going viral” looks like – YAY!!!

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

For the Framers….Freedom OF Religion meant Freedom FOR AND FROM Religion…they knew the tyranny of imposed faith by churches like the Anglican, the Established Church of England, and less formal, but still very real influence of the various Protestant Churches, and the Catholic Church in particular colonies.

They also feared the power of corporate bodies like the Money Besotted Parliament, the Monopolistic Trading Companies and the Churches.

As a result the Framers made it clear in a variety of ways that corporate power had to be checked.

Well today we have another example of how the so-called originalists and strict constructionists on the court are in fact radically opposed to the very Founders and Framers they enshrine.

RSGmusic
Member
RSGmusic

HI murph,
Yes i like your post. Seems the 1993 decision weighed in too much.

It is almost impossible to violate ones religion. IN this case all a religious person has to say if it is provided, is say NO!!

Hobby lobbies owners do not employ the h/care employees. Nor can they say well you can not offer any service or products at any price. This is a violation of free enterprise. The health care buys the contraceptives not the owner.

As for religious h/care providers. mandate does not mean forced. A Mandate is a tax and they can pay that instead. They did bring up they must offer more money to draw employees! Well they do not have to raise their pay and employing people is not a religious aspect.

Back to having them available for the mandate. OK they buy a few, maybe ten of each type they object about. OK my price for selling them to you is 200 BILLION dollars. Money now puts these things out of anyone’s ability to pay. There is their religious objection by the free enterprise system.

last the law only effects women on the types they do not like. Men will not a can not use them. SO the law only applies to women making it unconstitutional. All constitutional laws must effect men and women the same.

live long and prosper!!

Michelle
Member

I’ve really missed you RSG – it’s so very good to see you here! (β—•β€Ώβ—•)

RSGmusic
Member
RSGmusic

HI Mopshell. Yes i am here now. I joined a long time ago but did post much here.

Yes i miss you also.
OH i follow you on Daily Kos also. i am learning that system also.

DeL my wife says HI.

live long and prosper!!

Michelle
Member

Give Del a hug for me! Oh it’s so lovely to be in contact with you both again!

I’ve seen you at Daily Kos too. Did you catch my Australiana 101 posts? I think you’d enjoy them.

Hugs to you both. xo

RSGmusic
Member
RSGmusic

OH yes Mopshell< Australiana 101 was very good. i did read it 3 times, I have a friend there who handle is wellreadAUSSIE2 in Hp. We trade e mails on another system. SO what i know of Australia is from him. HE is on the Indian ocean side and says the season are wet and dry.

Yep yep yep DeL agrees hugs back.

long life!!

Michelle
Member

There are now three different Australiana 101 diaries – parts 1,2 & 3. (β—•β€Ώβ—•)

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

RSG…the more one looks at this ruling the more problematic it gets…you point out four of the pot holes that mar the smooth highway that the conservative justices claim to be laying out.

HL is picking and choosing what it will and will not cover (as you note) without reference to the science. The SCOTUS in validating this has opened up pandora’s box and despite their assurance that their ruling is narrow, future plantiffs will be pushing out the walls that the five conservatives say they have put into place.

RSGmusic
Member
RSGmusic

yea MurphTHeSurf3 you are so correct. We the people should impeach the conservatives on the supreme court for voting the GOP party line.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Those charged with impeachment are those we elect to represent us in the House.

SO, there will be no impeachment of any member of the court.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Right again, Murph, although the five
IN-justices in the immoral majority in
this abomination of a decision have no
claim to being called “conservatives.”

That funeral train of the last real
conservatives left the station for the
cemetery of dead ideologies a long time
ago.

The four horsemen of the right-wing
reactionary judicial apocalypse — and
their oft-time fellow traveler Anthony
Kennedy — are corporatist reactionaries
of the most dangerous kind, and their
alleged “reasoning” and unconstitutional
decisions are more in keeping with those
of “judges” of totalitarian regimes like
Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Communist
Russia than any efforts of traditional conservatives.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

I was with you all the way until the end of your last sentence.

Yes the 4 most conservative judges really are reactionary- that is they are reacting against rather than acting for- the very definition of being anti-progressive.

But this does not mean they are operating within a totalitarian superstructure. They are not. The operate within the same context as the liberal courts of the past have done.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

Murph, I take your point; and
as I think I can see how I failed to make my meaning clear to you and possibly others, I welcome the second chance to state it better.

When I compared the “‘reasoning’ and unconstitutional decisions” of the reactionary justices of the SCOTUS to the deliberations, such as they were, in the totalitarian regimes I noted,
in no way did I intend to imply
the SCOTUS operates “within a
totalitarian superstructure.” I would be the last to claim any faction of justices reaches majority decisions except by winning a majority of justices’ votes.

All I wanted to say was that as apparent partisans and all-but-
open allies of the reactionary American ruling elites, our “4 most conservative judges” (in your words) — in their enthusiasm to rule in favor of corporations over individuals, to equate money with speech, and to keep women in what they think is “their place” — remind me of judges in countries ruled by dictators, where every decision is made automatically for the state.

Every decision in a totalitarian court, of course, is unanimous by definition. And if the most extreme right-wing Republican reactionaries had their way, it would be that way here also. But the SCOTUS is still a democratic institution, and over the span of our history has so far managed to reach reasonable equilibrium — even as it’s sometimes veered in lamentable directions.

I can’t know if this explanation will bring you “all the way” with me, but I hope at least
you understand what I was trying to get across.

In any case, I’d like to know what you think now.

sillylittleme
Member

As you know they carry around little pocket versions of the Constitution. Of course, they misinterpret the first two and have no use for any of the rest…

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Like many fundamentalist Christians with their Bibles, they only read the parts they like and reinterpret/rewrite the parts they do not.

sillylittleme
Member

Not to mention they take a lot from the OT, which as any Jew (I being one myself) will tell you, they got it so wrong I wouldn’t know how to explain to them that they missed the lesson one is supposed to get from any particular passage.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Delete what they do not want
Spotlight what they do
Edit all of it to fit their agenda

And generally ignore the NT especially the Gospels and the OT books of Wisdom which show a maturing religious philosophy.

Their favorite texts are from the Pentateuch, the Torah, the most ancient books that reflect a simple and stark tribal life. That is fitting for a party of reactionaries.

sillylittleme
Member

Spot on!!

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Spot on, spot off.
Wax on, wax off.
— Aw, Mr. Miyagi!

A bit of silliness..

Nirek
Member

Murph, you have struck a nerve with me.
The Bible is a good guideline.
But it was written by man (fallible) and interpreted and rewritten and reinterpreted and so on and so on also by man (still fallible). So nobody with any sanity can take what is written in the Bible literally. It’s just a guideline. That’s all.

monicaangela
Member

Hear, hear !!!

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Thanks.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

I see the Bible as a library of books- history, literature, philosophy, poetry, law code, science….all written in the context of a timeline spanning 4000 years. It reflects the understanding of many, many people in communion with an experience of the “other” which they call divine and name “God”.

I happen to regard the Wisdom Books of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament as among the finest expression of the human reach for the transcendent but so are the teachings of the Buddha.

KillgoreTrout
Member

Ok, I was going along until you mentioned “science.” Really? Science?

All of the previous modes of study, in the Bible, are directed toward one end. One very predetermined end.

Yes, the bible IS a tremendous literary accomplishment. No doubt. Yes, you could say there are philosophical elements, but they are all A Priori.

Where are the dialectics? Where is the reason? Where is there any empirical evidence?

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Thanks for keeping an eye out for that list from the women’s groups.

sillylittleme
Member

This issue is too important to ignore. Plus it made me as mad as the Stupak Amendment and I stayed on that one for a long while. I’m still mad about it.

NoManIsAnIsland
Member
NoManIsAnIsland

You’re absolutely correct, Murph, and what happened
in the renegade so-called “Supreme” Court yesterday
must have left our founding fathers — or their dust
— spinning in their graves.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Certainly this is a violation of their spirit.

PollyTics
Member
PollyTics

@sillylittleme:
Again, it is never about one person but that the legislation is driven by a majority. Yes, Weiner may have had the mouth to challenge what Pelosie said and was attempting to do, but that does not equate to ONE person one outcome.

sillylittleme
Member

Many of us wanted to at least see it come to a vote. She made that promise to him and then reneged. Most of us would prefer legislation be brought forth so that we have a record of how they vote. That helps us to determine if they are worthy of being reelected.

Michelle
Member

The single payer option does exist within the ACA and at least a couple of blue states are talking about taking it up in the near future. It seems to me that the long-range plan was to slot it into the ACA with the expectation that it would be the states who drive it into being just as they are doing with equal marriage rights and marijuana legalization. Actually, I can see how marijuana legalization might well be the ideal companion to single-payer in that the first would generate enough tax revenue to fund the second!

While I prefer universal health cover co-existing with private insurers rather than single-payer only, American health insurance companies have been so utterly immoral that I can sympathize with anyone who wants to rid the country of these parasites!

sillylittleme
Member

We will end up with something closer to what the Swiss have. Basic coverage as a provision of the government. Additional insurance that can be purchased at a much lower group rate. I think that was the idea behind the provision in the ACA. Although if we didn’t have the irrational Rs we could have had that and be done with the fight over who got what.
What really fries my socks is that it was the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies that suggested that we have no co-pay for birth control. Made sense since the patents have long since expired (pharma) and the cost of prenatal, birth and postnatal care is expensive (ins co).

monicaangela
Member

I believe this would be a very good time to begin boycotting The Hobby Lobby. Employees who work for Hobby Lobby should protest by seeking employment elsewhere. This I believe was a test case brought forth by Hobby Lobby yes, but as Ruth Bader Ginsberg says: SCOTUS Has ‘Ventured Into A Minefield’ In this Birth Control Ruling.

George Carlin may he rest in peace explains it best:

sillylittleme
Member

Thanks I needed a little Carlin to put things in perspective.

monicaangela
Member

I truly miss George Carlin, he knew then where we were headed, and though he did not live to see it come into existence, I believe his warnings through comedy were on the money. When will the people of this nation wake up? I wonder…

sillylittleme
Member

The problem is that many of us are awake, but the ones who think that they are need to be on anti-psychotic meds. Because they are causing the nightmare we all have to live through.

monicaangela
Member

Fear cripples, people are afraid to face the truth, I imagine this is the way it was in Germany right before Hitler’s rise to power.

sillylittleme