Presidential Fiat

[Vel]

So many people seem to be missing the major underlying point of the Obama/Church/Birth Control issue. People have let themselves become so lost in the minutia that they've failed to see this for the nightmare it really is. The president of the United States of America has decreed that entity A must provide for entity B just because he says so.

******************************************************
The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?
This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

Charles Krauthammer: Overreach — Obamacare vs. the Constitution - The Washington Post

 

[California Girl]

The left have missed the point.

The right have been bang on point.

Government over reach and religious liberty.

Ain't rocket science... but..... apparently above the intellectual pay grade of the borg.

 

[Peach]

The left have missed the point.

The right have been bang on point.

Government over reach and religious liberty.

Ain't rocket science... but..... apparently above the intellectual pay grade of the borg.

I noticed that; does this not require Congressional approval?

My question concerning your poll CG, and ectopic pregnancies remains unanswered. I have read two differing opinions on that situation by ALLEGED Catholic scholars. I'd ask for yours as someone well versed on the subject.

 

[LibertyForAll]

It seems like people are ok with it when it's their guy doing it. They are too shortsighted or lack the imagination to see that their side will not always be in power. Granting the Office of the President this much power is going to come back and bite all of us.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"birth control issue".....emphasis on CONTROL....

 

[Vel]

The left have missed the point.

The right have been bang on point.

Government over reach and religious liberty.

Ain't rocket science... but..... apparently above the intellectual pay grade of the borg.

CG.. This really isn't even about religious liberty. It's about the government deciding that one person MUST be responsible for another. Can you give any reason why it should be an employer's job to provide health insurance in the first place? This was once a benefit that the government has attempted to turn into a mandate.

 

[jgarden]

So many people seem to be missing the major underlying point of the Obama/Church/Birth Control issue. People have let themselves become so lost in the minutia that they've failed to see this for the nightmare it really is. The president of the United States of America has decreed that entity A must provide for entity B just because he says so.

******************************************************
The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?
This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

Charles Krauthammer: Overreach — Obamacare vs. the Constitution - The Washington Post

From the cost-benefit perspective of the insurance companies, providing contraceptives are far preferable to paying for hospital delivery costs and adding yet another "warm body" to the policy.

As for Catholic institutions, if they are exempt from including contraceptions from their employees' healthcare insurance, can other religious groups, like the Jehovah Witnesses withhold access to blood transfusions from their employees' plans?

There is a solution for all of this - bypass the churches and insurance companies and provide government sponsored healthcare for all citizens financed from general tax revenues!

 

[California Girl]

The left have missed the point.

The right have been bang on point.

Government over reach and religious liberty.

Ain't rocket science... but..... apparently above the intellectual pay grade of the borg.

I noticed that; does this not require Congressional approval?

My question concerning your poll CG, and ectopic pregnancies remains unanswered. I have read two differing opinions on that situation by ALLEGED Catholic scholars. I'd ask for yours as someone well versed on the subject.

What poll and what about ectopic pregnancies? I can't answer questions I haven't seen.

 

[California Girl]

The left have missed the point.

The right have been bang on point.

Government over reach and religious liberty.

Ain't rocket science... but..... apparently above the intellectual pay grade of the borg.

CG.. This really isn't even about religious liberty. It's about the government deciding that one person MUST be responsible for another. Can you give any reason why it should be an employer's job to provide health insurance in the first place? This was once a benefit that the government has attempted to turn into a mandate.

According to the faiths involved, it is about religious liberty. You may not see it that way, but others do.

No, I can't give a reason because I don't think it should be an employer's responsibility.

 

[Vel]

So many people seem to be missing the major underlying point of the Obama/Church/Birth Control issue. People have let themselves become so lost in the minutia that they've failed to see this for the nightmare it really is. The president of the United States of America has decreed that entity A must provide for entity B just because he says so.

******************************************************
The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?
This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

Charles Krauthammer: Overreach — Obamacare vs. the Constitution - The Washington Post

From the cost-benefit perspective of the insurance companies, providing contraceptives are far preferable to hospital delivery costs and adding another "warm body" to the policy.

If Catholic institutions are exempt from providing contraceptions from their employees' healthcare insurance, can the Jehovah Witnesses withhold access to blood transfusions from their employees' plans?

Can an owner of a major corporation be justified in withholding birth control and/or access to certain medical proceedures because it doesn't conform with his/her religious beliefs?

We could debate all the little side tracks of the health care debate or we could get back to the core point which is..

Why should one person have to be responsible for another person's health insurance?

 

[Vel]

The left have missed the point.

The right have been bang on point.

Government over reach and religious liberty.

Ain't rocket science... but..... apparently above the intellectual pay grade of the borg.

CG.. This really isn't even about religious liberty. It's about the government deciding that one person MUST be responsible for another. Can you give any reason why it should be an employer's job to provide health insurance in the first place? This was once a benefit that the government has attempted to turn into a mandate.

According to the faiths involved, it is about religious liberty. You may not see it that way, but others do.

No, I can't give a reason because I don't think it should be an employer's responsibility.

The problem I see with terming this as a religious liberty issue is that it conditions people to think that it is morally right to make any employer pay for insurance coverage unless it violates their religious doctrine.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine Obama reelected not constrained by anything, not the Constitution, not Congress?

 

[Katzndogz]

It seems like people are ok with it when it's their guy doing it. They are too shortsighted or lack the imagination to see that their side will not always be in power. Granting the Office of the President this much power is going to come back and bite all of us.

The democrats believe that they will remain in power in perpetuity. So they need not worry about what another president would do. The democracy will vote for the dictatorship.

 

[g5000]

As for Catholic institutions, if they are exempt from including contraceptions from their employees' healthcare insurance, can other religious groups, like the Jehovah Witnesses withhold access to blood transfusions from their employees' plans?

If a Catholic organization can be forced to pay for birth control, can a doctor who accepts Medicaid be forced to perform a death by injection execution?

 

[Vel]

Can you imagine Obama reelected not constrained by anything, not the Constitution, not Congress?

And when you combine that with:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOOs8MaR1YM]lemmings jumping off cliffs - YouTube[/ame]

then you have what nightmares are made of.

 

[LibertyForAll]

The government shouldn't be mandating healthcare coverage period. This problem would go away if the mandate was removed. Attacking it from the religious liberty standpoint is just a tactic in the overall strategy to get rid of the mandate.

 

[Vel]

The government shouldn't be mandating healthcare coverage period. This problem would go away if the mandate was removed. Attacking it from the religious liberty standpoint is just a tactic in the overall strategy to get rid of the mandate.

Perhaps, but what often happens is that politicians will throw something absolutely egregious out there to mask what they're really hoping to get. In this case, they're looking to make the overall mandate acceptable to the public. IN order to do that, they ask for the outrageous and then "compromise".

 

[jgarden]

So many people seem to be missing the major underlying point of the Obama/Church/Birth Control issue. People have let themselves become so lost in the minutia that they've failed to see this for the nightmare it really is. The president of the United States of America has decreed that entity A must provide for entity B just because he says so.

******************************************************
The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?
This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

Charles Krauthammer: Overreach — Obamacare vs. the Constitution - The Washington Post

From the cost-benefit perspective of the insurance companies, providing contraceptives are far preferable to hospital delivery costs and adding another "warm body" to the policy.

If Catholic institutions are exempt from providing contraceptions from their employees' healthcare insurance, can the Jehovah Witnesses withhold access to blood transfusions from their employees' plans?

Can an owner of a major corporation be justified in withholding birth control and/or access to certain medical proceedures because it doesn't conform with his/her religious beliefs?

We could debate all the little side tracks of the health care debate or we could get back to the core point which is..

Why should one person have to be responsible for another person's health insurance?

Should one person who doesn't have children be responsible for providing tax revenue to educate the children of his/her neighbors?

Should one America citizen be expected to make a greater sacrifice in the defense of the nation than other citizens (ie landings at D-Day, Iwo Jima, etc)?

Should one state receive more benefits from the US government, than it contributes in federal taxes (ie Mississippi, Alaska)?

Preamble to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It all depends on your concept of American society and its commitment "to form a more perfect Union."

 

[Vel]

From the cost-benefit perspective of the insurance companies, providing contraceptives are far preferable to hospital delivery costs and adding another "warm body" to the policy.

If Catholic institutions are exempt from providing contraceptions from their employees' healthcare insurance, can the Jehovah Witnesses withhold access to blood transfusions from their employees' plans?

Can an owner of a major corporation be justified in withholding birth control and/or access to certain medical proceedures because it doesn't conform with his/her religious beliefs?

We could debate all the little side tracks of the health care debate or we could get back to the core point which is..

Why should one person have to be responsible for another person's health insurance?

Should one person who doesn't own a car or fly, have to be responsible for providing tax revenue for roads, bridges, airports, etc?

Should one state receive more benefits from the US government, than it contributes in federal taxes (ie Mississippi, Alaska)?

Should one America citizen be expected to put his/her life at more risk in the defense of the nation than other citizens?

It all depends on your concept of American society and our commitment
hich we are !

No
No
and
joining the military is a choice

 

[jgarden]

No
No
and
joining the military is a choice

1. Public school supporters would contend that the nation requires a literate population who have some training in civics

2. To my knowledge, Texas is the only "red" (Republican) state that doesn't receive more federal tax revenue than in contributes. Oddly enough, despite the conservative rhetoric "bad mouthing" the federal government, none of these states are too proud to send these annual surpluses.
http://www.nemw.org/images/taxburdrank.pdf

3. Joining the military "as a matter of choice" lasts only as long as their are enough "warm bodies" to fill the quotas. When America has been involved in major wars (Civil War, WW1,WW2, Vietnam) requiring the mobilization of the military for the defense of the nation, conscription has been employeed.