What is more "immoral": Free choice in Abortion or free choice in Health Care?

[hadit]

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

Please quote the provision in the law which explicitly forbids the subsidies.

Thanks.

In order to do that, we have to, as is usual when dealing with lawyer speak, reference several sections of the document. Section 1311 defines a health insurance exchange as a "governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a state." Section 1321 allows the federal government to set up exchanges in states that don't do it themselves. Section 1401 is the key. It specifies who can receive a federal subsidy for health insurance. It says (bold by me),

(2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance
amount determined under this subsection with respect to any
coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or
more qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such
month for the applicable second lowest cost silver
plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product
of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's
household income for the taxable year.

That's the piece in play here, and that's the piece Obama's lawyers have to argue doesn't say what it says. It's the whole "Today it's a tax, tomorrow it's a fee" argument on steroids.[/quote]

 

[LOki]

There's nothing immoral about having "free choice."

 

[jillian]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

absurd premise and absurd comparison.

try again.

 

[jillian]

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

Please quote the provision in the law which explicitly forbids the subsidies.

Thanks.

In order to do that, we have to, as is usual when dealing with lawyer speak, reference several sections of the document. Section 1311 defines a health insurance exchange as a "governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a state." Section 1321 allows the federal government to set up exchanges in states that don't do it themselves. Section 1401 is the key. It specifies who can receive a federal subsidy for health insurance. It says (bold by me),

(2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance
amount determined under this subsection with respect to any
coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or
more qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such
month for the applicable second lowest cost silver
plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product
of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's
household income for the taxable year.

That's the piece in play here, and that's the piece Obama's lawyers have to argue doesn't say what it says. It's the whole "Today it's a tax, tomorrow it's a fee" argument on steroids.

[/QUOTE]

you haven't a clue what was argued.

 

[2aguy]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Yeah, same here. OP never really pulls it together. it's like asking: What is better? Applesauce or bicycles?

And the answer is tennis rackets.


Abortion IS health care.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life......no way to sugar coat it.....try as you guys might to hide it from your conscience.....

Even if you believe that, its still health care.

BUT, if you want to go off on an anti-abortion rant, start a new thread. Don't try to derail this one.

How am I derailing this thread moron.....the op asks is abortion immoral...and I answered the question....moron....

 

[emilynghiem]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

Two entirely different animals. Two entirely different issues, totally unrelated. In some cases, abortion is a moral issue, but we can't throw a blanket over the issue.
On the other hand, health care is a necessity, a human need. Yes, it's a humane and moral issue when we speak of health care as necessity, but more so a humane issue than a moral issue.
In addition, there are cases where abortions are a health care issue, and the life of the mother hinges on the decision to abort the baby. And, in some cases, the well-being of the baby becomes an issue as well.
While abortion is a case by case issue, or should be, health care is a much needed necessity across the board. Moral implications and considerations should come after health issues are addressed first.

Hi Sonny Clark
Don't you have to have "life" first before you can have "health"

If prochoice advocates are arguing that govt should not decide the choice of abortion,
how is that choice any less dangerous than the choice to buy insurance or pay for health care other ways.

Why is the choice of "whether or not" to buy insurance yet PENALIZED and MANDATED by federal govt, when this decision can be changed later and does not cause "irreversible harm,"
but the choice of 'whether or not' to have a baby or an abortion is NOT TO BE penalized or mandated by govt,
when this decision CANNOT be reversed.

That is fine, Sonny Clark, to say these are two different situations.
But GIVEN their differences, why is one choice regulated, mandated and PENALIZED by govt
while in the other case, it is argued that govt should not be imposed on individual choice.

Isn't some belief or assumption about "health care as a given"
being IMPOSED THROUGH GOVT
when imposing such a bias in values is CONTESTED
when PROLIFE advocates IMPOSE values assumed about protecting life as "essential."

Why is it okay to IIMPOSE beliefs about health care as a 'given right'
but it's NOT okay to IMPOSE beliefs about life as a 'given right.'
If you allow for one, shouldn't you allow for the other?

Why is one "political religion" endorsed by govt while the other is rejected on the grounds of free choice? Why isn't free choice protected equally in both cases, even given that they ARE different!

Buddhism is NOT the same as Christianity, but the free choice of religion applies to BOTH.
Why isn't the freedom of choice in abortion and freedom of choice in paying for health care,
both treated equally as individual civil liberties?

If you only respect free choice in one case, but not the other,
isn't that like only respecting religious freedom in the case of Christianity, but not in Buddhism?

These do NOT have to be the same in order to have equal free choice applied to both, right?

 

[emilynghiem]

I find them both equally repugnant. One is murder, the other extortion. Everyone in this country had healthcare before this unsustainable Obamacare tax was imposed. Either through private insurance, or medicare.

"Either through private insurance, or medicare."

You're kidding right?

No, "everyone in this country" did not have health care before ObamaCare and many still do not.

However, I do agree that INSURANCE of all types BORDERS on "extortion". Its a necessary evil.

If you didn't have money for insurance, you got a green card. Everyone of my youth group kids had one. No emergency room was allowed to turn a person away, and Obama wasn't sucking his tax right out of your paycheck.

A tax by the way that will be on it's way to those in the Pacific Trade locale. Obama is helping himself to 950 million dollars of the medicare fund to send off to the Pacific Trade deal. There is no "trade". It is a redistribution of wealth. NOW the poor will have no healthcare because Obama isn't done with this country yet, and Hitlery is poised to take up his slack. It's a global thing. We are the ATM.

So you were an illegal alien? Are you aware that Ronnie Ray-Gun's Socialist EMTALA was "sucking tax right out of your paycheck"? You were forced to pay for that.

To an extent, you are correct about ERs not turning people away BUT they were not required to do more than immediate care and send you to your doctor - or, as the GOP prefers, home to die.

EMTALA cost a lot more in taxes in free health care than ObamaCare. Unlike ObamaCare, EMTALA did guarantee both abortions and live births to illegals. Illegals cannot buy ObamaCare.

Open your mind and educate yourself.

Dear Luddly Neddite

(A) saving money as justification for passing a law?
What if there are OTHER ways to save money besides
that law?

You may well be right about the expenses involved,
but "saving money" does NOT justify taking liberties and free choice from citizens without due process.
This is assuming there aren't OTHER ways of saving money WITHOUT depriving citizens of freedom of choice.

Otherwise, Luddly, you could argue things like this, if "saving money" were the ONLY criteria for dictating laws:
* it would save taxpayers more money if all women were required to work jobs dancing on tabletops to generate
hundreds in revenue a night, instead of staying at home and raising kids. They could hire that work out for a fraction of
the cost, so this would make more money and thus save more money taxpayers don't have to pay in welfare etc.
* we could save more lives, resources, and govt costs if ALL citizens were REQUIRED to go through the same
training as police officers -- to REQUIRE that all people do police work as either their paid work or volunteer work.
This would cut crime and related costs, and screen out abusive sick people in advance to save lives and other resources, if govt REQUIRED all citizens to do that at the expense of freedom.

Where does it end, Luddly?

* it would save money if all people were REQUIRED to eat minimum standardized meals to survive, and allow more food to be distributed to feed the greater populations to wipe out starvation and economic disparity in food and resource distribution.
We'd save lives, and cut costs of health problems by controlling and preventing excessive diets.
So can the govt dictate that if enough people voted for it?

(B) Constitutional checks and limits on govt authority over individual rights

Does a group of people have the right to impose their beliefs through govt
as long as majority rule and political processes are followed?

Luddly I thought there were Constitutional limits on govt,
that in no case, majority rule or not, can laws be imposed that
violate the religious freedom and beliefs of individuals.

So this is dangerous thinking to make exceptions just because YOU believe in something.
what about the Christians who BELIEVE in traditional marriage only.
Does getting a majority give them the right to impose THEIR beliefs on others through govt?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"These do NOT have to be the same in order to have equal free choice applied to both, right?"

Your thread premise is ridiculous idiocy, it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Yeah, same here. OP never really pulls it together. it's like asking: What is better? Applesauce or bicycles?

And the answer is tennis rackets.


Abortion IS health care.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life......no way to sugar coat it.....try as you guys might to hide it from your conscience.....

Even if you believe that, its still health care.

BUT, if you want to go off on an anti-abortion rant, start a new thread. Don't try to derail this one.

Actually there really isn't a 'thread' to derail.

 

[emilynghiem]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Hi G.T. and occupied
How would you reword the question to compare these two choices:

(A) federal govt mandates, regulations or penalties on the choice of abortion
versus on the choice of whether or not to buy insurance or to rely on federal exchanges and subsidies
instead of allowing INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to fund health care through OTHER means besides federal programs

(B) or if you want to stick to the Subsidies question:
How about comparing the right NOT to fund abortion if THAT is "against someone's beliefs"
with the right NOT to fund health care through federal govt if THAT is "against someone's beliefs"

In both the case of abortion and with health care,
why can't individuals have the freedom to fund their own programs FREE of govt mandates on these choices.

Why this insistence on going through GOVT to make decisions on health care,
especially when this is REJECTED to go through courts or legislatures to make decisions about abortion
that is argued as a personal private choice between people and their doctors.
So why isn't health care open to free choice in how to pay for and provide this
and not REQUIRED to go through federal mandates as the ONLY CHOICE in how to manage health care.

 

[Sonny Clark]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

Two entirely different animals. Two entirely different issues, totally unrelated. In some cases, abortion is a moral issue, but we can't throw a blanket over the issue.
On the other hand, health care is a necessity, a human need. Yes, it's a humane and moral issue when we speak of health care as necessity, but more so a humane issue than a moral issue.
In addition, there are cases where abortions are a health care issue, and the life of the mother hinges on the decision to abort the baby. And, in some cases, the well-being of the baby becomes an issue as well.
While abortion is a case by case issue, or should be, health care is a much needed necessity across the board. Moral implications and considerations should come after health issues are addressed first.

Hi Sonny Clark
Don't you have to have "life" first before you can have "health"

If prochoice advocates are arguing that govt should not decide the choice of abortion,
how is that choice any less dangerous than the choice to buy insurance or pay for health care other ways.

Why is the choice of "whether or not" to buy insurance yet PENALIZED and MANDATED by federal govt, when this decision can be changed later and does not cause "irreversible harm,"
but the choice of 'whether or not' to have a baby or an abortion is NOT TO BE penalized or mandated by govt,
when this decision CANNOT be reversed.

That is fine, Sonny Clark, to say these are two different situations.
But GIVEN their differences, why is one choice regulated, mandated and PENALIZED by govt
while in the other case, it is argued that govt should not be imposed on individual choice.

Isn't some belief or assumption about "health care as a given"
being IMPOSED THROUGH GOVT
when imposing such a bias in values is CONTESTED
when PROLIFE advocates IMPOSE values assumed about protecting life as "essential."

Why is it okay to IIMPOSE beliefs about health care as a 'given right'
but it's NOT okay to IMPOSE beliefs about life as a 'given right.'
If you allow for one, shouldn't you allow for the other?

Why is one "political religion" endorsed by govt while the other is rejected on the grounds of free choice? Why isn't free choice protected equally in both cases, even given that they ARE different!

Buddhism is NOT the same as Christianity, but the free choice of religion applies to BOTH.
Why isn't the freedom of choice in abortion and freedom of choice in paying for health care,
both treated equally as individual civil liberties?

If you only respect free choice in one case, but not the other,
isn't that like only respecting religious freedom in the case of Christianity, but not in Buddhism?

These do NOT have to be the same in order to have equal free choice applied to both, right?

In my opinion, you're talking apples and oranges. First, mandated health care insurance has absolutely nothing to do with moral issues, abortion, or free choice. Secondly, regardless of government imposed laws, regulations, or policy, health care is a necessity. In addition, abortion is not always a health care issue.

In my opinion, you're mixing abortion, morals, and health care into one scenario, then trying to justify one with another. There are too many variables to consider when it comes to abortions. When looking at abortion, one must consider rape, incest, health issues, mental issues, and other criteria. On the other hand, health care is pretty much a straight forward issues, and should be considered as a necessity across the board.

The government should not hinder, nor regulate the right to proper health care, nor should the government tell a woman what's in her best interest. There are highly trained professionals that can be consulted when a woman is considering an abortion, and can judge what's best for everyone concerned. There are times and circumstances when the correct choice must be weighed in the best interest of the unborn child, and other times when it's the mother's best interest that must take priority.

 

[emilynghiem]

"These do NOT have to be the same in order to have equal free choice applied to both, right?"

Your thread premise is ridiculous idiocy, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones then how would YOU word it?
Basically the COURT making a ruling on whether or not a law is Constitutional
is being argued as IMMORAL.

So can you compare these two Court rulings (that are NOT the same)
but both have incited arguments saying these decisions have IMMORAL consequences.

For example, and please reword this the way YOU would compare the two and explain the difference:

A. the court ruling that struck down abortion bans as unconstitutional
and thus opened the door for free choice in abortion instead of such choice being illegal, criminalized or penalized
B. any court decision that could find Obamacare mandates, subsidies or other regulations as unconstitutional
and thus opening the door for people to fund, develop and provide health care INSTEAD of being required to
be under the insurance mandates of the ACA and federal regulations in order to avoid penalty

If B is depriving people of health care, by recognizing other choices for health care besides depending on federal govt,
isn't that like arguing that RECOGNIZING free choice in A "equates to murder and babykilling"

Isn't that making a leap to argue that the only way to prevent abortion is to impose govt mandates against free choice.
And the only way to provide health care is to impose govt mandates forcing people to buy health insurance.

 

[whitehall]

Why does the left kid themselves into thinking that the U.S. Supreme Court is just another stop in the litigation procedure? The Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

Two entirely different animals. Two entirely different issues, totally unrelated. In some cases, abortion is a moral issue, but we can't throw a blanket over the issue.
On the other hand, health care is a necessity, a human need. Yes, it's a humane and moral issue when we speak of health care as necessity, but more so a humane issue than a moral issue.
In addition, there are cases where abortions are a health care issue, and the life of the mother hinges on the decision to abort the baby. And, in some cases, the well-being of the baby becomes an issue as well.
While abortion is a case by case issue, or should be, health care is a much needed necessity across the board. Moral implications and considerations should come after health issues are addressed first.

Hi Sonny Clark
Don't you have to have "life" first before you can have "health"

If prochoice advocates are arguing that govt should not decide the choice of abortion,
how is that choice any less dangerous than the choice to buy insurance or pay for health care other ways.

Why is the choice of "whether or not" to buy insurance yet PENALIZED and MANDATED by federal govt, when this decision can be changed later and does not cause "irreversible harm,"
but the choice of 'whether or not' to have a baby or an abortion is NOT TO BE penalized or mandated by govt,
when this decision CANNOT be reversed.

That is fine, Sonny Clark, to say these are two different situations.
But GIVEN their differences, why is one choice regulated, mandated and PENALIZED by govt
while in the other case, it is argued that govt should not be imposed on individual choice.

Isn't some belief or assumption about "health care as a given"
being IMPOSED THROUGH GOVT
when imposing such a bias in values is CONTESTED
when PROLIFE advocates IMPOSE values assumed about protecting life as "essential."

Why is it okay to IIMPOSE beliefs about health care as a 'given right'
but it's NOT okay to IMPOSE beliefs about life as a 'given right.'
If you allow for one, shouldn't you allow for the other?

Why is one "political religion" endorsed by govt while the other is rejected on the grounds of free choice? Why isn't free choice protected equally in both cases, even given that they ARE different!

Buddhism is NOT the same as Christianity, but the free choice of religion applies to BOTH.
Why isn't the freedom of choice in abortion and freedom of choice in paying for health care,
both treated equally as individual civil liberties?

If you only respect free choice in one case, but not the other,
isn't that like only respecting religious freedom in the case of Christianity, but not in Buddhism?

These do NOT have to be the same in order to have equal free choice applied to both, right?

In my opinion, you're talking apples and oranges. First, mandated health care insurance has absolutely nothing to do with moral issues, abortion, or free choice. Secondly, regardless of government imposed laws, regulations, or policy, health care is a necessity. In addition, abortion is not always a health care issue.

In my opinion, you're mixing abortion, morals, and health care into one scenario, then trying to justify one with another. There are too many variables to consider when it comes to abortions. When looking at abortion, one must consider rape, incest, health issues, mental issues, and other criteria. On the other hand, health care is pretty much a straight forward issues, and should be considered as a necessity across the board.

The government should not hinder, nor regulate the right to proper health care, nor should the government tell a woman what's in her best interest. There are highly trained professionals that can be consulted when a woman is considering an abortion, and can judge what's best for everyone concerned. There are times and circumstances when the correct choice must be weighed in the best interest of the unborn child, and other times when it's the mother's best interest that must take priority.

Dear Sonny Clark
Eating food and breathing air is a necessity across the board.
Does that give govt the authority to dictate how we should go about eating since it is necessary for all people to live?

Where do we draw the line?

My point is that BELIEFS and biases in values are involved here.
And According the Constitution, govt is NOT supposed to be abused to impose
beliefs of one group over another.

If we all AGREE to values and beliefs, then we have the right, by consent, to pass laws.
But if people do not agree on values, and these arguments are FAITH based, where
clearly people do NOT share the same FAITH, then how is that justified as imposed through govt?

Do you see how faith based values are involved here?
And not everyone believes the same.

For example Sonny, some people DO believe it is unlawful and immoral,
unconstitutional and unethical, just plain ILLEGAL if you will,
for Govt to pass such mandates on health care and "buying insurance as a requirement"
without first passing a Constitutional amendment giving federal govt this authority over states and people.

you might as well have mandated that all people are required to purchase beef and pork,
and totally violated the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus and Vegans who "don't believe in that."

So just because you and I don't believe the same way the objectors do,
does this give us and govt the right to pass laws that violate their beliefs?

Requiring them to do things they believe are not the authority of govt?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Why does the left kid themselves into thinking that the U.S. Supreme Court is just another stop in the litigation procedure? The Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of laws.

According to their interpretation of the Constitution. But, the Constitution doesn't cover everything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False dilemma fallacy, Emily.

 

[Sonny Clark]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

Two entirely different animals. Two entirely different issues, totally unrelated. In some cases, abortion is a moral issue, but we can't throw a blanket over the issue.
On the other hand, health care is a necessity, a human need. Yes, it's a humane and moral issue when we speak of health care as necessity, but more so a humane issue than a moral issue.
In addition, there are cases where abortions are a health care issue, and the life of the mother hinges on the decision to abort the baby. And, in some cases, the well-being of the baby becomes an issue as well.
While abortion is a case by case issue, or should be, health care is a much needed necessity across the board. Moral implications and considerations should come after health issues are addressed first.

Hi Sonny Clark
Don't you have to have "life" first before you can have "health"

If prochoice advocates are arguing that govt should not decide the choice of abortion,
how is that choice any less dangerous than the choice to buy insurance or pay for health care other ways.

Why is the choice of "whether or not" to buy insurance yet PENALIZED and MANDATED by federal govt, when this decision can be changed later and does not cause "irreversible harm,"
but the choice of 'whether or not' to have a baby or an abortion is NOT TO BE penalized or mandated by govt,
when this decision CANNOT be reversed.

That is fine, Sonny Clark, to say these are two different situations.
But GIVEN their differences, why is one choice regulated, mandated and PENALIZED by govt
while in the other case, it is argued that govt should not be imposed on individual choice.

Isn't some belief or assumption about "health care as a given"
being IMPOSED THROUGH GOVT
when imposing such a bias in values is CONTESTED
when PROLIFE advocates IMPOSE values assumed about protecting life as "essential."

Why is it okay to IIMPOSE beliefs about health care as a 'given right'
but it's NOT okay to IMPOSE beliefs about life as a 'given right.'
If you allow for one, shouldn't you allow for the other?

Why is one "political religion" endorsed by govt while the other is rejected on the grounds of free choice? Why isn't free choice protected equally in both cases, even given that they ARE different!

Buddhism is NOT the same as Christianity, but the free choice of religion applies to BOTH.
Why isn't the freedom of choice in abortion and freedom of choice in paying for health care,
both treated equally as individual civil liberties?

If you only respect free choice in one case, but not the other,
isn't that like only respecting religious freedom in the case of Christianity, but not in Buddhism?

These do NOT have to be the same in order to have equal free choice applied to both, right?

In my opinion, you're talking apples and oranges. First, mandated health care insurance has absolutely nothing to do with moral issues, abortion, or free choice. Secondly, regardless of government imposed laws, regulations, or policy, health care is a necessity. In addition, abortion is not always a health care issue.

In my opinion, you're mixing abortion, morals, and health care into one scenario, then trying to justify one with another. There are too many variables to consider when it comes to abortions. When looking at abortion, one must consider rape, incest, health issues, mental issues, and other criteria. On the other hand, health care is pretty much a straight forward issues, and should be considered as a necessity across the board.

The government should not hinder, nor regulate the right to proper health care, nor should the government tell a woman what's in her best interest. There are highly trained professionals that can be consulted when a woman is considering an abortion, and can judge what's best for everyone concerned. There are times and circumstances when the correct choice must be weighed in the best interest of the unborn child, and other times when it's the mother's best interest that must take priority.

Dear Sonny Clark
Eating food and breathing air is a necessity across the board.
Does that give govt the authority to dictate how we should go about eating since it is necessary for all people to live?

Where do we draw the line?

My point is that BELIEFS and biases in values are involved here.
And According the Constitution, govt is NOT supposed to be abused to impose
beliefs of one group over another.

If we all AGREE to values and beliefs, then we have the right, by consent, to pass laws.
But if people do not agree on values, and these arguments are FAITH based, where
clearly people do NOT share the same FAITH, then how is that justified as imposed through govt?

Do you see how faith based values are involved here?
And not everyone believes the same.

For example Sonny, some people DO believe it is unlawful and immoral,
unconstitutional and unethical, just plain ILLEGAL if you will,
for Govt to pass such mandates on health care and "buying insurance as a requirement"
without first passing a Constitutional amendment giving federal govt this authority over states and people.

you might as well have mandated that all people are required to purchase beef and pork,
and totally violated the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus and Vegans who "don't believe in that."

So just because you and I don't believe the same way the objectors do,
does this give us and govt the right to pass laws that violate their beliefs?

Requiring them to do things they believe are not the authority of govt?

Don't be silly here. Eating and breathing is far from health care laws and abortions. You're going off in too many directions now.
One's faith can not, and does not trump common sense issues, and basic moral and ethical principles.
Yes, requiring one to purchase government sponsored health care insurance is wrong, a scam, and ridiculous.

The vast majority of people do NOT allow religion to get in the way of their health. Yes, there are a few fanatics that we hear about occasionally that put certain religious beliefs before serious health concerns, but we can find lunatics on every street corner in every country around the world.

We do not have the right to force what we believe to be right on others. In most cases, and with most issues concerning such things as abortion, everything must be considered case by case, weighing all pros and cons, then deciding what's best for all concerned. That would take care of moral issues and health issues.

 

[emilynghiem]

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

Please quote the provision in the law which explicitly forbids the subsidies.

Thanks.

Abortion except for the life of the mother is immoral.......

Um. Non sequitur! Hello?

I asked the parrot to support his claim the subsidies are explicitly forbidden in the law.

Maybe he does not know the specific arguments, conditions or solutions
surrounding the subsidies issue with ACA and federal exchanges.

Perhaps someone else can answer this question?

I would like to see the answer and explanations about the subsidies
that g5000 has posed, but maybe to the wrong person. Can someone else answer?

I know there is a technical flaw in the law, that people are arguing about,
because the law wasn't worded perfectly in stating federal vs. state created exchanges
(in the cases where the subsidized exchanges may be technically set up by federal govt not state govt)
How Millions Could Lose Healthcare Over Six Words Your Obamacare SCOTUS Wonksplainer Wonkette

Can someone please answer g5000 question? on how the subsidies are forbidden?

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

Please quote the provision in the law which explicitly forbids the subsidies.

Thanks.

Abortion except for the life of the mother is immoral.......

Um. Non sequitur! Hello?

I asked the parrot to support his claim the subsidies are explicitly forbidden in the law.

 

[emilynghiem]

False dilemma fallacy, Emily.

Is this better wording JakeStarkey

(A) how is that if free choice is threatened with govt mandates because of prolife arguments,
that is considered "violating church and state" and imposing beliefs about aboriton
on the FREE CHOICE of individuals who should not be under govt mandates restricting FREE CHOICE.

This is because women are to be trusted and not penalized for the choice of abortion.

(B) but when it comes to paying and providing for health care,
suddenly the idea of "free choice" is NOT to be trusted to the public.
The GOVT and federal mandates on health insurance
is the "only way" to ensure that people will have access to affordable health care.
This is SO IMPORTANT it necessitate imposing a mandate that penalizes all citizens
unless we COMPLY and lose our freedom whether or when to buy health insurance.

The need for health care OVERRIDES any other possible choice for providing it.

Why is B argued as necessary, even at the expense of freedom of choice,
but in the case of A, it is more important to defend free choice, even if it means choosing abortion.

How is choosing abortion not to be restricted regulated or penalized by govt,
but choosing to pay for health care other ways besides insurance is penalized?

Why isn't the freedom of choice of individuals respected equally in both cases?

 

[whitehall]

Why does the left kid themselves into thinking that the U.S. Supreme Court is just another stop in the litigation procedure? The Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of laws.

According to their interpretation of the Constitution. But, the Constitution doesn't cover everything.

The Constitution does indeed "cover everything". It's a shame that the Bill of Rights sometimes get's in the way of left wing progressive agenda but that's the way it goes and you have to accept it.