Political Vids/Images

[PIE-GUY]

Honesly, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should mean that we don't let people die from lack of money. Just as we must provide public education, so must we provide public health care. That's how I see it.

I agree, it is hard to pursue happiness if you are sick or dying. I just don't believe the gov't can/should/is able to provide that effectively.

It's easy to argue that the gov't isn't providing public education "effectively," too. But that hardly seems the point. A system that needs work is at least a system to work from. The wealthy, who send their kids to private schools despite paying for public education through taxes, would likely pay extra for better coverage than the public health care system. We'd still have the most advanced health care in the world but we'd provide at least basic care for everyone. There should be no scenario where an American citizen goes bankrupt due to medical bills stemming from cancer treatment. That's a violation of basic human rights, in my opinion.

[runawayjimbo]

Honesly, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should mean that we don't let people die from lack of money. Just as we must provide public education, so must we provide public health care. That's how I see it.

I agree, it is hard to pursue happiness if you are sick or dying. I just don't believe the gov't can/should/is able to provide that effectively.

It's easy to argue that the gov't isn't providing public education "effectively," too. But that hardly seems the point. A system that needs work is at least a system to work from. The wealthy, who send their kids to private schools despite paying for public education through taxes, would likely pay extra for better coverage than the public health care system. We'd still have the most advanced health care in the world but we'd provide at least basic care for everyone. There should be no scenario where an American citizen goes bankrupt due to medical bills stemming from cancer treatment. That's a violation of basic human rights, in my opinion.

You really want to get me started on public education?
:wink:

Alright, I guess I should go do some work now.

[VDB]

You have about 4 hours to get some emails out and make it appear you earned your paycheck today.

[VDB]

Rick Santorum's upcoming movie about the "war on religion" and the Hobby Lobby case:

[runawayjimbo]

Fuck, if there's anything that can stop me from supporting the decision, it's goddamned Santorum sticking his dumb face in it.

Last two things I'll point anyone to about this (probably not):

1. Vox (with whom I rarely see eye-to-eye) has a piece called 5 mistakes liberals make about corporate personhood and Hobby Lobby, namely:

1) Corporations obviously aren't people
2) Non-people can be persons
3) Corporate persons need constitutional rights
4) Corporate personhood actually cuts against Hobby Lobby's argument
5) Liberals think equality is more important than religious liberty

2. Left-leaning Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe with a solid, reasoned take on the decision and on the cartoonization of the left-right divide in general.

[sls.stormyrider]

I can't watch the vid right now.

As far as Vox goes, I have issue with #5. Particularly, anyone who says "liberals think ...". I was never asked to join a liberals club and told what to think
As far as religious freedom goes, many (not all, perhaps not even most) of those who espouse religious freedom are in fact only promoting their views at the expense of others, and just labelling it religious freedom.
I don't think that Hobby Lobby is doing that here although I do object to them wanted to start Bible classes in public school.

btw, is there a definition of "closely held" for profit corporation?

[rowjimmy]

Honesly, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should mean that we don't let people die from lack of money. Just as we must provide public education, so must we provide public health care. That's how I see it.

This.
A thousand times this.

Employers should not be anywhere near my healthcare. No business should.
Healthcare is a human right and our country completely fails to recognize and act upon this.


That said, Hobby Lobby is effectively making medical decisions for it's employees by determining that these contraceptives are not cool by them. This "narrow" ruling will soon have its doors blown right off when people use the language about respecting religious beliefs to enact some far worse levels of bullshit. In fact, that's the best part about this ruling.

When a company decides not to employ women because the founder's religion does not believe that women should work outside the home, we're gonna see some shit.

[runawayjimbo]

As far as Vox goes, I have issue with #5. Particularly, anyone who says "liberals think ...". I was never asked to join a liberals club and told what to think

Sure, it's a generalization, but I'd note that the author (and probably most of the staff at Vox) would include themselves in that camp. In other words, it's not a term of derision here as it would be on Fox.

btw, is there a definition of "closely held" for profit corporation?

Basically just a private company but here's the formal definition via the IRS:

Generally, a closely held corporation is a corporation that:
-- Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
-- Is not a personal service corporation.

The definitions for the terms "directly or indirectly" and "individual" are in Publication 542, Corporations.

A closely held corporation is subject to additional limitations in the tax treatment of items such as passive activity losses, at-risk rules, and compensation paid to corporate officers.

Employers should not be anywhere near my healthcare.

Signed

That said, Hobby Lobby is effectively making medical decisions for it's employees by determining that these contraceptives are not cool by them.

No, it's really not.

This "narrow" ruling will soon have its doors blown right off when people use the language about respecting religious beliefs to enact some far worse levels of bullshit. In fact, that's the best part about this ruling.

When a company decides not to employ women because the founder's religion does not believe that women should work outside the home, we're gonna see some shit.

Look, I know this decision has people all heated, but the case, and the RFRA in general, in no way whatsoever could be used to justify this kind of action. Hyperbole is best left to the politicians.

[sls.stormyrider]

Honesly, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should mean that we don't let people die from lack of money. Just as we must provide public education, so must we provide public health care. That's how I see it.

This.
A thousand times this.

yes - it should go without saying, but unfortunately in this country it doesn't.
                                 
I understand those who find it unpalatable for the gov't to be involved in health care.                                         
The free market has proven that it cannot do the job.

As a wise, GOP president once said (paraphrasing) government should do what we can't do for ourselves.   Providing health care is one of those things for many in this country.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

[runawayjimbo]

I understand those who find it unpalatable for the gov't to be involved in health care.                                         
The free market has proven that it cannot do the job.

...cough...VA...cough...

Also, a market where ~40% of total health spending is provided by the gov't is not really a free market. Just sayin'

[sls.stormyrider]

yes - the VA system is a disgrace and imo a perfect argument against a system that is entirely govt run. The difference between the VA and Medicare is that everyone in the VA is a full time govt employee, unlike Medicare where the govt is acting as "an insurance company"

yes, even before HCA Medicare was 40% of the market, not entirely free enterprise

I would argue that even before medicare (the mid 60s), the free market couldn't provide universal coverage. That was the days before bypass surgery, transplants, chemotherapy, etc. It would be less likely to do so now.
The initial impetus for universal health care came in the 40s (Truman was an advocate) - perhaps earlier

[VDB]

This "narrow" ruling will soon have its doors blown right off when people use the language about respecting religious beliefs to enact some far worse levels of bullshit. In fact, that's the best part about this ruling.

When a company decides not to employ women because the founder's religion does not believe that women should work outside the home, we're gonna see some shit.

Look, I know this decision has people all heated, but the case, and the RFRA in general, in no way whatsoever could be used to justify this kind of action. Hyperbole is best left to the politicians.

Given the fact that the RFRA was evidently inspired by an unpopular court ruling against a Native American who used peyote (see my earlier post) -- and based on the ease and near unanimity with which it passed, it's reasonable to believe lawmakers did not write that law anticipating it would be used in such a controversial way as here -- I think that it is fair to speculate about what further expansive takes on the law SCOTUS might indulge next. It's not like the RFRA was specifically about contraception, after all.

[runawayjimbo]

This "narrow" ruling will soon have its doors blown right off when people use the language about respecting religious beliefs to enact some far worse levels of bullshit. In fact, that's the best part about this ruling.

When a company decides not to employ women because the founder's religion does not believe that women should work outside the home, we're gonna see some shit.

Look, I know this decision has people all heated, but the case, and the RFRA in general, in no way whatsoever could be used to justify this kind of action. Hyperbole is best left to the politicians.

Given the fact that the RFRA was evidently inspired by an unpopular court ruling against a Native American who used peyote (see my earlier post) -- and based on the ease and near unanimity with which it passed, it's reasonable to believe lawmakers did not write that law anticipating it would be used in such a controversial way as here -- I think that it is fair to speculate about what further expansive takes on the law SCOTUS might indulge next. It's not like the RFRA was specifically about contraception, after all.

You guys are acting as if the Court will accept any bullshit made-up "religious" claim brought before them. You may not like them or agree with them, but the justices are not idiots. They do have the ability (as does any reasonable person) to distinguish between legit claims of religious objection and scams meant to circumvent current law (although I hear Ginsburg clicks on a lot of Nigerian prince emails).

[VDB]

The justices certainly are intelligent, learned people. But the bitch about law seems to be that two equally smart, qualified people can disagree so sharply, so often, on so many issues. How is that? How do we have so many 5-4 decisions that fall along the predictable ideological lines? Someone's gotta be right and someone's gotta be wrong, yeah? I believe it's because even Supreme Court justices can allow their own predispositions to influence their interpretations of cases. For better or worse.

[phil]

(although I hear Ginsburg clicks on a lot of Nigerian prince emails).

are you not supposed to click those?