Why the Supreme Court will find the Contraception Mandate Unconstitutional

[Sgt Staples]

You really don't need a law degree to figure this one out.

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Catholic Church's FREE EXERCISE of religion forbids the use of contraception. Therefore when the Government forces the Catholic Church to PAY FOR INSURANCE THAT COVERS CONTRACEPTION, they are preventing the Church's right to freely practice their religion.

Now the question is, will the rest of the law be ruled unconstitutional?

I believe it will be, as it gives ONE PERSON, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is an unelected, and therefore unaccountable, bureaucrat, the sole power to make virtually EVERY decision regarding the quantity and type of health care services and treatments allowed to be provided to the citizenry.

 

[OldGaffer]

So what are you going to do once it is declared legal? Just curious, since you seem so invested in this. Will your neighbors need to mount a suicide watch?

 

[Bo-4]

Is this another Prick Morris prediction? ;-)

 

[Sgt Staples]

So what are you going to do once it is declared legal?

In the event it is declared Constitutional ( I don't see how) and since the CBO's cost estimate over 10 years is more than double that what we were told, it will spend itself out of existence, causing much misery along the way, as there is simply no way the funding for it can be sustained.

 

[OldGaffer]

In the event it is declared Constitutional ( I don't see how) and since the CBO's cost estimate over 10 years is more than double that what we were told, it will spend itself out of existence, causing much misery along the way, as there is simply no way the funding for it can be sustained.

Na, us Democrats will just raise taxes to cover the cost, thus draining you of your precious bodily fluids.

 

[Sgt Staples]

Na, us Democrats will just raise taxes to cover the cost, thus draining you of your precious bodily fluids.

I'm sure you would try, but the fact is that you'd have to raise another 200 billion a year simply to pay for this one law. And none of that money would go toward reducing the current trillion plus dollar deficits we are experiencing year after Obama year.

Four more years till the well runs dry. That's when the government will start doing one of two things. They will either try to tax the private sector economy, and thus jobs, out of existence, or print the value of the currency out of existence.

The later is going on right now.

 

[ITALIA]

In the event it is declared Constitutional ( I don't see how) and since the CBO's cost estimate over 10 years is more than double that what we were told, it will spend itself out of existence, causing much misery along the way, as there is simply no way the funding for it can be sustained.

So why is it that other countries can cover health care for all of their citizens at half of what we pay and do it with superior results?

 

[ITALIA]

Yesterday I watched for the second time the program on CNN covering how other countries health care is run. We come out at the bottom in care and cost unless you are very very wealthy. The other thing I watched yesterday for awhile was the Tea Party rally in D.C. against "Obamacare". Speaker after speaker spitting out lies and showing the low information crowd what little they knew about our health care system.

 

[Sgt Staples]

So why is it that other countries can cover health care for all of their citizens at half of what we pay and do it with superior results?

Because they don't. That's the big lie.

Look at cancer deaths or deaths from heart disease and other major diseases in those countries. And their health systems are in deep deficit; Canada is partially privatizing it's health system. And many people in those countries end up coming to the US for treatments rather than wait one or two years.

They always quote lower expenses, but you can't cover more people and spend less money and maintain the same quantity and quality of services. It's a mathematical and logical impossibility.

And when they quote life expectancy, they don't include deaths from premature births in the death rate, while the US does. If they did, their overall life expectancy would be lower than they state.

Fact is, there is no free lunch and you get what you pay for.

The Socialized systems that we do have, Medicaid and Medicare together cover about a third of the population and they're going broke. When you extend those systems to everyone, the problem of paying for them gets 300% worse.

There is no "Silver Bullet."

Then there's the little matter of the Constitution.....

 

[OldGaffer]

Simple, cut military spending in half. We dont need to have a navy bigger than the next 11 navies combined when 9 of those 11 are our allies. You want to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the poor and the disabled, what a hero you are.

 

[NightSwimmer]

You really don't need a law degree to figure this one out.

Translation: Even if you had one, you'd still get it wrong. The First Amendment gives you the right to prance about on this forum like Chicken Little announcing that the sky is falling, but it doesn't give the Pope sovereignty over the United States.

 

[middleview]

The Catholic Church is not a citizen of the United States. The contraception issue does not require anyone to use contraception. Therefore all citizens who happen to participate in the practice of religion and who happen to believe as the Pope in 1968 did, that all forms of contraception are immoral...they can continue to practice as before. Those who do not are not required to believe as those Catholics do.

 

[Patrick]

You really don't need a law degree to figure this one out.

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Catholic Church's FREE EXERCISE of religion forbids the use of contraception. Therefore when the Government forces the Catholic Church to PAY FOR INSURANCE THAT COVERS CONTRACEPTION, they are preventing the Church's right to freely practice their religion.

Now the question is, will the rest of the law be ruled unconstitutional?

I believe it will be, as it gives ONE PERSON, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is an unelected, and therefore unaccountable, bureaucrat, the sole power to make virtually EVERY decision regarding the quantity and type of health care services and treatments allowed to be provided to the citizenry.

I don't see how this applies to anyone's free exercise of religion.

They're allowed to practice their religion however they want.

 

[middleview]

The CEO of United Healthcare got a $100 million paycheck. How many people in the health care systems in other countries make that kind of money? Currently about 40% of the US population is covered by employer provided insurance. about 50 million are uninsured (18% or so). The remainder are covered by one government plan or the other. Even the employer based system is subsidized. The employer gets to write off those costs and the employee does not have to claim it as compensation.

What is the republican solution?

 

[Patrick]

I'm starting a religion that prohibits the paying of taxes. So, I should sue the government because their laws requiring me to pay taxes is infringing on my right to practice my religion.

 

[Sgt Staples]

I'm starting a religion that prohibits the paying of taxes. So, I should sue the government because their laws requiring me to pay taxes is infringing on my right to practice my religion.

Actually, Jesus said that as individuals we should "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

Religious organizations are tax exempt, unlike the particular individual members of those religions.

So your argument makes no sense.

But if you figure out a way to get out of paying taxes, please let me know. I'm all for it.

 

[Sgt Staples]

The CEO of United Healthcare got a $100 million paycheck. How many people in the health care systems in other countries make that kind of money?

All the CEO's and all the CEO's salaries aren't spit in the ocean when it comes to the total amount of GDP spent on Health care services.

Currently about 40% of the US population is covered by employer provided insurance. about 50 million are uninsured (18% or so).

18% of the population, some of which simply choose not to buy insurance, who are not covered is not a real good reason (actually there is no good reason at all) to give the government the power to control what kind of health care services are provided to the other 82%.

In countries with socialized medicine, the lower income segment of the population bears a much higher burden of paying for their national governments' budgets through National Sales Taxes as high as 20% and higher income taxes, where in the United States.50% of lower income earners pay little or no income taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes and the middle pay around 28% of all income taxes.

That means that if the United States wants to adopt these programs without going bankrupt, the lower income and middle income people will, of necessity, have to pay far higher taxes than they do now.

 

[Sgt Staples]

You want to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the poor and the disabled, what a hero you are

Actually, since it the welfare class that is sucking on the taxpayer's teat, and pay Zero towards the cost of government, it would be far more accurate to state that the 'poor' want the budget balanced on everybody's backs but theirs

 

[OldGaffer]

Actually, since it the welfare class that is sucking on the taxpayer's teat, and pay Zero towards the cost of government, it would be far more accurate to state that the 'poor' want the budget balanced on everybody's backs but theirs

Freaking evil poor people, but you gotta have somebody to hate, right?

 

[Sgt Staples]

Freaking evil poor people, but you gotta have somebody to hate, right?

I don't hate poor people, I do, however have a strong distaste for a government that is killing the poor's incentive to pull themselves out of poverty, by making them comfortable in it and blaming it on the Rich.

It isn't the rich that are sucking the government dry, and it isn't the middle class wage earners that are sucking the government dry. It the government's promotion of poverty that is sucking the taxpayer's dry,

And the middle class feels it the most.

And if you think that high fuel prices and high electricity prices and high food prices help the poor, reelect your Marxist Hero...then we'll all live in a Utopia like they do in N. Korea and Cuba.