Part of Obamacare will be struck down by courts. Parts will effectively be circumvented by states. Other parts will go into effect. And it will all be unworkable. And all of this is by design.

Obamacare is not an end unto itself. It is just the stepping stone. They knew the political climate was not favorable to single payer, so they instead created this great facade of “we’re going to do a hybrid system in which private insurance companies still exist and states have lots of control.”

Then, in a few years, they’ll come back and say, “See, we tried compromise and it was an utter failure. We need single payer.”

Everything that causes Obamcare to be more unworkable is one more step on the road to single payer.

Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a non-profit religious organization; indeed, the case law is replete with examples of such organizations asserting cognizable free exercise and RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] challenges.”

For those who believe that corporations are excluded from the freedom of speech, once again the court has ruled that organizations have the same rights as individuals. Otherwise, what’s to prevent the govt from entering and searching a place of business or any other example of individual rights?

Thie HHS contraception mandate is obviously unconstitutional..What does Obama care, post election, what the courts decide? He could care less! He already won votes from his duped stupid young female constituency.

SWalker on November 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM

You didn’t happen to see this and this yesterday, did you?

My blood pressure is still in the stratosphere from reading both articles.

This is an argument the right will lose. Chiefly because, like with gay marriage, they chose the wrong defense.In gay marriage the argument should have been “Is it marriage?” which obviously it is not.But instead we allowed the left to make it about the value of same sex unions.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121117-thousands-rally-paris-against-proposed-same-sex-marriage-law-gay-rights-protest-france

The Obama administration is using the old progressive approach of trying to claim religious protections are only allowed for churches.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM

In other words, the religious protections end once you step off the property where your church building sits.

I doubt Mr. Obama is going to win even one of these.

Feminists consider unplaaned pregnancy just another unwanted physical condition. Really.

Prescription drugs are covered because they can be provided through a regulated entity, such as a pharmacy, that can bill the insurance carrier.

Non-prescription drugs would be hard to reimburse, if the customer also bought shampoo, Q-tips, batteries, etc., in the same purchase.

Also, limiting reimbursement to prescription drugs supposedly limtis it to medically necessary drugs, while people will “self-treat” with non-prescription drugs without seeing a doctor (Of course, doctors will tell you to take two aspirin…)

Wethal on November 18, 2012 at 3:24 PM

That’s nice. There are many prescription drugs insurance does not cover. They certainty won’t cover pain killers if you choose to get a tummy tuck. I was recently prescribed a certain shaving creme due to shaving causing acne. It wasn’t covered. Insurance often doesn’t cover things like canes or crutches despite being prescribed. Having an unwanted physical condition, like pregnancy, does not warrant other people paying for it.
Health care implies some disease or attempt to stop said disease.

The idea that we have bought into it does not just shows how much ground has already been conceded.

tommyboy on November 18, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Hey! Don’t nitpick! I’ve had a hard few days and I’m tired. I haven’t fallen into a trap, I just worded that response badly- LOL!

Now you are falling into the Obama administration’s trap. The right to fee exercise of religion isn’t just for “religious organizations”. Like each of the the amendments, it applies all citizens, both individually and as groups.

That the administration’s defense doesn’t make a point. So, to your question I say, “Exactly!”

tommyboy on November 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I haven’t seen a response from tommyboy, but I would speculate he is making the point that you can’t restrict First Amendment freedom of religion to only churches or specific religious organizations.

The Obama administration is using the old progressive approach of trying to claim religious protections are only allowed for churches.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Thanks. I’m not very religious although I am very interested in protecting the First Amendment and the freedom of religious organizations to live according to their beliefs.

The phrase “separation of church and state” comes from a letter from Jefferson to a Baptist church. That phrase was picked up in a SCOTUS opinion as one way of explaining the First Amendment on religion, and now many people probably think it is the actual constitutional language, or at least the “official” definition of freedom of religion.

The first amendment never mentions the word “church” and, in any event, the word “church” merely means “the called out ones” or all regenerate Christians. It has nothing to do with a building, or specific congregation or denomination.

tommyboy on November 18, 2012 at 2:55 PM

So what’s your point?

Night Owl on November 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I haven’t seen a response from tommyboy, but I would speculate he is making the point that you can’t restrict First Amendment freedom of religion to only churches or specific religious organizations.

The Obama administration is using the old progressive approach of trying to claim religious protections are only allowed for churches.

So what’s your point?
Night Owl on November 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM

That the administration’s defense doesn’t make a point. So, to your question I say, “Exactly!”

A crucial distinction also between this case and some of the cases involving Catholic institutions is that Tyndale and other non-Catholic organizations had no religious object to contraceptives per se, but to those items defined as contraceptives that are in fact abortifacients.

This makes a difference, because Tyndale was willing to provide and pay for most contraceptives mandated by the plan, but objected to the abortifacients. Therefore, it was harder for the government to make the case that Tyndale was not providing contraceptives.

For Catholic organizations, obviously, there is no such escape clause, since they believe all contraceptives are sinful. I believe they are wrong, but that hardly matters, as long as it is their religious belief.

INC on November 18, 2012

…thanks for the links INC!

The first amendment never mentions the word “church” and, in any event, the word “church” merely means “the called out ones” or all regenerate Christians. It has nothing to do with a building, or specific congregation or denomination.

tommyboy on November 18, 2012 at 2:55 PM

So what’s your point?

Vaccines and physicals help to prevent disease. Pregnancy is not a disease. Condoms actually do prevent disease to a degree. Why aren’t condoms covered? The mere fact that we require a doctor to prescribe something doesn’t make it health care.

Rocks on November 18, 2012 at 2:53 P

Feminists consider unplaaned pregnancy just another unwanted physical condition. Really.

Prescription drugs are covered because they can be provided through a regulated entity, such as a pharmacy, that can bill the insurance carrier.

Non-prescription drugs would be hard to reimburse, if the customer also bought shampoo, Q-tips, batteries, etc., in the same purchase.

Also, limiting reimbursement to prescription drugs supposedly limtis it to medically necessary drugs, while people will “self-treat” with non-prescription drugs without seeing a doctor (Of course, doctors will tell you to take two aspirin…)