Xuink Bin commented on Kirsten Powers Misrepresents Court Decision Involving Nuns Challenge To The ACA
2015-08-01 20:20:36 -0400
· Flag
@eyes On Fox:
I’m not sure how You come to the conclusion single-payer “probably isn’t a good idea sure to cheese off any lib.” Care to explain?
In re xenophobia/racism, I said it was too close to them for /My/ comfort. I never said they were anywhere close to what /You/ would consider xenophobia/racism. Your insistence I meet Your standard of My perspective is foolhardy at best and arrogant at worst.
How is a Person supposed to “substantiate” Their perception other than to express it? I am willing to do so if You tell Me how.
Priscilla could have said the Son defended statements A, B, C, and D, providing links to videos of such defenses and leaving explicit reference to the Dad out of the article. However, since Dad and Grandma are not Fox Employees, as far as I can tell, and the website is called “NewsHounds” and the article is about Fox, the explicit reference seems gratuitous.
While I see no reason Medicare cannot be tailored to meet the needs of new Participants beyond the traditional Elderly, You still seem to misunderstand the situation of the Little Sisters. The Little Sisters have Employees. Those Employees are covered by the Little Sisters’ health plan. HHS requires the Little Sisters take an action in relation to that plan which violates Their religion. If the Little Sisters adhere to Their beliefs, They face fines of almost $40,000 per Employee per year. The fines are the substantial burden meant to “force” compliance. I’m really not sure why You insist on fighting against and argument which has not been made.
My hunch is the Supreme Court will take the case because the appellate court substituted its interpretation of Catholic doctrine in place of the Little Sisters’ interpretation and the Supreme Court has long held courts may not do so, making the basis of the appellate court’s conclusion flawed.
There is no hypocrisy involved. In the war tax case, as noted by the court in Hobby Lobby, “United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate.” In the case of the Little Sisters, there may be a less restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest the government asserts, such as having Employees file the required forms if They want the coverage and the government paying the Employees directly or having all pharmacies sends a bill to HHS for contraception distributed to Individuals with a health insurance plan.
Whether the Little Sisters are okay with taxes being used for various purposes is irrelevant due to the line drawing principle established in Thomas. Even if it did matter, on that particular point, the Little Sisters would have no basis for a claim due to the Lee principle noted above.
Due to Your failure to use punctuation clearly, I cannot comprehend what You are saying when You write “Hypocrisy I see Thomas v blah, blah, blah avoided like the plague (predated RFRA but still under Sherbert test?)” other than an apparent hatred for the Thomas ruling. Please clarify.
The point of Your next five sentences is not clear apart from giving You another opportunity to use the word “hypocrisy”. Put another way, the sentences do not seem meaningful. While I acknowledge the sentence before these five might help to make sense of them, I am at a loss to comprehend them under any scenario I have so far imagined.
Whether You or Anyone Else sees a moral argument is irrelevant for legal purposes. If You have proof of insincerity, however, that proof would matter. Do You have such proof?
Your argument “Tax money is no different than premium payments in this context: It’s fungible,” is irrelevant because the Little Sisters health plan is self-insured; there are no premiums paid; the Little Sisters pay the medical bills directly.
While You may reject the Little Sisters belief about indirect payments, a belief neither I nor the SCOTUS has said either of Us hold, what You believe is irrelevant for legal purposes.
I don’t want to “kill” the Affordable Care Act.i happen to like much of it, if not most, and have benefited from it, even though I do think single-payer would be better. I see no conflict in supporting a law while pointing out regulations made pursuant to that law need alteration. I also think if single-payer were adopted, by the time a Republican President and Republican supermajority came about, the Voters will have had sufficient time to see how that system is better to make sure any such scenario You describe to be improbable.
I’m not sure how You come to the conclusion single-payer “probably isn’t a good idea sure to cheese off any lib.” Care to explain?
In re xenophobia/racism, I said it was too close to them for /My/ comfort. I never said they were anywhere close to what /You/ would consider xenophobia/racism. Your insistence I meet Your standard of My perspective is foolhardy at best and arrogant at worst.
How is a Person supposed to “substantiate” Their perception other than to express it? I am willing to do so if You tell Me how.
Priscilla could have said the Son defended statements A, B, C, and D, providing links to videos of such defenses and leaving explicit reference to the Dad out of the article. However, since Dad and Grandma are not Fox Employees, as far as I can tell, and the website is called “NewsHounds” and the article is about Fox, the explicit reference seems gratuitous.
While I see no reason Medicare cannot be tailored to meet the needs of new Participants beyond the traditional Elderly, You still seem to misunderstand the situation of the Little Sisters. The Little Sisters have Employees. Those Employees are covered by the Little Sisters’ health plan. HHS requires the Little Sisters take an action in relation to that plan which violates Their religion. If the Little Sisters adhere to Their beliefs, They face fines of almost $40,000 per Employee per year. The fines are the substantial burden meant to “force” compliance. I’m really not sure why You insist on fighting against and argument which has not been made.
My hunch is the Supreme Court will take the case because the appellate court substituted its interpretation of Catholic doctrine in place of the Little Sisters’ interpretation and the Supreme Court has long held courts may not do so, making the basis of the appellate court’s conclusion flawed.
There is no hypocrisy involved. In the war tax case, as noted by the court in Hobby Lobby, “United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate.” In the case of the Little Sisters, there may be a less restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest the government asserts, such as having Employees file the required forms if They want the coverage and the government paying the Employees directly or having all pharmacies sends a bill to HHS for contraception distributed to Individuals with a health insurance plan.
Whether the Little Sisters are okay with taxes being used for various purposes is irrelevant due to the line drawing principle established in Thomas. Even if it did matter, on that particular point, the Little Sisters would have no basis for a claim due to the Lee principle noted above.
Due to Your failure to use punctuation clearly, I cannot comprehend what You are saying when You write “Hypocrisy I see Thomas v blah, blah, blah avoided like the plague (predated RFRA but still under Sherbert test?)” other than an apparent hatred for the Thomas ruling. Please clarify.
The point of Your next five sentences is not clear apart from giving You another opportunity to use the word “hypocrisy”. Put another way, the sentences do not seem meaningful. While I acknowledge the sentence before these five might help to make sense of them, I am at a loss to comprehend them under any scenario I have so far imagined.
Whether You or Anyone Else sees a moral argument is irrelevant for legal purposes. If You have proof of insincerity, however, that proof would matter. Do You have such proof?
Your argument “Tax money is no different than premium payments in this context: It’s fungible,” is irrelevant because the Little Sisters health plan is self-insured; there are no premiums paid; the Little Sisters pay the medical bills directly.
While You may reject the Little Sisters belief about indirect payments, a belief neither I nor the SCOTUS has said either of Us hold, what You believe is irrelevant for legal purposes.
I don’t want to “kill” the Affordable Care Act.i happen to like much of it, if not most, and have benefited from it, even though I do think single-payer would be better. I see no conflict in supporting a law while pointing out regulations made pursuant to that law need alteration. I also think if single-payer were adopted, by the time a Republican President and Republican supermajority came about, the Voters will have had sufficient time to see how that system is better to make sure any such scenario You describe to be improbable.