Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

The quote you provided earlier does not say what exactly churches are exempt from, nor does it say that all churches and church organizations will get exemptions. And it doesn't say that DHHS *will* grant them, much less that it will *always* grant them. Just that it can.



And you're the one saying that it's not. I've clearly outlined my reasons for believing that the mandates represent an unnecessary violation of our rights, doubly so in the case of some religious organizations. In response, you've just kinda hand waved it all away with some vague language that has no legally binding force and doesn't guarantee anything (and it certainly doesn't protect individuals from the manage either, which is still problematic).




Um... Ok. I'm just writing my analysis of the effect of the failure to pass the proposed amendment. If you recall, my initial point was that by failing to pass the amendment, the case for the unconstitutionality of the mandates in the health care law just got a lot stronger. You're the one who seems to have wanted to embark on some grand argument about how the mandates aren't really important because some people, in some situations, might be able to get exemptions.


You're obviously free to disagree with me, but I think the very fact that we're talking about handing out exemptions is the first sign that something is pretty wrong with the law itself. We shouldn't be relying on exemptions to try to prevent a law from violating our rights. IMO, that's just backwards. How about we not write laws that violate them in the first place? Make the exemptions for those who want to have the government tell them what to do instead of the other way around? Hell. Let's make it an opt in system. So anyone who doesn't mind paying into some kind of public health care fund is free to do so.


We know that wont work though, hence the mandates. And also, at the risk of being obvious, why the mandates are wrong.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Given "Life" is the first fundamental Right, theoretically, in your constitution (does it count if it's just in the preamble? Where is it?) it blows my mind that you are a taxing-and-service providing nation (at least to a minimal extent) and yet the first thing you don't publicly provide, after a standing Defence Force, is healthcare.

Defence, Healthcare, Education, Subsistance Welfare to those who cannot work or are out of work and provenly jobseeking (the means to buy food, water and shelter). They are the fundamental group foundations of a civilised society. Clean water, clean air, electricity, gas, transportation, communication infrastructure. Most other things are less imperative than these.

I came here to make a pot joke.....something about the joint committee defeating the blunt amendment......
Then there was ranting about religious hospitals getting the shaft. Then there was hairy hippies. I don't know why I come here.

Because "life" and "health care" are two different (although related) things. And because having a right to something is not the same as requiring that someone must provide that thing for you. The right to life is the right not to have your life taken from you. It does not require that others provide you with something to make your life "better".



Wrong. Those are the foundations of a socialist society. And socialists have conveniently labeled their form of government "civilized", but it does not make it so.

The key word you're missing (even though you spoke of "rights" earlier) is: Liberty. That's the more important thing here. A society in which the citizens have as much liberty as possible will be a better society in every way to one which calls civilized the act of empowering its government to buy the good will of the people at the expense of their own liberty.





I'd put liberty ahead of all of those.

Seriously Ari, didn't you know that if your body can't stop the knife, it isn't a violation of your right to life? It's your own fault for being so weak.

a) Come back and talk to us after drinking water contaminated with sewage for a week or two.

b) What the hell does Liberty even mean to you if it doesn't include the basics required to live a happy and healthy life? I mean seriously. If you think that "Liberty" doesn't include clean water and breathable air - what good is it?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 4:12pm by Olorinus

Note that garbaji never said he'd trade liberty for those things.

I said I place liberty ahead of those things. The point being that when we make decisions we should be aware of the costs of the things we're deciding. The problem with liberal social policy is that they proceed as though there not only isn't a liberty cost to what they're doing, but that somehow the act of providing free education, health care, stronger environmental laws, etc is what actually gives people liberty. Those things are not liberty. And when we forget that, liberty is often the price of those things.


I believe in a balanced approach that takes into account that cost of liberty. It's not all or nothing to me. I know that many people seem to want to frame it that way, but that's just not the case.

And I fail to see how providing health care for all of your citizens in any way impedes liberty.

So your outrageous military budget is in play for the man with scissors?




and increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't infringe on their liberty?

Are you a closet Liberal Gbaji?

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 9:52pm by rdmcandie


SORRY BIJOU AND GBAJI, LEAVING THE LULZ, GOING TO BED. (yay for cheap pitcher mondays)

Edited, Mar 5th 2012 10:33pm by rdmcandie

Everyone is a gbaji sock.

That's not a pleasant thought.

guess it was bedtime after all.