Its a moral problem. People are having sex who can't afford it. Why did all these people suddenly think they had to be having all this sex?
Hollywood?
Hollywood?
And Terry that is exactly what they want. Single payer is their end game and they have at least two SCOTUS justices pushing it. HL could pay $2000 per employee if they choose to drop coverage altogether, or they can pay $36,000 per employee if they provide coverage that doesn't comply. This isn't even codified, it just the regulations that were pulled out of their a$$. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where they are going.
Incorrect. If I remember correctly several religions that do not believe in insurance are exempt.
That's what the .gov told Ali when he filed as a conscientious objector.Maybe discrimination is the wrong word.
What we will have is "you will be punished financially for your beliefs, but that's okay you can still have them. Just as long as you pay". I'm thinking that this is just unconstitutional as hell.
If you remember correctly, several religions are exempt... from what?
Remember the Shakers!!!
[They're exempt from most everything these days]
[They're exempt from most everything these days]
Maybe discrimination is the wrong word.
What we will have is "you will be punished financially for your beliefs, but that's okay you can still have them. Just as long as you pay". I'm thinking that this is just unconstitutional as hell.
No argument there. I am by no means sold on the ACA either, but it appears unilateral at least. I think a business should be able to opt out, personally. But it's not exactly discrimination.
It isn't really about religions opting out, it's whether a corporation can have religious views in the same way a person does. Especially for-profit businesses
I think it's horseshi+ that either side should win. HL has an ulterior motive and the Govt does as well. Both sides dont give a turd about who has to pay. This is just an ongoing fight of Roe v. Wade.
I still contend it's not anybody business if my Dr. prescribes a medication, no matter if it's portrayed as a contraceptive or as a menstrual cycle regulater. It's all hype and the SCOTUS has no business even hearing this case. I'd toss it.
I still contend it's not anybody business if my Dr. prescribes a medication, no matter if it's portrayed as a contraceptive or as a menstrual cycle regulater. It's all hype and the SCOTUS has no business even hearing this case. I'd toss it.
PAC's already won. Corporation's are people. They pay taxes, thus they have a voice.
Similar threads
