Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:
Nahhhh. I read Kennedy's comments differently..

I believe he's saying that NO agency of government can grant or deny a religious exemption. It's just not within their Constitutional purview to do it. That's WHY tax books begin with the words, "Church's are exempt". They make NO effort at defining a church. That's because the First Amendment says the government cannot establish a religion. And, if the government can't tell you what a religion IS, then it can't tell you what it ISN'T either. So, it stays OUT of that bailiwick altogether. I believe it will continue to do.

Therefore, irrespective of their claim, the agency has NO Constitutional authority to grant it or even consider it.. The claim of exemption MUST be denied.

excon

---

nope ,he was clearly referring to the point that Congress gave HHS the power to deny religious exemptions .
Not only that ;but HHS has refined the mandate at least twice so now we have ;exemptions for churches, a bogus "accommodation" for non-profit religious organizations, and nothing at all for religous private employers like Hobby Lobby .

Here's the reality . Kennedy voted with the minority when Roberts decided at the 11th hour that no matter what ,SCOTUS had to find a way to make Obamacare constitutional . Kennedy was furious at Roberts for his reversal . Kennedy is going to be firm in favor of Hobby Lobby . The question is ;which way does Roberts go ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/...-0001-0001.pdf (page 14 #55)

---

The morning after pill is no more abortion inducing than a condom, and that's just the science behind it. That's what makes the whole argument a political strategy and power grab by corporations. Like I have been saying for a long time, denying benefit compensation opens the door to increasing financial compensation. Hobby Lobby can drop the insurance and give up the money. All the bosses can.

End of controversy, if not the hollering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Like I have been saying for a long time, denying benefit compensation opens the door to increasing financial compensation. Hobby Lobby can drop the insurance and give up the money.

---

If the company was allowed to drop the insurance and increase the financial compensation, there wouldn't be a court case.

Woman got contraceptive coverage before the ACA, and this lawsuit, from Hobby Lobby for years. What changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Woman got contraceptive coverage before the ACA, and this lawsuit, from Hobby Lobby for years. What changed?

---

The requirement that Hobby Lobby provide insurance. Before the ACA, it was voluntary. The company had the option of dropping the group plan and paying higher wages.

So now they want to be exempt from the law that requires them to do what they were doing before? Gotcha. That doesn't sound like a religious belief thing to me. Kind of sudden to be believed.

Shocking that corporations aren't moving for single payer. That smells too.

It's a concept a lot of Progressives have trouble grasping. It used to be quite common in this country. It's called Liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

It's a concept a lot of Progressives have trouble grasping. It used to be quite common in this country. It's called Liberty.

---

right on !

What changed?

...already told you . When they looked over the policy that they had independently ,they found the coverage in it that they were unaware they were paying for. (see response # 840)

We want liberty also, but we also want services and good health, and a job that supports a family. The whole ACA is nothing but a regulation that controls rising costs and spread availability to more people.

Are you saying that we had more liberty when we got kicked off our health insurance when we got sick?
Or had limits imposed that ran out and left us with nothing?
Or premiums going up yet again whether you got sick or not?
Or had to get on Cobra when you were laid off for 6 months?
OR couldn't get any insurance when we were sick before, and got kicked off our insurance, you know those preexisting conditions?
OR the insurance company denied you care and treatments they didn't want to pay for?
Or keeping kicking your kids off your policy at 21?

Seems to me a big part of liberty is good health, and free checkups to prevent bad health, and early detection for better health outcomes.

I guess your idea of liberty is different than mine. 6 million people so far have agreed with 2 days left. Now if you just get those really poor people covered and don't break the bank or close hospitals.

BILOXI, Miss.: Despite health challenges, Southern states resist Medicaid expansion | Washington | McClatchy DC

Quote:

---

But Mississippi and eight other contiguous Southern states, all led by Republican governors, have decided not to implement the Medicaid expansion, even though the federal government has pledged to pay all medical costs for the newly eligible enrollees in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and no less than 90 percent of their costs thereafter.
All of them – Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma – say they can't afford it under those terms.
The wall of Southern opposition is one of the last major obstacles to President Barack Obama's goal of universal health coverage for all Americans. If it remains intact, nearly 5 million of the newly eligible won't have Medicaid coverage in 2022, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care research group.
Besides shared borders and conservative political leadership, most of the nine states have something else in common: By a host of measures – from obesity to infant mortality – all but North Carolina and Georgia are among the unhealthiest in the nation, according to the 2012 edition of America's Health Rankings.

---

So tell me why they can't afford to have the FEDS pay the doctor bills for the very poor? Makes no sense to me at all.

Quote:

---

So tell me why they can't afford to have the FEDS pay the doctor bills for the very poor? Makes no sense to me at all.

---

Obviously it offends someones sense of liberty, we don't know who that someone might be, but we suspect that it is a republican who doesn't want to give peopel choice to be lifted out of slavery to the medical profession and the insurers. Slavery can also be being forced to work to pay for exhorbant premiums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

So tell me why they can't afford to have the FEDS pay the doctor bills for the very poor? Makes no sense to me at all.

---

Why does ANYBODY but the patient have to pay the Doctor? Hospitals have huge overhead, but Family Physicians?

I'll get rhetorical and post an answer for you:
One Doctor's Viral Letter Exposes the Harrowing Reality of Obamacare's 'War Against Doctors'

Despite the headline, it's been going on far longer than the current administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Why does ANYBODY but the patient have to pay the Doctor? Hospitals have huge overhead, but Family Physicians?

I'll get rhetorical and post an answer for you:
One Doctor’s Viral Letter Exposes the Harrowing Reality of Obamacare’s ‘War Against Doctors’

Despite the headline, it's been going on far longer than the current administration.

---

it seems that once again the point of it all has been lost. why do people have insurance? because frquently the costs are more than they can pay at the time so they see having a buffer in time of need is important, and more importantly, there are people who just don't have that extra to pay a doctor. Point is why should the patient pay the doctor when better alternatives are possible? and if medical costs are high, too high, the government should act to reign in the profiteering of the participants by capping fees, pharmeutical costs, sometimes free enterprise has to be controlled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Obviously it offends someones sense of liberty, we don't know who that someone might be, but we suspect that it is a republican who doesn't want to give peopel choice to be lifted out of slavery to the medical profession and the insurers. Slavery can also be being forced to work to pay for exhorbant premiums

---

You mean the enslaved people that are being extorted from their paychecks to subsidize the lazy half who contribute nothing at all?

Hello tom:

Quote:

---

gee think about it ... a President who can change the law any time he deems it suitable. All hail emperor Barakus Obamanum !

---

Quote:

---

In May of 2006, just days before the end of open enrollment, President Bush took administrative action to waive “penalty fees for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities who sign up late” and allowed “the same impoverished beneficiaries to sign up for Medicare drug coverage until Dec. 31.”

---

Do we get to hail emperor Dufissius Bushonious too?

You guys are silly.

exconious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Point is why should the patient pay the doctor when better alternatives are possible?

---

Every middleman has to be paid. The point of the ACA is to add MORE layers of middlemen. This raises costs, giving the lie to the title of the Act. The concept of "better alternatives" to one-on-one interaction between doctor and patient is ludicrous. The "best" alternative to the high costs of medical care would be tort reform, but getting a bunch of lawyers to limit lawyers' compensation is even more ludicrous.

Meanwhile, Concierge health services are on the rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:
Do we get to hail emperor Dufissius Bushonious too?

You guys are silly.

exconious

---

Medicare part D wasn't a complete takeover of the medical sector. Nor was it mandated coverage .

Here is the facts behind the Bush extention...

Quote:

---

If you missed the enrollment deadline because you were given bad information about enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan you may be able to sign up now under "Special Enrollment." Here is an example: many people called Social Security to sign up for the "Extra Help with Prescription Drug Plan Costs," only to be told they did not qualify because of their income. Many people took this to mean that they did not qualify for Medicare Part D because it was not clear that these are two separate programs. If you are in a similar situation where you were given misinformation by a Social Security or Medicare employee, your pharmacy, or one of the Medicare Part D providers, contact Medicare at their toll-free number and request Special Enrollment for Medicare Part D.

---

http://EzineArticles.com/216500
So those who were given faulty info about their qualifications for enrollment were given the opportunity to sign up. This had bipartisan support in Congress.

But with the emperor it's all of the delays, exceptions and waivers and executive bypassing of the law ...Not a single act of extension (to date I think it's 26 unilateral changes to the law) . It's reasonable to ask questions about these, particularly when it comes to the limits of presidential authority and the precedent it sets . Of course the Dems may argue that Medicare Part D never uninsured 5 million people upon implementation like Obamacare has . Why don't they sponsor legislation to delay or repeal this monstrous law ? Then all these acts would be constitutional.

the possibility exists that everything that could be said has been said, you know something about monkeys and typewriters and so what we have here is the classic case of the oozequetzal bird which for those who are not versed in classifical mythology flies in ever diminishing circles until it disappears up its own fundamental oriface from which lofty elevation it surveys its universe with distain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Why does ANYBODY but the patient have to pay the Doctor? Hospitals have huge overhead, but Family Physicians?

I'll get rhetorical and post an answer for you:
One Doctor's Viral Letter Exposes the Harrowing Reality of Obamacare's 'War Against Doctors'

Despite the headline, it's been going on far longer than the current administration.

---

The battle against rising health costs has been going on a long time, I agree. Too bad our paychecks have not gone up at the same rate. That's why we all need insurance or none of us could pay for it. Not just the premiums every month, but the actual doctor, and facilities, medicine, and care cost. If you had to pay out of pocket before you got treated, likely you would be dead. Before you are even seen the first thing they ask for is show me the money (health insurance details). You can check that for yourself any way you want to.

Let me address your article for a second. Many older doctors are against the upgrades to medical records and the costs of them, but many are not because it saves time and money in the long run and makes the whole system more efficient. Sure computers and qualified people to use them are not cheap, but unlike the doctor cited in your article, he makes it sound like he has to do all this himself and doesn't sound very literate in the technology does he? Face it Cats technology is the tool of the future and its everywhere. Your doctor is the old fashion cowboy who is trying to race across the country to beat a brand new train to the other side. Feel sorry for the horse(s).

So now tell me how YOU can afford any sickness, or injury that may befall your family during your life. Then tell me all the times your OS needs upgrading. Its really a simple concept as doctors must learn and adjust to the new tools of medicine and record keeping and care delivery and pay fors, and being computer illiterate is no longer an excuse.
Not only is the health care industry growing, and creating jobs, but slowing the rate that health care costs are rising. Jut an example, the costs of sending data from a lab to a doctor, or hospital has gone down, and the time it takes has dramatically decreased. Of course that's a good thing in the long run as some doctors grumble at having to do it.

Doubt they trade the Mercedes in for a horse however. So keep your snail mail ideas while the rest of us text and email. And if you buy your own insurance, then cost is not lost on you. Even the old doctors ask for insurance proof before they treat you.

There is always the emergency room, that we all pay for, if you don't have insurance.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

Medicare part D wasn't a complete takeover of the medical sector. Nor was it mandated coverage .

---

I see. When you take over EVERYTHING, you can't change the law.. But, when you only take over a little of it, you can.

Like I said, you guys are silly.

excon