The abortion thing

[TheHuckster]

Also, think of this: if men had to get a prescription for condoms, would we be seeing the same kinds of restrictions? Not bloody likely.

The ACA already allows plans which do not cover vasectomies.

[the_std]

Except vasectomies are not on the same level as birth control or IUDs. Not by a long shot. One is a surgery (even though it is an outpatient surgery not usually requiring general anesthesia), and the other is pills and/or a medical device that can be inserted without surgery or anesthetic.

If you wanted to compare laproscopic hysterectomies to vasectomies, then we might be speaking the same language. But no, condoms are the closest thing men have to birth control/IUDs.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

the_std - I'm going to say something now that has been percolating in my mind over the last decade while I've watched Pro-Life/Pro-Choice numbers essentially flip flop from the time I gained political consciousness.

The biggest dagger in the back the pro-choice movement has in its back at this point is framing this debate in gender essentialist terms. At this point (depending on which term of preganancy you're talking about) men and women flip on who is more opposed to abortion. Women are just as big a problem (probably more so in terms of absolute numbers) by the 2nd term (check fivethirthyeight.com for that one) and while men are more likely to be pro life, we're talking no more than 50% which is pretty heavily split.

The pro-choice movement essentially eats itself by vilifying sex (RATHER than the the problem which is societal attempts to control a woman's body. Trufax: Men aren't the culprit. And hell yes IF they tried some of these hijinks with men's reproductive choices it wouldn't work. The main reason being, men wouldn't be divided to remotely the same degree women are on this issue. Yet Davis in Texas, the women of SCOTUS (which is really just an accident of the fact the bulk of liberal appointees to the court have been women), etc. really tends to give the impression that this is a Men vs. women thing. It isn't and it makes pro choice dudes feel like some sort of aberration and leaves a number of women that are pro-life somehow out of the crosshairs. What's perverse is that Pro-life actually has the appearance of being a "bigger tent" just by virtue of who it allows to champion it.

That said some of the things I've read in this thread I just find silly. And I'm largely agnostic and flip between atheist and theist on a coin flip. The question doesn't consume much of my time. So when we start talking about souls, my brain starts thinking about Phineas Gage which all but proved personality was influenced by the brain, not metaphysics. Mental illness itself is a treasure trove of "special cases" which question divine plans, social justice, and questions about appropriate uses of eugenics. We live in a world where God might be THE answer, but it doesn't provide every answer. However a lot of people are damn sure they've got the answer. I find that type of certainty befuddling.

I don't dismiss beliefs out of hand, but especially given man's inhumanity toward man I question most people's ability to ethically parse conception in a world where fertility treatments are an accepted practice in which 100's of fertilized embryos (souls if you prefer) are wasted for one child . I question societies wisdom where the would be miscarriage of a rich person can be saved and inordinate resources are spent on its gestation while as I'm speaking we're not mobilizing an army of volunteers to deal with child morbidity in Africa of actually born children. Honestly? The abortion debate to me comes off as a sporting event where people's beliefs are more about winning than the actual topic itself.

I tend to be pro-choice myself but for a very practical reason. Death occurs and humanity always has and always will determine who gets it until some sort of cataclysm like an unknown disease. Sure, some things "seem" arbitrary until you really think about. Katrina is a tragedy that was absolutely preventable given engineering or rational foresight. The only arbitrary part is if you happened to be born into the lower 9th ward. Economic decisions were made by people who's ethics were so abstracted by layers of economics that we can't "blame" them for it yet it was their fault since there was nothing unpredictable about Katrina itself. In war, soldiers can live and die based on someone's guess in triage. Their existence and involvement is also based on someones choice based on existing resources and perceived need.

I don't find that woman has a responsibility above and beyond the extremely lax way people behave today in order to bring more children to an overly populated planet. It doesn't make sense for the species and the ethics you have to come up with to call the removal of a non sentient life an evil border on brainstorm thinking. There's no logical connection. If there was a population crisis, my opinion might change but limiting someone's personal freedom in regards to their body has an extremely high burden "prove the necessity of it" with me. You know what? If I have to lose the right to demand my child be born, I'm ok with that. I find that more logically consistent with my views on personal autonomy. I'd prefer that feminists were bigger fans of the paper abortion for the sake of reciprocity since women can both abort or adopt thus abdicating parental responsibility, but that's a completely different topic. I just happened to read something on that recently...

Sort of rushing through this so if anything doesn't make total sense I'll try to address it later. I hope a majority of it actually made sense (regardless of agreement).

[Kristev]

All I'm going to say is that I am disgusted with the Supreme Court of late.

The dissents by the three women on the court are very telling about what the men on the court was not taking into consideration.

[Gravekeeper]

At this point (depending on which term of preganancy you're talking about) men and women flip on who is more opposed to abortion. Women are just as big a problem (probably more so in terms of absolute numbers) by the 2nd term (check fivethirthyeight.com for that one) and while men are more likely to be pro life, we're talking no more than 50% which is pretty heavily split.

Support for legal in all cases abortion drops like a rock for the 2nd term regardless of gender. There's also only a 4% difference between men and women on the topic of supporting a 20 week absolute limit ( 50% women, 46% men with a 3.6% margin of error. ). According to five thirty eight.

The pro-choice movement essentially eats itself by vilifying sex (RATHER than the the problem which is societal attempts to control a woman's body. Trufax: Men aren't the culprit. And hell yes IF they tried some of these hijinks with men's reproductive choices it wouldn't work. The main reason being, men wouldn't be divided to remotely the same degree women are on this issue.

I can't say as I've ever noticed pro-choice "vilifying sex", whatever exactly you mean by that. Also, men are the culprit. But not as a representation of their gender. But rather as a representation of old white fucks that make up the majority of political power in the US. Remember, this is the country where they refused to let a woman speak on the all male panel discussing contraception mandates. Instead leaving the panel entirely full of male clergy.

That kind of shit is what's framing this as ( old white bitter ) men vs women. Not the pro-life or pro-choice camps.

[wolfie]

The issue is whether a company can be forced to provide a product in spite of its religious convictions.

This is what I see as the key error in the Hobby Lobby case - treating corporations as people. While people can hold religious convictions, whether or not a corporation can claim to hold religious convictions should be based on the nature of what they do.

Fact: The Roman Catholic church opposes abortion.
Fact: The family that owns Hobby Lobby opposes abortion.
Fact: The Roman Catholic church is an organization whose primary purpose is religion.
Fact: Hobby Lobby is an organization whose primary purpose is to sell hobby supplies at a profit.

If a corporate entity is created for religious purposes, it should (within reason) be able to restrict what their medical insurance policies offer based on church doctrine. The closer a person's job is to the core of the religion, the more restrictions can be justified. For example, I would have no objections to the medical insurance plan for priests explicitly not covering vasectomies or Viagra (church teachings require the clergy to be celibate). On the other hand, I would object strongly to the same restrictions in the medical insurance for an X-ray technician at a Catholic hospital (while the hospital is under the same "corporate ownership" as the church, its primary purpose is to provide medical care, and an X-ray technician's job is not religious in nature). The law shouldn't allow different restrictions on the technician's medical insurance depending on whether the hospital they work for is owned by a church or by a secular organization. At a Catholic school (primary purpose is education, even though under the same "corporate ownership"), I can understand more restrictions on the insurance for a theology teacher (class is tightly tied to religion) than for a math teacher (math is a secular subject - and if taught properly, goes AGAINST the Bible, where one passage defines PI as 3).

Hobby Lobby is a corporation created for an entirely secular purpose. As such, any claims of "you can't infringe on the corporation's religious beliefs" should be ranked below employee claims of "you can't let the boss' religious beliefs infringe on what methods of birth control are covered by my medical insurance".

[HYHYBT]

The trouble (and it's consistent with how this case went) is that, in other areas like discrimination, churches get to define which positions are religious enough for themselves, and the Catholic church, at least, habitually does that based on what keeps people from being able to sue rather than by any reasonable standard whatsoever.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'm pro-life. I'm also tokophobic, and I view being forced to go thru pregnancy and childbirth as being akin to rape, cuz my body is being used to fufil someone else's desire. Strong language I know, but it's true. I'd book myself in cuz the alternative is that I end up stabbing myself in the stomach or drinking bleach to self abort, just like all the desperate women denied legal abortion. Cuz, get this, making abortion illegal doesn't stop women from wanting them, just makes them go for dangerous backstreet abortions or attempt to self abort.

Interesting link: http://feminspire.com/pro-life-anti-...yths-debunked/

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Please square this circle for me.

I can't say as I've ever noticed pro-choice "vilifying sex", whatever exactly you mean by that. Also, men are the culprit.

In a representational democracy, how exactly do you get this when you just quoted how largely even support for pro-life/pro-choice positions actually are between the sexes? There are two issues are being conflated (patriarchy in general and abortion) here.

Yes, we have a problem electing women. No, you can't really claim men are THE problem on abortion with women largely responsible for electing them (old white fucks) because they agree. You're denying agency to millions of women who actually vote against our viewpoint. And when they're done electing those guys, the people you'll get are Bachmann and Palin, not Elizabeth Warren. Men and women's politics are separate from their sex organs.

One side is trying to convince people this is a gender war (which is actually still very early second wave) and the other one uses "saving babies" as a slogan. The Pro-Choice wagon only rights itself when "protecting a woman's inalienable rights to control her body" is what we talk about again. There are people that "men are the problem" speaks to (and will always speak to for that matter), but it's just not the bulk of who needs convincing at this point. It's also from a numbers standpoint, just an extremely arbitrary position.

And that's why we are now losing. The message is confused, muddled, and often framed in ways that alienate supporters. It doesn't mean it's always wrong (sometimes men ARE the problem), but it's also unnecessary in this case.

I don't buy who we see as framing this debate and dismiss it in total. That IS the choice of bloggers on our side who see something and go for a simple or what they view as a mobilizing answer as well as people who are too gullible to think even a little bit. If those bloggers existed in the 1970's, Roe v. Wade would NOT have caused them/us to say, "5 out of 9 men are on board! Men are the solution!" No, they would decouple the two issues because they are NOT the same.

Persisting in a course of action that bell hooks was decrying as self-defeating a decade ago is not helping. A pervasive worldview is the issue here, not a combination of chromosomes. Men and women are allies in feminist thought. Our opponents are ALSO men and women.

[Gravekeeper]

In a representational democracy, how exactly do you get this when you just quoted how largely even support for pro-life/pro-choice positions actually are between the sexes?

The US political system is representation of the people who actually vote in a system that's driven mostly by cash and willful deceit. With the groups most susceptible to that sort of bullshit being the groups most likely to vote. This results in a rich old white fuck patriarchy voted in by old white fucks.

Also, way to selectively edit my quote to try and maintain your argument that I address in the very next sentence after that. Which makes the rest of your argument here addressing that pretty pointless given as I did not take the position you are arguing against.

Yes, we have a problem electing women. No, you can't really claim men are THE problem on abortion with women largely responsible for electing them (old white fucks) because they agree.

The women most affected by reproductive issues ( 18-34 ) also have the lowest voter turn out of any age group ( 47-52% ). The highest voter turn out of any age group is 65+ and the highest turn out within that is old white and/or rich men. ( 70-74+% ). So I am not "denying agency" to anyone. You on the other hand seem to be working from the absurd position that the US is a democratic utopia where the entire population's opinion is reflected in its political system. When in fact barely over half the population even votes to begin with and out of that half the majority is white, old and/or rich.

So your argument is completely divorced from reality. The system is only representing who is voting in it and is disproportionately unfair to anyone who is not rich, white and male to begin with. This is why congress can amazingly still exist with a 7% approval rating.

Furthermore, women skew Democrat and men skew Republican. Its been that way since the late 70s. Women also skew much more towards health issues and equality issues than men by a large margin.

One side is trying to convince people this is a gender war (which is actually still very early second wave) and the other one uses "saving babies" as a slogan.

The term is war on women, not gender war and its only one albeit major component of what has been going on over the last 4-5 years with the GOP. Abortion is only one aspect of it.

See, the pro-choice side of the argument does not do everything in its power to make something that is decidedly legal effectively illegal. By defunding women's services, imposing ridiculous bylaws and building regulations on clinics that provide such services, forcing mandatory bullshit like trying to guilt/shame women by making them stare at the ultrasound or trying to wand rape them. Telling women if they want birth control they can keep their legs shut or calling the Girl Scouts the tactical wing of Planned Parenthood. Welcome to the wonderful world of TRAP laws!

Wisconsin has a law stating a doctor can be charged with a felony if he doesn't meet with patient at least three times before consenting to a medical abortion via medication ( Resulting in Planned Parenthood having to stop medical abortion services ). Wisconsin also repealed its Equal Pay Enforcement Act ( "You could argue that money is more important for men" to quote Senator Grothman ). Kansas even has a law requiring doctors to inform women that abortions cause breast cancer. Even though that is complete and total bullshit. 2 states even considered legislation that would expand justifiable homicide to include protecting fetuses's, thus essentially legalizing assaulting an abortion provider. And this is all before you even get into the shit going on in the deep south.

As previously mentioned, they also convened panels on contraception where they refused to let any women speak, only male clergy. And lets not forget the year or so there where the Republicans just couldn't help themselves from talking about rape and what was rape and what was RAPE rape. They attempted to redefine rape in regards to abortion by saying it should only apply to "forcible" rape. ( Date rape, etc was perfectly fine ). Then there was the "legitimate rape" thing and how women don't get pregnant from "legitimate" rape and the if you get raped and get pregnant, its as God intended so you have to have the baby.

Oh, and they even tried to cut the budget of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children and opposed the Violence Against Women Act.

So there is definitely a problem here. But calling it a gender war isn't correct. Its not men vs women. Its old white rich assholes that don't want you to do anything with your vagina they don't approve of vs women.

And that's why we are now losing. The message is confused, muddled, and often framed in ways that alienate supporters. It doesn't mean it's always wrong (sometimes men ARE the problem), but it's also unnecessary in this case.

In what way is pro-choice losing? The only way to get a majority pro-life opinion is to frame the poll questions in a specific way using term limits. And term limits are also the one thing both sides agree on. However, the pro-life side greatly exaggerates term limits for shock value. Also, the pro-choice side of the argument is so not the one with a confused, muddled, alienating message.

I don't buy who we see as framing this debate and dismiss it in total. That IS the choice of bloggers on our side who see something and go for a simple or what they view as a mobilizing answer as well as people who are too gullible to think even a little bit.

Bloggers are morons. On both sides. Of any issue.

Men and women are allies in feminist thought. Our opponents are ALSO men and women.

No one ever said the pro-life side was entirely composed of men or the pro-choice side entirely composed of women.

[XanthusLane]

...
but to me, the bottom line is, they're your employer. not your parent. not your nanny. Their job, as employer, is to provide healthcare that meets their patient's needs. their job is not to determine what of their employees needs are or are not valid because of a personal bias.
...

-Tyranny is a slippery slope. Freedom is not.

This is an identifying mark of progressivism. It views freedom as a ‘slippery slope,’ yet rarely if ever uses that term when discussing the actions of the government.

So you try to use that failed argument that now Jehovah’s Witness business owners can decline to pay for blood transfusions. Christian Scientist bosses might forgo coverage for hospital admissions (notice how everyone is suddenly an expert on the most obscure religions in the country). Scientologist company heads might, like, do some weird stuff, too.

Everyone run for the hills, freedom is afoot!

I would respond to these objections by first asking, percentage-wise, how many businesses are actually run by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Scientologists? Maybe .0001 percent, if that? Once again, we have progressives attempting to make bad policy based on the rarest and most unlikely cases.

But let’s say for the sake of argument, that Christian Scientists can now withdraw all hospital coverage (they can’t), and let’s agree that there are a noticeable number of Christian Scientist business owners who’d be willing to destroy their businesses by instituting this policy (there aren’t).

Which slope is more dangerous and will impact the most people — the one that allows entrepreneurs from minor, isolated religions to come up with health coverage policies consistent with their religious creeds, or the one that allows unelected federal bureaucrats to make up laws and policies as they please? Which is more likely to hurt you in the long run — a dogmatic Jehovah’s Witness business owner, or an unrestrained and power hungry government agency?
The latter, in both cases, is a slippery slope. A slippery slope that, historically, leads to oppression, murder, bankruptcy, and collapse. The former is just an extreme, limited, and unlikely application of a universal liberty. The former is inconvenient, in that it might force a half a dozen or so Americans to find employment elsewhere, whereas the latter is a travesty that can, will, and already has touched and ruined the lives of millions of citizens. Ask Cuban refugees in Florida why they left. It certainly wasn't because of the weather.

Hobby Lobby already provides coverage for 16 of the 24 options out there.

You want one that is not covered? Pay for it yourself. Because nothing “denies access” like paying employees a wage (avg $14/hr starting pay) that they can then use to buy whatever they want.

First lesson in the American constitution and Bill of Rights-You don’t forfeit your First Amendment freedoms when you decide to start a business. Obviously.
Many of the left are rolling their eyes and scoffing at the notion that ‘a corporation can be religious.’ But a corporation is not some kind of disassociated entity that exists as a force independent of human involvement. A corporation, like a government, is comprised of people.
Corporation: an association of individuals.

The way the leftists speak of it, you’d think that the association can somehow subsist even without the individuals. Like the individuals arise out of the association, instead of the other way around. How else could they be so confused about the basic reality that an individual does not suddenly lose his freedoms and his identity just because he is associated, by some arrangement or another, with other individuals? An individual forming an association for the purpose of providing some good or service, does not mean that, by some cosmic sorcery, he literally becomes the association itself.

Of course I have my freedoms, and of course I maintain those freedoms when I start companies and form associations. Of course, if I am a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian, I have the right to act as a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian. In fact, I must especially maintain my freedoms in my actions and associations, because otherwise my freedoms are just things that exist as long as they are unseen and unnoticed by others. But they are useless freedoms if I can only have them in solitude.

For the record, my husband is a diabetic on insulin. The only type that controls his glucose levels the best for his level--is no longer covered when the ACA took effect because of the deductible. We used to have a great comprehensive emergency plan that was super cheap and his coverage of his meds was pretty good, as we paid 50% of all costs instead of 100%. Our coverage tripled and so did the deductible. We have to pay for everything 100%. In fact, we just cancelled our policy and are just putting the money in savings because we will never see any benefit to the amount we were paying even if there was an emergency visit.

So we pay for it out of pocket and we move on with life. What is really funny is those peoples' lack of understanding here of how insurance is supposed to work and mistake health insurance for health care. So as an aside topic:

Insurance 101
First, the math, which is apolitical and hopefully we can all agree on.

All insurance is a bet (from the eyes of the provider, and since they get to set the premiums, their view matters big time). Its easier to understand in the context of car insurance. You pay $3,000 a year for car insurance. If you don't have any reported accidents, the insurance company wins. They keep your $3,000 send you a new bill for next year's policy. They may lower your premium under some "safe driver discount program" or not. But that $3,000 is gone.

If you have an accident that costs more than $3,000 to fix, or lots of speeding tickets, or a teen driver on your policy coverage (all factors that lead to more costs even if your teen son is the safest driver in the world), then next year's premium will go up. Why? Because you are now a bad bet. If you continue to total your car every year, your policies will continue to go up. This is why a lot of people will get their car fixed on their own dime and not report an accident If possible, say you hit your garage backing out.

But no one (both sides of the political spectrum) did not like the insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing illnesses.

If a person has cancer, and the costs of treating the cancer will exceed $100,000 why would an insurance company sell that person a policy for the $4,800 you (general 'you') claim health insurance costs? They wouldn't because its a bad bet. Because the insurance company cannot charge the sick person more, then everyone's premiums have to rise. Its math. That's the only way the insurance company can cover that cancer treatment.

Now, lets look at who pays and for how much of the current policy cost, at $20,000 a year health insurance policy. Federal government workers have 75% of their health insurance subsidized. That means they pay $5,000 and the tax payers pick up the remaining $15,000. State employees have between 70% and 80% of their health insurance subsidized. It depends upon the state. Again, the state employee pays a small percentage of the cost, and the remaining cost of that insurance policy is paid by state tax payers. People working for private companies have policies that the company pays for a set percentage, and the employees pay for a portion. All three pools of workers have subsidized health insurance. Someone else is paying for the bulk of the insurance costs, and these workers are not paying taxes on the benefits they receive.

Why is insurance so expensive? Again, its a question of math. We have so many medical advances, and new treatments that cost a lot of money. We also have a lot of new drug treatments that are expensive too. The cost of health insurance goes up because the cost of health services has sky rocketed. Its not a question of democrats or republicans.

Its a question of people using expensive health services.

To compound the problem, doctors and hospitals do not always directly know the cost of many of the procedures. Ask your doctor how much your blood work costs. He/she probably does not know. You wouldn't stand for this lack of knowledge from a contractor working on your house. You would ask for an estimate of the cost before agreeing to the work being done. Why shouldn't health care be the same? We should all know how much of a burden we are to the health care system. If our personal health care bill (the full cost of the services and drugs we received during a year) exceeds the $4,800 you claim insurance costs, or the $20,000 I claim insurance costs, then why are you (general "you") complaining? You got out the system much more than you put in. And of course, next year the cost of the insurance will rise for everyone because someone got out the system more than they put in.

[HYHYBT]

The purpose of incorporating (other than to raise money by selling stock) is to provide a level of separation between the business and the people running it; to make the distinction that the one is not the other.

[bex1218]

So the owners of a secular corporation can force their beliefs on their employees? That is not right. And sure, employees make way more than average pay, but does not mean they can afford the 4 contraceptives that is banned due to false facts.

[Hyena Dandy]

You don't give up your first amendment rights when you form a corporation. But you also don't give them up when you apply for a job. The owners of a company should be free to not use all the birth control they want, but they are forcing their employees to do the same. Unlike a church organization, these employees are not people who have dedicated their life to their shared religious beliefs, these are people who need the work. In an economy where we have more unemployed people than we do jobs to employ them, they likely were not able to review the list to ensure that the corporate office shared their beliefs.

Insurance is not a gift that people give out of the goodness of their heart. Insurance is part of your compensation. It's like the pay, and just like that pay, it's not acceptable for them to tell you how you can and can't use it.

You talk about leftists. Let me tell you about leftists. Leftists are the communists, the socialists, and the anarchists who don't approve of the whole corporation idea to begin with. Some of them are just fine with this ruling, because they are all for things that make people more likely to revolt or try to do away with corporations altogether. These are modern liberals, not leftists. The people who object to this are no more leftists than the people who run Hobby Lobby are theocrats (though if I find that they're members of the Dominion Movement, I'll be happy to change my mind on calling them theocrats.) Don't just use a bogeyman term, it makes you look bad. You want leftists? You keep fucking over the people who are , you'll get your leftists.

The organization doesn't exist without its individuals. This is true. This is, in fact, obvious. But the individuals involved aren't only the individuals at the top, the individuals involved are the ones at the bottom. There is not an equal relationship between employer and employee. I'd love for there to be. If there was a strong enough social safety net that an employee could say "Hey, I don't agree with this person's beliefs, I will quit until I get a job where I can work with someone I agree with." But we don't. We have people trying to tear down what little safety net we have. If we had a perfect society, the worker would be able to walk away, and negotiate for their pay, and not work if it didn't meet their standards. But they're not. It's an unequal relationship, so acting like this is a free association that can stipulate anything it wants is ridiculous.

You have a funny idea of 'Freedom' when your 'Freedom' is about taking away people's options.

[Gravekeeper]

I would respond to these objections by first asking, percentage-wise, how many businesses are actually run by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Scientologists? Maybe .0001 percent, if that? Once again, we have progressives attempting to make bad policy based on the rarest and most unlikely cases.

Psst. Hobby Lobby's entire basis for their lawsuit is based on Christian science which is factually incorrect. And the other part of the lawsuit is Conestoga, who are Mennonites. One of the smallest religious groups in the US. Who based their lawsuit on a similar and utterly incorrect belief.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your argument! Hobby Lobby and Conestoga certainly didn't.

This is an identifying mark of progressivism. It views freedom as a ‘slippery slope,’ yet rarely if ever uses that term when discussing the actions of the government.

That word. I do not think you know what it means. Also, last I checked, the judiciary was a branch of the US government.

Which slope is more dangerous and will impact the most people — the one that allows entrepreneurs from minor, isolated religions to come up with health coverage policies consistent with their religious creeds, or the one that allows unelected federal bureaucrats to make up laws and policies as they please? Which is more likely to hurt you in the long run — a dogmatic Jehovah’s Witness business owner, or an unrestrained and power hungry government agency?

Congratulations on restraining yourself from using the term "job creators". Aside from that, your argument is factually flawed, absurd and honestly starting to become embarrassing.

You want one that is not covered? Pay for it yourself. Because nothing “denies access” like paying employees a wage (avg $14/hr starting pay) that they can then use to buy whatever they want.

I can't believe you're repeating this embarrassment of an argument.

First lesson in the American constitution and Bill of Rights-You don’t forfeit your First Amendment freedoms when you decide to start a business. Obviously. Many of the left are rolling their eyes and scoffing at the notion that ‘a corporation can be religious.’ But a corporation is not some kind of disassociated entity that exists as a force independent of human involvement. A corporation, like a government, is comprised of people.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the legalities involved. An individual does not forfeit rights when they start a business. But a business and an individual are separate legal entities and a business operates within a completely different legal framework. It is subject to a separate framework of laws than an individual.

Courts have consistently ruled that while corporations may exercise some of the same rights as individuals, they do not enjoy full constitutional rights as they are a legal entity separate from an individual. Which is why landmark cases such as Citizens United and Hobby Lobby have drawn such widespread criticism. They are overturning decades of precedent and opening up new, dangerous precedents in the legal system.

The way the leftists speak of it, you’d think that the association can somehow subsist even without the individuals.

Now you're just dribbling absurdities. But don't let us stop you from shit kicking that strawman. You've got him on the ropes. Don't give up now! You can beat him! Stick and move, stick and move!

Of course I have my freedoms, and of course I maintain those freedoms when I start companies and form associations. Of course, if I am a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian, I have the right to act as a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian. In fact, I must especially maintain my freedoms in my actions and associations, because otherwise my freedoms are just things that exist as long as they are unseen and unnoticed by others. But they are useless freedoms if I can only have them in solitude.

I'm sorry, but you have a complete and fundamental lack of understanding about this entire problem, the legalities involved in it and case history leading up to it. Your arguments are absurd and usage of terms like progressive and leftist are questionable and seem only to reveal a personal bias.

Why is insurance so expensive? Again, its a question of math. We have so many medical advances, and new treatments that cost a lot of money. We also have a lot of new drug treatments that are expensive too. The cost of health insurance goes up because the cost of health services has sky rocketed. Its not a question of democrats or republicans.

It sure as fuck is a question of Republicans. Maybe you should stop a moment and ask yourself why health care is so expensive in your country. You don't even have to think that far back. If you can even vaguely recall what the ACA was originally suppose to be it will give you a hint.

To compound the problem, doctors and hospitals do not always directly know the cost of many of the procedures. Ask your doctor how much your blood work costs. He/she probably does not know. You wouldn't stand for this lack of knowledge from a contractor working on your house.

Hospitals provide you with an itemized bill in the US. Which typically includes at least one attempt to screw you over for profit.

You would ask for an estimate of the cost before agreeing to the work being done. Why shouldn't health care be the same?

Because installing a new kitchen cabinet doesn't directly impact your morality? Because putting in a new shelf has a clear material cost and labour cost? Because replacing a light fixture doesn't require a prolonged diagnostic process that could involve multiple individuals with combined decades worth of training utilizing millions of dollars of equipment?

We should all know how much of a burden we are to the health care system. If our personal health care bill (the full cost of the services and drugs we received during a year) exceeds the $4,800 you claim insurance costs, or the $20,000 I claim insurance costs, then why are you (general "you") complaining? You got out the system much more than you put in. And of course, next year the cost of the insurance will rise for everyone because someone got out the system more than they put in.

I'm Canadian. Guess what I paid in health care costs over the last year despite 4 hospital visits, 2 of which were ER? Go on, take a guess. I'll wait. -.-