But how can a religious system/organization change without repudiating its previous beliefs? Is X now not a sin? Says who? "God?"
But to change the rules means to say that the faith was wrong up to that point.
If they have a belief system, and they reject a single premise of the belief system... what? They were wrong before? Is that a big deal? I'm not sure what conclusion the questions above are supposed to lead to. There's probably some implicit assumptions involving specific fundamentalists in western religions here or something that I'm missing, but that's not a general problem of religion itself.
Second, as pointed out, changes may actually be allowed for within the guidelines. You could even make a religion out of the things you believe are "progress" and think that making progress is itself divine. Or you may just happen to support things that lead to progress because of your religion. If they do good things, they did good things. If they did bad things, they did bad things. There are also significantly less "rigid" religions than the Catholicism where the right path might not be known to any individual... and the process is more important than the specific actions.
But to change the rules means to say that the faith was wrong up to that point.
And, to be fair, we do this in science all the time. It's called "learning." A religion can learn and grow too. It's allowed. When we create a belief system, we can also change and adapt that system.
And this isn't even talking about the various Protestant churches, many of which are far more flexible than the Catholic church.
By no means am I saying that I think any of these are a net positive force in the world. If everyone on earth woke up tomorrow and divested themselves of all religious and supernatural belief, I believe the world would be a better place.
But that's not going to happen. Most likely, anyhow. So, instead, I work with what's out there. These various religions haven't become good with time; they've just become less bad. But becoming less bad is still a measure of progress, and it's a direction that needs to be continued.
I mean, if we're trying to reform a criminal, do you just discard the positive progress he's made just because he hasn't made all of it right the hell now? Do you continue to treat someone who is attempting to reform a criminal life as though they're an active criminal? That's...well...that's what we do right now. Do you think that's right?
EDIT: I'm all about hating on the church for lots of reasons. But just because I hate 75% of your stances on something doesn't mean that I also hate the other 25% just because.
Wondering what will happen politically if the supreme court strikes down the entire healthcare law instead of just the mandate. Would insurance companies be able to drop people again with preexisting conditions, would the people who got expanded coverage lose it? How about if they only strike the mandate down, won't costs go crazy suddenly? If they don't do anything, will the right be disheartened or empowered to have a conservative controlled supreme court rule it constitutional? Very interesting and slightly scary political outcomes any way you look at it for a large group of people in all the outcomes.
If the mandate is upheld the commerce clause becomes the supreme law of the land. Prior to FDR's court packing gambit laws like this one were unconstitutional.
The mandate forces people who do not need or what health insurance to purchase said insurance so as to make insurance more affordable for those who do want it.
It is akin to forcing non car owners to buy car insurance to lower the cost for those who do own cars. Not a perfect analogy but close enough to get a point across.
If the mandate is upheld the commerce clause becomes the supreme law of the land. Prior to FDR's court packing gambit laws like this one were unconstitutional.
The mandate forces people who do not need or what health insurance to purchase said insurance so as to make insurance more affordable for those who do want it.
It is akin to forcing non car owners to buy car insurance to lower the cost for those who do own cars. Not a perfect analogy but close enough to get a point across.
Uhm... except the non car owners don't go out and wreck their cars (since they don't have them), then expect taxpayers to cover the damage.
Non insurance buyers still have health that can get wrecked and require medical attention.
If someone does not have car insurance and gets in an accident who pays the damages?
In most states? The state, because the person who caused the accident and doesn't have insurance (which is often illegal in the first place) often can't afford the damages either.
If this law were about auto insurance would you agree with the mandate?
Yes.
So everyone should buy auto insurance on the premise that they may eventually need it?
If they vote against the law they should strike the entire law. Anything less would be the court acting as both legislative and executive branches by rewriting the law and then making their changes official.
If this law were about auto insurance would you agree with the mandate?
Yes.
So everyone should buy auto insurance on the premise that they may eventually need it?
No, but if you own the thing that's needed for auto insurance to be useful (a car), you should have to get auto insurance. Even SC has that law.
Everyone owns the thing that's needed for health insurance to be useful (a body that can be sick). So everyone should have to get insurance.
I would like a single payer system, and I would like the pay for this to be taken out of my paycheck as part of taxes. However, I'm willing to compromise.
If someone does not have car insurance and gets in an accident who pays the damages?
In most states? The state, because the person who caused the accident and doesn't have insurance (which is often illegal in the first place) often can't afford the damages either.
Really? Which office do I have the body shop send the bill to?
If the mandate is upheld the commerce clause becomes the supreme law of the land. Prior to FDR's court packing gambit laws like this one were unconstitutional.
The mandate forces people who do not need or what health insurance to purchase said insurance so as to make insurance more affordable for those who do want it.
It is akin to forcing non car owners to buy car insurance to lower the cost for those who do own cars. Not a perfect analogy but close enough to get a point across.
It's a terrible analogy. I don't have to have a car. I'll always have a body. I can't set it aside and not be a part of the health market.
If someone does not have car insurance and gets in an accident who pays the damages?
If a person does not carry fire insurance on their home and it burns down what happens?
Why treat the health insurance market differently? If you want a single payer system then just say so.
If this law were about auto insurance would you agree with the mandate?
Most car accidents have at least one insured party involved. If you do not carry auto insurance and you wreck your car, the government does not buy you a new one. If you are not driving, but are injured in the wreck then the insurance of the driver at fault generally covers you. State laws vary, but that's the general scheme.
Fire insurance is not what you think. It does not pay for the fire department to come put out the fire, which is a publicly-provided service for everyone. What fire insurance does here is fund the replacement of the things you lost in the fire. If you don't have it, the government does not generally pay for replacement things for you.
Health insurance is treated differently because it IS different. It's mandatory for hospitals to treat people who come in, regardless of ability to pay. The government provides the funding for that. It is NOT mandatory to fix someone's car or replace someone's belongings regardless of ability to pay, and the government doesn't fund a program to provide that service.
The cost of the fire department is generally covered via local taxes. Would you support a local "emergency room" tax to provide for the cost of uninsured town residents who need emergency care?
From where does Congress find the power to force people to engage in an act of commerce that they choose not to engage in?
There is a bigger issue at stake here than health care and it pains me when well meaning individuals fail to see it. If congress has the power to regulate both commerce and the lack of commerce as if they were the same thing then congress has no limit to its power. Think about that.
Again, I reiterate that fire insurance does NOT pay for the fire department services. At all. In any way. It's not provided by insurance money, whether you have insurance or not. The insurance covers LOSS from the fire, not the service of putting it out.
If the ER tax paid for a service that insurance NEVER paid for, I'd be fine with it. If everyone gets to use the ER without having to submit insurance claims, then I'm fine with funding it with taxes.
Congress gets that power from the Commerce Clause. They already have the power to regulate commerce and lack thereof through the dormant commerce clause doctrine. This is not a new thing.
For that matter, going back to car insurance, I thought everyone who owned a car was required to have insurance on said car (though this law is done at the state level) -- at least to protect those they may crash into. Car insurance is a bad analogy.
Yes, the "non car-owner" would only apply if there were somehow a class of people that never required medical services.
You can avoid car insurance by not owning a car. You'll never need it. However, you have a body, and that body will require medical procedures in your life. It's part of being alive.
The cost of the fire department is generally covered via local taxes. Would you support a local "emergency room" tax to provide for the cost of uninsured town residents who need emergency care?
This would be immensely stupid since we practically do it anyhow. It's very costly to states and it would be FAR cheaper if people who eventually need emergency care (like, oh I don't know, everybody at some point in their life) were absolutely insured. This stupid argument is almost as bad as W.'s little "If you get sick and don't have insurance, just go to the emergency room" comment.
From where does Congress find the power to force people to engage in an act of commerce that they choose not to engage in?
The nature of this kind of commerce is so different from everything else that I don't see any reason why it should not be further regulated and enforced. It will make EVERYTHING less expensive for EVERYONE in the long run. The only reason not to do this is because you either want insurance companies to run roughshod over citizens in the name of profit, or because you have some demented notion of 'freedom' in which you should never pay anyone anything or be asked or forced to do anything by any authority ever.
There is a bigger issue at stake here than health care and it pains me when well meaning individuals fail to see it. If congress has the power to regulate both commerce and the lack of commerce as if they were the same thing then congress has no limit to its power. Think about that.
No, not the case. We already regulate businesses, and in addition insurance is SO DIFFERENT because of the very nature of the 'beast'. It is NOT the same as requiring someone to buy a cel phone, and it is also not quite the same as auto insurance. Which, I might add and several people have already pointed out, you have to buy to have a car anyhow.
EVERYONE is going to use healthcare at some point. It's a hard fact that you can not argue. It's so ludicrously expensive now that everyone either needs to be wealthy, have insurance, needs someone else to help pay, or can just suffer and/or die. This expense causes all kinds of issues, creating a heavier burden on medical facilities later in a person's life if no preventative care has been taken, not to mention all the hardships that can pile up from one medical condition.
There is a solution in this law, a perfectly good one, and the ONLY reason that there is any argument is because a bunch of politicians have been bought off by insurance companies. Hell, listening to the SCOTUS, I'm skeptical about just how many of the judges are actually interested in the law instead of interested in how to make the law do what they feel would benefit their party the most.
The non-car owner analogy is actually a perfect description of my situation, as I have no physical body (Im comprised of electro magnetic energy) yet Obamacare forces me to waste my money on your flesh based health care system.
The non-car owner analogy is actually a perfect description of my situation, as I have no physical body (Im comprised of electro magnetic energy) yet Obamacare forces me to waste my money on your flesh based health care system.
It's really their fault for being made of meat in the first place. I mean, who makes someone out of meat!?
The non-car owner analogy is actually a perfect description of my situation, as I have no physical body (Im comprised of electro magnetic energy) yet Obamacare forces me to waste my money on your flesh based health care system.
It's really their fault for being made of meat in the first place. I mean, who makes someone out of meat!?
The non-car owner analogy is actually a perfect description of my situation, as I have no physical body (Im comprised of electro magnetic energy) yet Obamacare forces me to waste my money on your flesh based health care system.
It's really their fault for being made of meat in the first place. I mean, who makes someone out of meat!?
Thinking meat, at that.
And do you know how they communicate? They flap their meat at each other! They have to use sound to communicate!
The non-car owner analogy is actually a perfect description of my situation, as I have no physical body (Im comprised of electro magnetic energy) yet Obamacare forces me to waste my money on your flesh based health care system.
It's really their fault for being made of meat in the first place. I mean, who makes someone out of meat!?
Thinking meat, at that.
And do you know how they communicate? They flap their meat at each other! They have to use sound to communicate!
Comments
Second, as pointed out, changes may actually be allowed for within the guidelines. You could even make a religion out of the things you believe are "progress" and think that making progress is itself divine. Or you may just happen to support things that lead to progress because of your religion. If they do good things, they did good things. If they did bad things, they did bad things. There are also significantly less "rigid" religions than the Catholicism where the right path might not be known to any individual... and the process is more important than the specific actions.
And this isn't even talking about the various Protestant churches, many of which are far more flexible than the Catholic church.
By no means am I saying that I think any of these are a net positive force in the world. If everyone on earth woke up tomorrow and divested themselves of all religious and supernatural belief, I believe the world would be a better place.
But that's not going to happen. Most likely, anyhow. So, instead, I work with what's out there. These various religions haven't become good with time; they've just become less bad. But becoming less bad is still a measure of progress, and it's a direction that needs to be continued.
I mean, if we're trying to reform a criminal, do you just discard the positive progress he's made just because he hasn't made all of it right the hell now? Do you continue to treat someone who is attempting to reform a criminal life as though they're an active criminal? That's...well...that's what we do right now. Do you think that's right?
EDIT: I'm all about hating on the church for lots of reasons. But just because I hate 75% of your stances on something doesn't mean that I also hate the other 25% just because.
How about "what will happen if the Supreme Court upholds it?" Because if they do, it becomes precedent for future cases.
The mandate forces people who do not need or what health insurance to purchase said insurance so as to make insurance more affordable for those who do want it.
It is akin to forcing non car owners to buy car insurance to lower the cost for those who do own cars. Not a perfect analogy but close enough to get a point across.
Non insurance buyers still have health that can get wrecked and require medical attention.
One question: I thought the penalties applied to businesses who didn't provide insurance, not individuals?
Anyways, I'll just be over here wondering when we just get universal health care like the civilized world.
If a person does not carry fire insurance on their home and it burns down what happens?
Why treat the health insurance market differently? If you want a single payer system then just say so.
If this law were about auto insurance would you agree with the mandate?
If they vote against the law they should strike the entire law. Anything less would be the court acting as both legislative and executive branches by rewriting the law and then making their changes official.
Everyone owns the thing that's needed for health insurance to be useful (a body that can be sick). So everyone should have to get insurance.
I would like a single payer system, and I would like the pay for this to be taken out of my paycheck as part of taxes. However, I'm willing to compromise.
Fire insurance is not what you think. It does not pay for the fire department to come put out the fire, which is a publicly-provided service for everyone. What fire insurance does here is fund the replacement of the things you lost in the fire. If you don't have it, the government does not generally pay for replacement things for you.
Health insurance is treated differently because it IS different. It's mandatory for hospitals to treat people who come in, regardless of ability to pay. The government provides the funding for that. It is NOT mandatory to fix someone's car or replace someone's belongings regardless of ability to pay, and the government doesn't fund a program to provide that service.
From where does Congress find the power to force people to engage in an act of commerce that they choose not to engage in?
There is a bigger issue at stake here than health care and it pains me when well meaning individuals fail to see it. If congress has the power to regulate both commerce and the lack of commerce as if they were the same thing then congress has no limit to its power. Think about that.
If the ER tax paid for a service that insurance NEVER paid for, I'd be fine with it. If everyone gets to use the ER without having to submit insurance claims, then I'm fine with funding it with taxes.
Congress gets that power from the Commerce Clause. They already have the power to regulate commerce and lack thereof through the dormant commerce clause doctrine. This is not a new thing.
You can avoid car insurance by not owning a car. You'll never need it. However, you have a body, and that body will require medical procedures in your life. It's part of being alive.
EVERYONE is going to use healthcare at some point. It's a hard fact that you can not argue. It's so ludicrously expensive now that everyone either needs to be wealthy, have insurance, needs someone else to help pay, or can just suffer and/or die. This expense causes all kinds of issues, creating a heavier burden on medical facilities later in a person's life if no preventative care has been taken, not to mention all the hardships that can pile up from one medical condition.
There is a solution in this law, a perfectly good one, and the ONLY reason that there is any argument is because a bunch of politicians have been bought off by insurance companies. Hell, listening to the SCOTUS, I'm skeptical about just how many of the judges are actually interested in the law instead of interested in how to make the law do what they feel would benefit their party the most.
Why is the government telling me I have to purchase a product from a for-profit company or face a fine?