Politics Who's Gonna Win?

True. I find Stewart impossible to listen too for any length of time, like as soon as he starts talking. But, I do not get Republican talking points. In fact, at this time, I am going to support Roemer for President - he announced as an Independent. I can not support Romney or Santorum.
--- merged: Mar 1, 2012 at 6:36 PM ---

I have said it many, many times.

 

I don't understand why it is not o.k. to discuss the broader implications involved with the conflicts created by government mandates. In addition, my interpretation of one position on this subject is that when a religious institution (or any organization with strongly held moral views) serves the general public that they can be forced to compromise their moral views? Both, points are compelling - and worthy of greater understanding.

 

Where's Rush Limbaugh on this? Certainly Danica must be a slut, too.

 

In addition to the benefits afforded women when baby making and child raising can be managed, it's in the government's and society's best interest to allow and even facilitate the management of population control. Ouch, but there it is.

I am all for the federal government managing the expense of providing free birth control but any Fed involvement in health initiatives that cost the taxpayer, is and has been off the table, for the most part. With his hands tied, Obama offers an alternative which will operate within the current employer-provided health care insurance system by way of a mandate. It's not ideal, but it's what's available.

And how would a government managed program to provide free contraceptives differ from what is being proposed, in terms of satisfying those with strongly held moral views? Would the hue and cry be any less fervent if the federal government announced it would be the payer?

To those with these strongly held moral beliefs, the fight isn't about who pays for it. They don't want it paid for, period. They would prefer contraceptives outlawed. They would prefer a world where women stayed home and raised children. Just like in the good old days. Sorry, but that is not going to happen.

I don't find the moral argument compelling at all. The time to stop pandering to moral views based on 2000 year old religious beliefs is overdue.

 

BG, the error you're making is in assuming that compelling someone to do something is not the same as telling someone we won't pay for you to do what you want. It's not the same thing.

And why shouldn't it be up to a vendor to decide what he will and won't sell? If women want reproductive health products, they don't have to go specifically to a Catholic health organization for it, they can go somewhere else. Otherwise you can compel Muslims to sell pork in the mosque cafeteria if that's what the government decides is a good idea. And don't tell me it's irrelevant -- it's not. If the govt decided that any place that sells food has to take food stamps, and that certain staples have to be stocked, that is precisely what will happen. It's a very exact analogy.

What concerns me is this notion that the government gets to control everything. If you start from that premise then you end up jettisoning democracy because the worst thing that can happen is that someone you don't agree with will be in power, so it logically follows that you need to move heaven and earth to keep that from happening. If you keep the government limited and out of most people's business the stakes are much lower.

And this notion that the US is "behind" because our govt doesn't have its finger in everything yet -- hogwash. Having the emperor with absolute power is a product of ancient times. It took the Enlightenment to get us the idea of individual liberty without big brother mixing into everything. Enlarging the govt is a regression to barbarism.

 

Loquitor...I take it that you disagree with the ruling of the NY courts in a similar case requiring insurance plans to provide contraceptives.

Like the NY law, the ACA mandate attempts to balance religious freedom and reproductive rights - religious institutions whose purpose is to preach to congregants are exempt; affiliated institutions (charities, hospitals, universities...) whose social service purposes are more secular are not exempt.

And, the mandate is neutral in that it is not targeting any specific religious practice or belief but applies to all employers, including those that may have a religious foundation but employ and serve diverse populations.

IMO, the compelling interest of providing access to affordable preventive health care is greater than any perceived infringement of religious freedoms, particularly given the undisputed exemption of churches/synagogues/mosques....

 

but BG, food is essential, too. So is housing. I can construct an argument that lots of things are "essential." It doesn't therefore follow that they have to be dispensed by the govt or that the govt has to control their distribution.

And yes, permitting and requiring are two different things. Prohibiting is not the same as not subsidizing.

I spent much of my childhood in Canada, so no, I don't have any cartoons in my head about people eating freshly killed moose on a frozen lake wearing toques and saying "eh?"

I'm not an anarchist, so I accept that SOME government is necessary. The issue is how much. I don't think we necessarily need SMALL government as much as we need LIMITED government. The two are related but not the same. There are a few things govt can do well. Asking it to do a lot more than its core capabilities means it will end up doing most things poorly. Remember: govt decisionmaking is almost always driven by politics - sometimes that coincides with good policy but too rarely.

That's the utilitarian argument for limited government. There is also a structural argument. If you believe in democracy, then you have to willing to let the other guy win occasionally. If you think the govt should have lots of power but you're convinced the other guys can't be trusted with it, then you have created for yourself a dilemma, haven't you? You can't say that the govt only should have power when your guys are running it. Basically, you can only be safe when the knaves are in control if there is a limit to their power so they can't do much damage. Otherwise you're only safe if you make sure the other guys can never win, in which case it's not a democracy anymore.

And there is a philosophical argument, too, but this has gone on long enough already.
--- merged: Mar 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM ---
redux, I'm not familiar with that court ruling but yes, if you described it correctly I'm against it.

I live in NY. We have, I believe the most expensive health insurance in the country (if not, then close to it). In case you're wondering, insuring a family costs about $1200/month last time I checked. And the reason it's so pricey is that the govt tells ins co's what they have to offer instead of letting people shop for what they want/need. Every health-related special interest group has lobbied the NY legislature to require that all health policies have to cover their little things -- chiropractic, acupuncture, hypnosis, etc etc etc. I don't want half that stuff but I have no choice, I have to pay for it. That's what happens when you have govt mandates, you start getting political decisions that distort everything. So you can talk all you want about how important certain things are, but the end result is that you take away everyone's choice and then force something like 1/3 of the population into Medicaid. This issue goes way, way beyond religious rights. Anytime the govt starts forcing anyone to do anything it creates more problems than it solves.

Finally, let me ask you: you really think women are suddenly going to do without birth control unless someone else pays for it? They don't go without food, do they? If they don't want babies they'll get birth control or make their guy wear a condom. They're perfectly intelligent human beings who are perfectly capable of doing what they want with their own time and money, without the govt making their choices for them and for everyone else. And they'll be able to afford it if they didn't have to pay so freakin' much for health insurance due to govt mandates.

 

loquitor:

Here is the case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I06_0127.htm

I think the compelling interest is for contraception and all preventive reproductive care to be affordable and accessible. In our current system, that is primarily through employer-sponsored health care. I think the infringement of religious freedoms is w/o merit, particularly given the exemption to churches, etc..

I rarely agree with Justice Scalia, but we are on the same page here on the issue of religious freedom:

This mandate does not interfere with the beliefs of the church, which is exempt; it does interfere (appropriately, IMO) with the practices of affiliated institutions that employ and provide social services to a wider, more diverse community...and are the primary providers of health care.

 

Sorry, it doesn't follow. It's bad policy. If the state thinks "compelling interest is for contraception and all preventive reproductive care to be affordable and accessible" then the state should provide contraception and not force other people to do things they don't want to do. It's an abuse of power.

 

I disagree, but if I were to agree, I would require by statute that these charities, universities, hospitals, etc. to return all federal grants received and accept no federal money in the future.

 

fine with me. I don't know what business it is of the federal govt to be giving that money away anyway.

 

I draw the line at the point of -who pays for it. I expect the Church to pay wages for work performed. Then each person is free to spend their wages as they choose.

You keep repeating this, and I don't see it. Contraceptives and services are available, the church can not prevent anyone from getting and using these services.

 

You're opposed to federally funded basic research at universities? Or federally funded medical research at hospitals? Or federal support for community-based social services? It amounts to $hundreds of millions/yr. I wonder which these institutions would chose?

 

Where were you when Palin was the target of comments like these?

I think what Limbaugh said was wrong and what some liberals have said about people like Palin was wrong.

 

#1. Palin is a public figure...Hillary faced the same. The Georgetown Univ. student is not.
#2. Palin is a media whore...she basks in it.

 

My understanding was that she testified at a Congressional hearing, making her comments subject to criticism. I specifically say her comments, not her personally. Palin as a public figure should be afforded the same respect - her comments/votes/views/etc. , there was no place for the personal attacks in my view.
--- merged: Mar 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM ---

If an institution voluntarily asks for funding and the government voluntarily gives it, what is the problem? And certainly if the government is providing the funding the government can set conditions on its use - and if those conditions are not acceptable the institution has a right not to take the funds.