RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "What exactly are these people praying for? Are they praying for a return to the way things were? For the denial of health insurance due to whatever the whimsical opinions of corporate bureaucrats determine to be a pre-existing condition? For the right to be thrown into an overpriced, endlessly gouging 'marketplace' the moment when you turn 25, and you're burdened anyway with usurious student loans?"

Opponents of healthcare reform pray in front of the Supreme Court. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)
Opponents of healthcare reform pray in front of the Supreme Court. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)



Supreme Court's Religious Frenzy

By Charles P. Pierce, Esquire Magazine

27 March 12

 

his picture, which ran on the front page of The New York Times this morning, and which accompanied the story about the opening of the arguments in the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, makes me as sad and despairing about the state of the country as I have been in an awfully long time. There are better places on the Intertoobz than this one to look either for a general overview of what may happen in the Court over the next three days - Ezra Klein's joint did a masterful job this morning - and, if you're looking for pundits to support your own personal opinions on what should happen, you don't need me to help you find them. But this picture makes the whole affair ring a little hollow already.

What exactly are these people praying for?

Are they praying for a return to the way things were? For the denial of health insurance due to whatever the whimsical opinions of corporate bureaucrats determine to be a pre-existing condition? For the right to be thrown into an overpriced, endlessly gouging "marketplace" the moment when you turn 25, and you're burdened anyway with usurious student loans? Are they praying that the law be upheld? That the central place the insurance industry holds the way we do health care in this country be guaranteed in what looks like perpetuity, with the government's power behind it?

(This is where the conservative argument falls into incoherence. Conservatives are opposed to the mandate because of, well, Liberty (!), but they never pursue that argument to the point where they might discomfit the insurance companies because of, well, The Market (!). This latter, of course, is why conservatives supported a mandate as a market-based solution in the first place.)

Back in the day, when we had a couple of thousand Russian ICBMs aimed (we were sure) right at St. Peter's School in Worcester, Mass, we all used to say a hundred Hail Mary's so that Russia would convert to Catholicism and, if we were lucky, aim those ICBM's at the godless Red Chinese. (I made that last part up.) The Cuban Missile Crisis, I recall, was a particularly fervent time; there were no atheists hiding under desks. As a result of those days, when people start publicly praying in a secular political context, I get extremely nervous. Something's going on that I don't know about.

One consequence of the very weird debate we've been having about contraception, and its place in the overall scheme of things in the ACA, has been to inject the always ameliorating element of religious frenzy into what already was a debate so carried off by emotion that it had departed the actual reality of the law two years ago. Suddenly, we weren't just talking about the limits of the Commerce clause, or the dead hand of government choking the marketplace or, more generally, the place of government in our lives. We now also were talking about whether or not the government not only could tell us what we could buy, it was telling us what we could believe. That this argument was the purest moonshine is utterly irrelevant. (Are people seriously arguing that an insurance company should be able to avail itself of a conscience clause? Shouldn't it be made to demonstrate a conscience first?) Purely as law, the argument against the mandate is no more substantial - as the indispensible Dahlia Lithwick demonstrates rather conclusively - than the "religious liberty" kerfuffle is. It always has been about political semiotics, and the meaning of words. Once the contraception question blew up, it also became about religious semiotics, and the meaning of words. That engaged a whole 'nother universe of debate, clouding the issue this time with incense and the sweet smell of melting candle wax.

It's hard now to believe that it all was an accident. It was too well-timed. (Surely, it was not lost on the people ginning up the controversy, which included the American Catholic bishops, that there is a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia, who makes the late Cardinal Spellman look like a Presbyterian.) The case was percolating toward the current climax, and most of the other issues had been argued into a fine pulp, especially in the Republican primary contests, in which the ACA was regularly treated as though it were one of the Nuremberg laws. But there was a kind of general lull in the debate out in the country at large, where it was assumed that the Supreme Court would settle the matter once and for all. (Lithwick makes this point in her piece when she talks about how important a factor "momentum" has been in propelling the matter to the Supreme Court in the first place.) The polling data said quite clearly that the American public at large had been convinced by a narrow margin that the law was "unconstitutional" which, generally, when we are talking about the American public at large means, "I don't know much about this, but people tell me I shouldn't like it." (Here, as Lithwick points out, is where the Obama Administration failed most utterly.) But the public also seemed content to ride out the controversy until the nine wise souls in Washington sorted the whole matter out. The data also indicated that the public would be willing to live with whatever the Supreme Court has decided.

I don't believe that's the case any more. To engage religious opposition to the ACA - to make opposition to it into a matter of faith, rather than merely a matter of politics - is to guarantee that the opposition survives whatever the ruling the Supreme Court makes. (The reaction to Roe v. Wade is simply the most garish example of this. That decision was supposed to settle the issue of abortion within the secular law. How'd that work out?) Casting the law as an infringement of personal liberty because of the mandate, particularly after a conservative, corporate-friendly Supreme Court had decided otherwise, always was going to be a tough sell out in the country. But casting the ACA as an infringement on religious conscience guarantees that the opposition will outlive the court case. (It also rather effectively blunts whatever victory the Obama administration would declare if it prevails.) There will be organized resistance to the implementation of this law at the local level all over the country. There will be sermons from the pulpit. There will be sanctified misinformation until hell won't have it. Would you like to estimate the level of national outrage that will be created the first time a request for a "conscience exemption" is denied?

What the injection of religion into this controversy accomplished, and it was neatly done, was to remove the opposition to the ACA from the realm of secular politics so as to enable it to continue in the face of a decision that upheld the law. That's the outcome for which those people are praying. They are praying for the religious immortality of their political positions.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+190 # MEBrowning 2012-03-27 14:58
I am sick to death of these so-called Christian "prayer warriors" who revile the government as intrusive, yet noisily and relentlessly work to intrude on your and my individual liberties. They routinely vote against their own (and my) interests while availing themselves of government largesse in ways they don't even perceive. They eschew the teachings of Jesus and embrace their own distorted version of a vengeful, angry, fickle God. They love to play the victim while self-righteousl y bashing anyone who doesn't march to their incessant, insane, destructive beat. They are not protecting liberty in this country; they are killing it.
 
 
+58 # angryspittle 2012-03-27 16:12
Exactly.
 
 
+36 # tclose 2012-03-27 19:07
Well said.
 
 
+17 # cvwilson 2012-03-27 23:01
Amen.
 
 
+9 # terrison 2012-03-28 15:10
Thank You!
 
 
+6 # Karlus58 2012-03-29 08:18
Amen!
 
 
0 # Patch 2012-03-30 02:44
Do you know how to spell Christian?
H-I-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!

Oops! That's H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T -E!
 
 
+59 # paulrevere 2012-03-27 14:58
Just another example of how irrational and ethically and morally unencumbered the rulers truly are...the Kings, Queens, Princes, Dukes, Dutchesses, Earls, Popes, Cardinals, priests and preachers and profuse numbers of hangers on, behind the tarnished and dented badges of all the Sheriffs of Notingham just keep on slinging illusion, delusion and mindless fear at US.
 
 
+13 # soularddave 2012-03-27 23:31
Quoting paulrevere:
just keep on slinging illusion, delusion and mindless fear at US.


What it comes down to is just another bunch of OPINIONS they're trying to impose on the rest of us. I'm fine with my own opinions, but have no idea what facts they base theirs on. They never have a coherent explanation - as far as I can discern.
I'm fine with them living by their own opinions, though.
 
 
+9 # MEBrowning 2012-03-28 19:15
"I'm fine with my own opinions, but have no idea what facts they base theirs on. They never have a coherent explanation - as far as I can discern. I'm fine with them living by their own opinions, though."

The problem is, they're not at all interested in letting you have your own opinions. They believe that God has told them they must impose their distorted "values" on the rest of us, and anyone who dares to question is a demon and an enemy. They've been at this for decades, and they are relentless. Not unlike extremist Muslims, they believe it is their God-given duty to rid the world of what they construe as liberal ideas and liberal law and impose what amounts to strict, harsh and inhumane rules that are meant to control every facet of our lives. They pray that our country will become a theocracy. They don't give a second's thought about infringing on our lives, our liberty or our pursuit of happiness. They think being a "warrior for Christ" is their ticket to paradise — just the same as extremist Muslims believe that dying for their religion will land them in paradise. If we are worried about extremist Muslims, these so-called "Christians" are every bit as dangerous.
 
 
+2 # PGreen 2012-03-30 09:27
It is somewhat ironic that this is the supposed issue that caused the pilgrims to flee Europe-- to escape religious tyranny. It is addressed in our constitution by the separation of church and state.
 
 
+39 # bugbuster 2012-03-27 15:03
"The data also indicated that the public would be willing to live with whatever the Supreme Court has decided."

And our choice is...?

If we want health care reform, we may have to elect a GOP President and Congress. Then what will be basically the same bill will magically lose all its bad qualities.
 
 
+74 # Regina 2012-03-27 16:39
A lot of its "bad qualities" were once good, and introduced and argued for by Republicans. The only reason now for their opposition is the fact that we had the temerity to elect a Black president. They would wreck the country, behind their phony pledges of allegiance, to make him fail -- they have said so, in many ways, on many occasions.
 
 
+13 # KittatinyHawk 2012-03-27 20:22
They will never give a health care reform, never have.
 
 
+56 # DaveM 2012-03-27 15:16
The general consensus among people of this mindset is that 1950s television is an accurate portrayal of the period. And that if "their people" are in charge of the United States, we will all live in the worlds of "Father Knows Best" and "Leave It To Beaver".
 
 
+17 # KittatinyHawk 2012-03-27 20:25
Difference is Beaver's Dad and others never beat their wife on those series so just who are these others emulating? Black Community, Spanish? I am confused as I grew up hearing both of those Communities being violent to women...yet I live in white area, most women have been in abused situations for decades as was their mothers.
There is no living like 1950's TV, these people have no morals, no conscience only hatred of anyone not like them. I am so glad not to be like them.
 
 
+69 # giraffee2012 2012-03-27 15:38
Now I understand "Shira Law" -- Instead of governed by our Constitution - we can be governed by some-"religious " laws!

But don't forget the big$ won't have to follow the "religious law" - only the 99%

What now?

Vote DEM / Vote Obama - and pray or joint the OWS!
 
 
+46 # dick 2012-03-27 16:12
You have to really screw up to give your opposition the Moral High Ground on the issue of providing healthcare via insurance to mothers & babies. And Obama brought it off perfectly. He flat out refused to use the bully pulpit to fight for a $timulus that would have been an economic & political game changer. He flat out refused to use the Office of President & bully pulpit to advocate for humane healthcare. He left it up to Max Baucus, for God's sake. Opponents stole the ball; Max didn't seem to mind. Most importantly, Obama did not use his oratory or office to hold Wall St. accountable, a MASSIVE, MASSIVE, incomprehensibl e moral & political blunder of literally Epic proportion.
 
 
+57 # nancyw 2012-03-27 16:16
Ignorance and plain out stupidity is the bane of this country. We must be the laughing stock of the world.

It's so sad that everything is reduced to simple illogic and religious self-righteousn ess and put on the front page of our newspapers. We are a shallow culture. It's mighty scary.
 
 
+32 # FLAK88 2012-03-27 17:33
Yes, I'm very certain we ARE the laughing stock of the world. You can add the ridiculous ongoing Evolution debate and ignorance regarding climate change to the list, too. Oh, and let's not forget 'Father' Rick. I wish the Mayflower would have sunk with all hands; maybe we would have ended up with a half-way intelligent original gene pool ...
 
 
+37 # Sully747 2012-03-27 16:33
WHY? -- It’s in this book. Anti-Intellectu alism in American Life --by Richard Hofstadter
Review By Christopher Hefele
“Unfortunately, America's practical culture has never embraced intellectuals. The intellectuals' education and expertise are viewed as a form of power or privilege. Intellectuals are seen as a small arrogant elite who are pretentious, conceited, snobbish. Geniuses' are described as eccentric, and their talents dismissed as mere cleverness. Their cultured view is seen as impractical, and their sophistication as ineffectual. Their emphasis on knowledge and education is viewed as subversive, and it threatens to produce social decadence.”
“Instead, the anti-intellectu als believe that the plain sense of the common man is altogether adequate and superior to formal knowledge and expertise from schools. The truths of the heart, experience, and old-fashioned principles of religion, character, instinct, and morality are more reliable guides to life than education. After all, we idolize the self-made man in America.” --- By Christopher Hefele
 
 
+8 # KittatinyHawk 2012-03-27 20:27
You can see that by the Morons who bought their kids into IVY League like it was Community College.
 
 
+9 # BradFromSalem 2012-03-28 07:18
And then complain that every single Black kid who got in was incapable of keeping up and was only there because of their colour.

They are not actually morons, they are self centered egomaniacs. Which of course is moronic. (and Racist and Sexist too!)
 
 
+14 # PeterAttwood 2012-03-27 16:37
Speaking of all sorts of hysteria, you really don't have to want all sorts of terrible things to think there might be something just a bit unconstitutiona l about it being legislated by the federal government that we should have to buy something from an insurance company. It's about providing a captive market to the already bloated insurance industry, not about medical care. If that were the aim, Medicare, with its 3% overhead, would have been the way to go, and that still can be pursued at any time, especially now that people have gotten to know and like the positive features of the plan.

It's not the end of the medical plan if the SC declares this federal corporate welfare scheme unconstitutiona l, as it clearly is. It will just force Obama to reveal whether he is willing to fight the insurance industry for a good medical care system or abandon it in order to please them. I think most are aware that Obama cares far more about pleasing his corporate paymasters than doing anything for people not in a position to finance his campaign, so that removing this corporate perk from the plan will indeed likely result in its death. The frenzy here seems to be a desperate flight from that clarity by people who still want to kid themselves after all these years that Obama is into us, fundamentally unlike his fellow shills for the 1%.
 
 
+22 # MEBrowning 2012-03-27 17:44
Mr. Attwood, please refer to bugbuster and Regina's comments above. If the exact same healthcare program had been introduced by the GOP, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
 
+64 # SlanAgat 2012-03-27 16:37
When fascism comes, it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
 
 
+11 # KittatinyHawk 2012-03-27 20:29
When it comes...it has been here and nurturing Hitler Regime.
 
 
+12 # BradFromSalem 2012-03-28 07:19
Turn on Fox news. It's here!
 
 
+69 # Jane Gilgun 2012-03-27 16:45
The government can't require that everyone has health insurance, but the government can order women to have intrusive sonograms and be forced to listen to a lecture on abortion that is full of lies? Where are the progressives who are supposed to push back on these awful contradictions? Just because people who insist on these contradictory policies have neither minds nor hearts doesn't mean that the rest of us have to be stupid enough to be silent and let them get away with this.
 
 
+32 # reiverpacific 2012-03-27 16:55
"But the public also seemed content to ride out the controversy until the nine wise souls in Washington sorted the whole matter out. The data also indicated that the public would be willing to live with whatever the Supreme Court has decided." .
"Nine wise souls in Washington"!
Well there may well be nine wise souls in Washington D.C. but they sure as hell ain't the Allegedly "Supreme" court!
Maybe these cyphers are praying to the Opus Dei -of Scalia and Thomas, or channeling the late Jerry Falwell, or even the Auto-da-fe from times when you could be burned at the stake for dissenting -even in thought or prayer. Perhaps they feel nostalgia for that barbarian form of mind control.
I have a niece by marriage who tells her child and anybody who will listen, that she made a coin stick to the wall "but it was Jesus who did it really", -no explanation on the subject of osmosis or capillary attraction.
So you have a majority of the supreme-lawyers -with-robes who seem in accord with this way of non-thinking, and are liable to vote according to the dictates of their religion as they are no doubt sworn to do, rather than by a studied and logical examination of the legislation at issue.
I'm against the mandated purchase of PRIVATE coverage for the simple fact that I won't be able to afford it, like most of the many long term unemployed.
Single-payer MUST NOW be "on the table" whatever these robed wise-monkeys declaim from on high!
 
 
+31 # chrisconnolly 2012-03-27 17:03
Why would Jesus be against health care reform? I cannot get the logic these fundamentalists are using to vilify what basically mandates compassion. And as to making us pay for something, doesn't the government make us pay taxes to buy the product government. We need universal health care plan and simple. I am willing to pay my share for a service that I cannot now afford.
 
 
+17 # Sensible1 2012-03-27 17:25
The government is not mandating anything. Nor is Obama or anyone else. They are simply saying that if you want the health care provided by this program, then you have to participate. Is that any different then a program that could be offered by any sensible private sector entrepreneur? Of course a project of this size would necessitate the same requirement if it were to survive. Or do you think the private sector would be so stupid to pay for everyone's health care without at least breaking even, not to mention making a profit. The government is not seeking a profit.
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2012-03-28 10:18
Quoting Sensible1:
The government is not mandating anything. Nor is Obama or anyone else. They are simply saying that if you want the health care provided by this program, then you have to participate.

That's not what I understand from many sources and perhaps the reason why there are so many readings and interpretations of this particular clause and by default, so much confusion and opposition from both sides of the socio-political spectrum, including these strangely-motiv ated God-botherers.
If there is "no mandate" as you state, why the talk of FINES (and how would they be imposed?) for those who don't buy into the PRIVATELY administered proposal and indeed why big insurance and pharma are actually SUPPORTING Ob's plan In this very court?
Could you respectfully supply us with some backup o your "no mandate" assertion.
I really want to know and am NOT attacking you in any way, just requesting y'r sources.
Thanks for any response you can provide to help myself and others wrap our heads around it all.
 
 
+27 # Sensible1 2012-03-27 17:29
If the five republicans on the court vote to throw out this healthcare law, then we should occupy the supreme court to force them to resign.
 
 
+11 # jwb110 2012-03-27 18:38
If they overturn the ;aw Medicare will be expanded to all who pay paroll tax or want to buy into the pool.
Anyway you look st it the Insurance Companies are going to take the biggest hit. The Insurance Industry may be very sorry they backed any of this with the Religious Right and the GOP.
Because if I had an option to not pay $7000 a year for health coverage what do you think I would do?
 
 
+6 # Texas Aggie 2012-03-28 10:23
Private health coverage only costs you $7000 a year???
 
 
+30 # JRP5 2012-03-27 19:11
I was there at the Supreme Court yesterday morning and I can tell you from firsthand experience that the place was swarming with religously motivated demonstrators - and 90% were demonstrating IN FAVOR of the law!! Why does the small obnoxious right wing Christian presence command all the media attention and drive all the discussion? People of many faiths (but overwhelmingly Christian) showed up on the first day of oral arguments to SUPPORT the legislation. End of story!
 
 
+5 # Texas Aggie 2012-03-28 10:22
Good to hear it.
 
 
+10 # KittatinyHawk 2012-03-27 20:20
Perhaps they are praying as I am that there is a conscious to the Judges. Judges do not pay for their or their family health care...Time they do.

I personally have been praying for a Socialized Medicine/Insura nce for over 35 years. I will continue to do so, praying for Judges to actually have a conscience is absurd and a waste of my time.
 
 
+24 # Elroys 2012-03-27 20:30
What's so depressing about this is that it makes clear the level of ignorance in our nation. When so many of these folks scream out, "keep government's hands off my medicare", and these same people vote for the future of our country, and for my children's future. This is frightening and depressing. And let's remember who funds this madness - the corporate and wealthy elite like the Koch brothers and others who care about nothing and no one but themselves. They are relentless, will stop at nothing, will spend whatever it takes to destroy America. This is the future we are creating for our kids? This is insane.
 
 
+18 # peterjkraus 2012-03-27 20:38
I´ve said it before and I´ll say it again to the "Christians" and the Teabaggers..... HE WON`T GET ANY WHITER. And we like him just as he is.
 
 
+8 # xflowers 2012-03-27 23:33
"The data also indicated that the public would be willing to live with whatever the Supreme Court has decided."

I don't think the people with pre-existing conditions or who have children born with pre-existing conditions will be willing or perhaps able to live with whatever the Supreme Court decides if it decides against them. And I think these very same people and those who love them may let these fake religionists known, in no uncertain terms, what you have, that "they are praying for the religious immortality of their political positions."
 
 
+4 # jedson 2012-03-28 05:35
Let me respond to the concerns of the RSN team for a minute. I also do not like discussions that devolve into name-calling, etc. However, we are not to advocate for illegal activity here?? I guess that means that Thoreau, Gandhi, King jr. etc. are off limits? At a point where the Occupy movement needs to be planning strategies this is no small point. I would suggest that your guidelines need a bit of tweaking.

jay
 
 
+16 # cdcl44@yahoo.com 2012-03-28 06:51
The issue that no one wants to address is the health insurance companies who have played a major role in jacking up costs, controlling individual treatments by denying coverage,denyin g physician preference,deny ing payment for certain procedures and care, yet raising their own cost of premiums.Meanwh ile these companies are investing overseas,buildi ng high rises and leasing them out. Every single person deserves equal health care, but not by having to support Big Business Insurance
 
 
+5 # winson 2012-03-28 10:57
Whatever your political thoughts, please don´t make fun of religious expression. It is one of the most important freedoms we are supposed to have and is not exclusive to the ¨religious right.¨

Please recall how much more civilized our culture was when we had prayer in the schools. Whether you are religious or not, life was more genteel. Why are you all so angry? Life has never been fair and it is surely less fair today.

We have supported evil wars that have killed and maimed people who have done us no wrong. We have used our young men and women to do it and we have damaged them in the process.

I think we all need to pray for forgiveness for our greed, corruption, and cruelty.

If we had no wars, we could have many benefits, but until we quit supporting the war machine we will be cursed and afflicted.

Of course the insurance companies are part of the problem, as are the banks, petroleum companies, giant agriculture, the medical establishment, and the education system.

There are lots of places to put blame, but you do not have to malign my creator to do it.
 
 
+5 # TrueAmericanPatriot 2012-03-28 13:06
Winson, PEOPLE IN POWER have brought this mess upon us; NOT GOD! It's so interesting they like to associate God with a tornado, flood, or some other disaster (including THEIR OWN DEMENTED IDEAOLOGIES)! Secondly, I REFUSE to refer to these evil incarnates as CHRISTIANS, because they are none such!! Many of them have Bibles in their homes that simply serve as mousepad for the TV remote; HAVEN'T BEEN READ IN A WHILE!!! Citizens United NEEDS TO GO BECAUSE CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE! With all that's happened with the SCOTUS in recent years, we need to END lifetime appointments; max out the term at 10 years, the same as the presidency. VOTE 2012 WHILE WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC! BRING ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO YOUR LOCAL SENIORS, OR GIVE THE RIDES TO THE POLLS! VOTE EARLY! VOTE ABSENTEE! VOTE DEMOCRATIC! VOTE OUT THE GREEDY ONE PERCENT!!!!!
 
 
-4 # winson 2012-03-28 14:25
I would not dream of voting democratic nor would I vote republican. Why? They are the same thing.

How are Obama´s wars different from the Bushes¨?

Sorry, but I am not going to support any of the crooks.
I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Obama is a puppet too. Look above his head for the strings.
 
 
+3 # BradFromSalem 2012-03-29 06:45
Winson,

Here is the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans believe that the world is like a video game. Each time we change Presidents, its like hitting the reset button.
Democrats may not agree with all of Obama's military policies, but at least 1)they are on the books 2)they are operating on a schedule toward and end date and 3) Obama is keeping to his schedule.

If you don't vote for the lesser of 2 evils, then you are allowing the greater evil to succeed.
 
 
+4 # Maverick 2012-03-28 14:56
==========
I'm upset that single payer was never even on the table, but doesn't EVERY state require EVERY driver to have at least liability only car insurance? If so, then what's the big difference? Pretty much everyone drives for some portion of their life. Pretty much every driver will be involved in an accident sooner or later and NEED that insurance. How is the individual mandate any different? If it's not unconstitutiona l for all the states to make car insurance a legal requirement, I just don't grok how the individual mandate for health insurance is any different.
==========
sail4free
==========
 
 
0 # Jesus Follower 2012-03-29 22:23
Quoting Maverick:
==========
I'm upset that single payer was never even on the table, but doesn't EVERY state require EVERY driver to have at least liability only car insurance? If so, then what's the big difference? Pretty much everyone drives for some portion of their life. ..., I just don't grok how the individual mandate for health insurance is any different.
...

Well! I've been wondering this very thing since the brouhaha began and this is the first I've seen ANYTHING mentioned about it in any article or comment! What IS the difference, indeed?!
 
 
+4 # Rebok10 2012-03-28 17:45
There are so many things being discussed in the name of Religion such as imposing a set of values on personal choice. How is it that we never hear from this group the basic tenet of all religions all over the world and throughout ancient history "Love thy neighbor as thy self" I was taught compassion and empathy for those less fortunate what are these people teaching in their houses of worship?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN