US Politics: Corporations are made out of people

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

I can't resist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHeVZXuISzo

[Paladin of Ice]

Is it your argument that everyone who does not opt for state-approved or state-manipulated policy is "free-riding" the system?

The problem with asserting that one should "move to some third-world country..." is that it presupposes that one can displace oneself with all of one's possessions. It requires that one can back out of a state-contract with all legitimately owned property. How does one displace a house? There are also restrictions on emigration, where taxes may be imposed.

Your argument, TrackerNeil, is a cop-out. There's nothing wrong with raising issues about an arrangement without wanting to leave it. Merely stating that if one doesn't accept the current system, they can "die untreated on the street," is a non-sequitur that fails to address the actual objection--unless said objection is one's inability to leave. Why are people being penalized for not wanting to be a party to this Affordable Care Act? Why is it a referendum on a person abiding by terms, as opposed to the terms themselves?

Well, if one lives in the US, then for the last 28 years after the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment act in 1986, hospitals have been legally forced to treat you rather than slamming the door in your face and watching you die outside if you don't have insurance. So, for 20+ years afterward there was this problem where people would go to the hospital for treatment without insurance, and whether through legitimately not being able to pay or purposefully skipping on the bill, didn't take care of the resulting bills. When they can't pay, that meant everyone else had to pay for them and the price for everyone went up. Hence the free-riding, and meanwhile the cost of medical bills became the number 1 cause of bankruptcy in the country, crushing the lives of thousands, if not millions, of families.

If you're that morally opposed to buying insurance, save for, beg, borrow or steal a trip to someplace where you won't have to. Or just pay the penalty to get the benefit of not having insurance and potentially facing that same sort of financial hardship outlined above should, say, a drunk driver ever plow into your car or you discover one day that you have a heart defect that was previously undiagnosed. Fortunately, your principles won't be compromised, and your personal principles won't be overriding the well being of the vast majority of the population. Unless you're the sort of person who think that what's best for you ought, at just this very moment, should be more important than what's right for everyone else.

Couple that with Obama being considered the worst President since WWII

Stupid meme is stupid. He's not even the worse of the last 2 presidents, let alone the worst since WWII.

And, as stated before, 47% voted for Romney and only 44% now wish he won Obviously Obama's doing something right to win them over. :P

[karaddin]

So hearkening back to last weeks SCOTUS decision. Despite their ridiculous attempts to narrow the decision to "christian men controlling women's bodies" I really can't see it as anything other than opening an enormous pandoras box of shit. Further rulings I didn't see mentioned last week already expanded the scope of it (although still within the christian men controlling women's bodies frame work), but really the stand out to me has always been how ludicrously subjective the "sincere religious belief" thing is when there is zero test for the sincerity of said religious belief. If there was I fail to see how Hobby Lobby themselves would have passed it. I don't know how presumably intelligent people can fail to see what a cock up this is going to be in the long run, especially once it gets out of the scope of 'christian men/womens bodies' and into further discrimination. Don't like a law? Make up a religious belief to get through a loop hole! If we aren't testing the belief at all (providing it's christian I'm sure) then all sorts of discrimination should be allowed to fly down the track.

Of course the 5 conservative men on SCOTUS at least presumably hope to keep things under control by not actually following their own precedent and just going with what they believe on issues as they come up, which is why the guatanamo detainees filing suit for religious rights during Ramadan under the precedent of the Hobby Lobby decision will probably get smacked down anyway. It's also the hope for retaining any protections for LGBT people from discrimination, along with racial protections. Wouldn't be surprised if employment protections for women get thrown out though!

I dream of single payer getting passed and people suing for a religious exemption from taxes because they don't want to 'pay for sluts birth control'.

[Galactus]

been how ludicrously subjective the "sincere religious belief" thing is when there is zero test for the sincerity of said religious belief.

There's a few obvious tests, willingness to be crucified would be one I guess.

[TrueMetis]

There's a few obvious tests, willingness to be crucified would be one I guess.

Suddenly I'm a lot more supportive of these exemptions. Now where's my hammer...

[karaddin]

There's a few obvious tests, willingness to be crucified would be one I guess.

Sorry, I meant there aren't any tests being applied. I'd still be extremely uncomfortable with it even if there were tests, but not even bothering to interrogate the sincerity of the religious belief is just...*headdesk*

[Galactus]

Is it your argument that everyone who does not opt for state-approved or state-manipulated policy is "free-riding" the system?

Err, no. If you do not pay into the system you're free-riding.

The problem with asserting that one should "move to some third-world country..." is that it presupposes that one can displace oneself with all of one's possessions. It requires that one can back out of a state-contract with all legitimately owned property. How does one displace a house? There are also restrictions on emigration, where taxes may be imposed.

You can sell your property, no problem. If you want to take it with you you shouldn't have bought immovable property in the first place, no?

From a purely historical/contractual basis, states are corporate entities who hold some type of ownership (usually termed "sovereignty") over the territory they control. (some countries, like the UK, even has this explicitly stated) any property held inside the territory of a state is subject to the conditiions of said corporate entity.

You might of course argue that you didn't sign up for any of this, which is true. But people end up in debt from their parent's spending all the time too.

Your argument, TrackerNeil, is a cop-out. There's nothing wrong with raising issues about an arrangement without wanting to leave it.

That's not exactly what he said. You are free to raise issues, you are even free to try to repeal the arrangement via the democratic process. However, simply evading it will lead to sanctions.

Merely stating that if one doesn't accept the current system, they can "die untreated on the street," is a non-sequitur that fails to address the actual objection--unless said objection is one's inability to leave.

It's the basis of the social contract. I abide by the rules as long as the rules are abided by. Once I no longer abide by the rules (by finding them intolerable) I can no longer expect any protection from them. (in practice we're actually a bit nicer than that, and tend to only punish people proportionally to their rulebreaking, and not fully outlaw people)

Why are people being penalized for not wanting to be a party to this Affordable Care Act?

Because of an attempt to spread the burden of healthcare more evenly among citizens. They picked a rather convoluted way of doing so (simply taking tax income and funding healthcare from that would probably be simpler, although the US federal structure complicates things)

Why is it a referendum on a person abiding by terms, as opposed to the terms themselves?

Because there are clearly attempts at evading the terms, rather than actually rewriting them? (which would require new elections, etc.)

Sorry, I meant there aren't any tests being applied. I'd still be extremely uncomfortable with it even if there were tests, but not even bothering to interrogate the sincerity of the religious belief is just...*headdesk*

There's a bit of a hairy tangle involved in that. (Test Acts, secret jews, etc.) that makes it a bad idea for the government to try to interrogate people about their religious beliefs.

[Shryke]

Sorry, I meant there aren't any tests being applied. I'd still be extremely uncomfortable with it even if there were tests, but not even bothering to interrogate the sincerity of the religious belief is just...*headdesk*

The test, afaik, is that they take you at your word about the seriousness of your belief. There's not really much else you can do.

[karaddin]

There's a bit of a hairy tangle involved in that. (Test Acts, secret jews, etc.) that makes it a bad idea for the government to try to interrogate people about their religious beliefs.

Which is exactly why exemptions from federal law on the basis of religious belief is a bad idea. Especially when you are applying the religious belief to a fucking corporation, you can at the very least interrogate the supposed beliefs of that corporation, and see if it acts in a manner consistent with the professed belief. It would hardly take a particularly intrusive test to determine that Hobby Lobby's belief was of convenience given it's past coverage of the contraception in question until the ACA was passed and the 401k accounts invested in companies that profit from it.

I'd much rather law that fucking made sense like corporations not actually being 'people' with 'religious beliefs' and not allowing exemptions like this from federal law. This shit undermines secular law and attacks separation of church and state in my view, even if it's not violating the establishment clause in the US which is the way said separation is enforced.

Also preferable to the current situation - single payer health care so no companies have to worry about their employees health care.

ETA: None of which even addresses what is probably my primary objection to the ruling, which is that the health insurance should be considered part of the compensation package and it's none of the employers fucking business how it's directed - that's between the employee and their doctor.

[TrackerNeil]

I'm not getting into an ACA debate with another libertarian who rails against the very system that takes care of her.

[lokisnow]

Krugman being awesome:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/opinion/paul-krugman-conservative-delusions-about-inflation.html?smid=tw-share

You might wonder why monetary theory gets treated like evolution or climate change. Isnt the question of how to manage the money supply a technical issue, not a matter of theological doctrine?

Well, it turns out that money is indeed a kind of theological issue. Many on the right are hostile to any kind of government activism, seeing it as the thin edge of the wedge if you concede that the Fed can sometimes help the economy by creating fiat money, the next thing you know liberals will confiscate your wealth and give it to the 47 percent. Also, lets not forget that quite a few influential conservatives, including Mr. Ryan, draw their inspiration from Ayn Rand novels in which the gold standard takes on essentially sacred status.

And if you look at the internal dynamics of the Republican Party, its obvious that the currency-debasement, return-to-gold faction has been gaining strength even as its predictions keep failing.

Can anything reverse this descent into dogma? A few conservative intellectuals have been trying to persuade their movement to embrace monetary activism, but theyre ever more marginalized. And thats just what Mr. Nyhans article would lead us to expect. When faith including faith-based economics meets evidence, evidence doesnt stand a chance.

And ignore the byline and take a look at the charts on this link: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5873607/8-reasons-to-ignore-the-latest-round-of-inflation-hysteria

Note that wage pressure right now is currently at orbelow the NADIR of wage pressure in all the previous presidencies, so please ignore or correct all the chicken-little conservatives who are starting to squawk nonsense about the terribleness of wages going up.

***

Also I heard a few odd things over the weekend. apparently the new tea party mantra is promoting anti-federalist nonsense (from the late 1700s) and getting explicitly anti-USA. the new tea party marching orders are that the greatest government ever died on July 4th when the Articles of Confederation died and the Constitution and the USA and it's constitution are dire horrible governments that should inspire no loyalty because they're not real governments or "not my government."

Not really surprising, we've all seen how much the tea party hates the USA, but interesting to see them finally explicitly embrace championing the anti-federalists. I would expect a slew of new books in the next few quarters running revisionist history on the leaders of anti-federalists as misunderstood heroes as well as revisionist history, probably 'authored' by Glenn beck on the Whiskey Rebellion and the tyranny of the federalists who used terrorism to crush the wonderfulness of the articles of confederation government.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lockesnow,

I've been saying the Tea Party are Anti-federalists for some time. This is not new. They just don't realize they are anti-Fedralists.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Lockesnow,

I've been saying the Tea Party are Anti-federalists for some time. This is not new. They just don't realize they are anti-Fedralists.

Scot,

Don't forget they're anti-thinking too.

[Paladin of Ice]

Lockesnow,

I've been saying the Tea Party are Anti-federalists for some time. This is not new. They just don't realize they are anti-Fedralists.

As locke was saying, the really interesting thing is seeing them embrace it so thoroughly.

I've thought for awhile that a lot of the far right wing dogma sounded like it longed for an Articles of Confederation type of government (for no goddamn reason as far as I can see, considering what a failure and mess the Articles were) but I'm actually surprised to see it becoming openly espoused and acknowledged. To say that such a government would be terribly out of step with the values, times, and voters of today is probably an understatement. I'm also dead sure it would be an absolute disaster for anyone living under it, hence why our much revered founding fathers trashed it so quickly.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Tried watching John Oliver's show, but all he wanted to do was bitch about Hobby Lobby. How dare they challenge the federal government!?!! How dare they run their business how they see fit!!??

So like a good lickspittle who wants to succeed at political comedy, Oliver sided with the powerful against those treasonous religious rubes, and against the first amendment. Good for the Court for ignoring the idiotic objections of people like him, or most of the people in this thread.

[Fez]

So like a good lickspittle who wants to succeed at political comedy, Oliver sided with the powerful against those treasonous religious rubes, and against the first amendment. Good for the Court for ignoring the idiotic objections of people like him, or most of the people in this thread.

You have things backwards. The Hobby Lobby case is a classic example of the powerful (large corporations) stamping down on the weak (their female employees), and Oliver is siding with the weak.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

hahahahaha, yes, political comedians must lick the boots of the Federal government, itself just a puppet dancing on the strings of that near-omnipotent lobby, big reproductive freedom, in order to succeed. Sounds truthy.

[Ramsay Gimp]

You have things backwards. The Hobby Lobby case is a classic example of the powerful (large corporations) stamping down on the weak (their female employees), and Oliver is siding with the weak.

"Stamping down" for not providing contraception? :lol:

At this point I would have just preferred a robust public option for healtchare, rather than the numerous authoritarian mandates being placed on private entities. I don't blame citizens or corporations one bit for using every avenue they can to escape such requirements

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ramsay,

I'd be more sympathetic if Hobby Lobby weren't a multi-million dollar corp organized like a family bakery.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

"Stamping down" for not providing contraception? :lol:

At this point I would have just preferred a robust public option for healtchare, rather than the numerous authoritarian mandates being placed on private entities. I don't blame citizens or corporations one bit for using every avenue they can to escape such requirements

Is it fun being that laughably wrong?