Previous 21 - 30 Next
On an issue like this, how do you have a discussion? Ireland wonders about the business practices of a Christian Scientist, an issue that has NEVER presented itself and is actually answered within the Hobby Lobby decision. She keeps talking about women's health needs being denied because of this decision, yet cites no medical authorities to support her claims (she can't). Like so many on the left, she has no idea that Hobby Lobby supports contraceptive services and that Catholic organizations, which should not have to offer contraceptives for birth control because of Federal law, still allow for the use of contraceptives when they are actually needed for basic health needs (which does not include any of the forms of contraception not provided by Hobby Lobby). Facts don't matter to this person.
I know some on the left will claim right-wing judicial activism with these decisions, however, these are solid, we'll-crafted decisions applying the law to the cases at hand. No more, no less. If only more cases were decided in this manner.
Management is represented through our elected officials. Work harder to vote new & different representatives into office.
Be fair. Insurance companies are not raising rates just to "protect their line." Insurance companies, by law, need to maintain certain levels of reserve assets/cash in order to make sure they can cover the expenses of the people they insure. If the pool these companies insure uses more medical care, not only do the healthcare expenditures increase, but so too do the reserves these companies need to maintain. Also, there will be an increase in staff needed to process the additional claims and clients created by Obamacare, meaning the non-medical cost of healthcare also increases.
What a nice story. Made my day.
Remember Eastwood's empty chair? The intellect at work for us. I'm not sure which is worse, the empty chair or Reid's inability to ignore the chair's persuasive power.
Interesting thought. More likely, though, that a positive ruling for Obama, here, also means limiting the powers of the Supreme Court as well as Congress. Even the Wise Latina can figure this one out. Imagine the impact of Brown V Board of Education if Eisenhower refused to back the Supreme Court.
Of course this was the ruling. It is obvious to anyone reading the Constitution. Currently, Obama is not interested in following the Constitution but expanding executive authority. No news in this.
I do know of someone who attended his classes. He described Obama as competent but little else. Obama's lectures consisted of a reciting of the facts of the case, the decision, and the dissent, little else. It was very straight forward with little to no commentary or discussion. As I described several of my undergrad classes at UIUC to my friend, it was readily obvious to both of us that my classes were similar in scope but far greater in depth. Nuance and intellectual curiosity seemed to be lacking from Obama's lessons.
In response to:

My Free Speech College Entrance Exam

Striker11 Wrote: Jun 24, 2014 1:06 PM
Tolerance allows you to look past who is saying something and listen to what they are saying. Adams' idea is designed to do that, no more, no less. You seem to be ignoring the purpose of his idea. Adams' funny little test understands that their are divisions. He heads right into the response pattern of the intolerant which is to deny the other side's ability to hold an opinion and discuss it freely. You seem unwilling to acknowledge this. Why?
Previous 21 - 30 Next