Jump to content
^ Short version follows here:
Paragraph 1 - Expresses contempt for (implicitly) lazy Medicaid recipients followed by a PearlY strawman not in any way related to issue at hand.
Paragraph 2 - General hysteria.
Paragraph 3 - Maybe confusion concerning premiums versus overall healthcare costs, maybe sophistry, maybe a chance to foam at the mouth about Democrats.
Paragraph 4 - Hysteria, coupled with a willful decision to ignore Medicare and the VA system (despite some failures), followed by more hysteria.
^ I'll give other readers the CliffsNotes version: You hate Obamacare, you loved your prior healthcare insurance and you're mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
The "herd" stuff is your usual hysteria and you seem to miss the point that insurers and those evil CMS types might be able to use a combination of the amount charged and outcome achieved to rein in healthcare costs - but that obviously doesn't interest you because you didn't much care about the runaway healthcare costs under the old system (your needs were met), resent any government attempt - including informing the public about costs and outcomes - to effect change, and really don't care that a more efficient healthcare system might be able to serve those who are presently either underserved or un-served.
We get it, it's all about PearlY. Thank God others take a broader view.
"Lobbying behind closed doors, Washington’s largest health insurance company persuaded Republicans in the state Senate to gut a widely supported bill that aimed to reveal health care price and quality information to consumers."
Doesn't that sentence pretty much summarize everything that's wrong with our state and federal governments? This isn't a Republican versus Democrat observation; it's an observation about the systemic - albeit legal - corruption in our governments.
What I find amusing is that the letter writer apparently thinks that Republicans (none of whom are offered in trade) would fit in just fine with a former KGB, oligarch loving, country invading, freedom destroying Vladimir Putin . . . but come to think of it, except for the KGB part, that's pretty much the Republican platform.
And apparently some think history started on January 20, 2009.
I have no issue with a pastor refusing to marry a gay couple if that is the position of the church he or she represents; if it's personal, it seems to me the pastor should follow the teachings of the church and perform the ceremony.
I don't think a public official, such as a judge or justice of the peace, has any right to refuse to discharge his or her duties based on personal beliefs.
Finally, if we took this entire conversation back to the civil rights era, your position - let each business decide for itself who it will serve - would have brought the march toward civil rights for blacks to a screeching halt. That's not a result I would have wanted to see.
I wouldn't say GWBush destroyed the country, but he certainly damaged it deeply.
I don't know what you would call a "moral principle" so I'll just explain my reasoning and you can label it anything you wish.
My analysis is based on an individual-societal cost benefit analysis. In evaluating any particular act, one must weigh the costs and benefits to both the affected individual(s) as well as the costs and benefits to society as a whole.
In the case of compelling Betty to be a florist (or any more critical line of work, say, cancer researcher) the cost to her is enormous and the benefit to society is speculative. Society would be depriving her of the right to live her life as she chooses, for the questionable benefit of obtaining her services in a line of work she doesn't want. The results are likely to be poor, it would require draconian measures to compel her compliance, and the loss of her individual freedom would be enormous. The costs to both Betty and society far outweigh the benefits.
Conversely, allowing Betty, having chosen to open a business to the public, to discriminate on the basis of fixed* personal characteristics, "benefits" only Betty, and harms both the group(s) she's targeted with her bigotry as well as society as a whole. Prohibiting such discrimination deprives Betty only of her venal desire to be a bigot, while assuring society as a whole that its members will not be deprived of respect and dignity based solely on what they are. The costs to Betty (she can't act on her bigotry) and society (it must enforce the ban on discrimination) are far outweighed by the benefits resulting from a more civil, just and peaceful society.
If being denied her desire to act on her bigotry is too much for Betty to stomach, she is free to pursue some other line of work. In short, society establishes the framework in which Betty does or doesn't open a shop, and Betty is free to decide what she wants to do.
Of course, Betty in establishing her business is free to set her hours (there goes your 3am issue) and how she expects her customers to conduct themselves while in her establishment - shoes, shirts, no guns, etc. - so long as she doesn't use her hours or expected conduct as a proxy for her bigotry.
You, while discussing these issues, ignore the interests of society and elevate the rights of the individual to virtually unassailable heights. I take a more balanced approach.
*I struggle a bit with obesity - which, over time, is a changeable personal characteristic. I think I settle on a policy of non-discrimination, unless the person's obesity directly affects the delivery of the goods or services.
You didn't answer my question concerning whether you would defend Betty's right to discriminate against blacks or latinos on "religious" grounds. I gather you would.
In fact you apparently would defend her right not to serve the mentally or physically challenged, or war veterans, or new mothers, or ugly people, or teenagers, or people who are overweight, or people who are armed, and so on, so long as she claimed it was religiously motivated. Correct?
Once again you set up a straw man. Of course we can't compel Betty to be a florist if she has her heart set on driving a cab. No one is making any such contention.
However, if Betty has opened a floral business catering to the general public, then she should serve the general public and not be permitted lawfully to discriminate against anyone for any of the silly reasons you mentioned or more, likely, because a potential customer is gay, or perhaps part of a mixed race couple, or for other not so innocent reasons for discrimination.
Would you also defend Betty's right not to serve blacks or latinos if she claimed a religious basis for that position?
Last login: yesterday
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.