[Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

[Sunil]

Like single payer?

Sunil

> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:58:35 -0700
> To: lfalen at turbonet.com; suehovey at moscow.com; kmmos1 at frontier.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> From: lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
> 
> It would be best if all benefits were portable and not tied to an employer.
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
> >From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>, "Kenneth Marcy" <kmmos1 at frontier.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
> >Date: 07/12/14 08:56:04
> >
> >Health care is not a right, No where in the Constitution is it listed as such. Particularly   not one that an employer must provide. If they want to do so that should be their call.
> >I am busy hauling hay and do not have time to respond to any thing on the vis. for the time being.
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
> >>From: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>
> >>To: "Kenneth Marcy" <kmmos1 at frontier.com>, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>Date: 07/10/14 06:49:06
> >>
> >>Roger's comment:   I am not into
> >>> forcing anyone to do anything, with a few exceptions such as paying taxes. 
> >>> Forcing some one to pay for the consequences of some one else's pleasure 
> >>> is the opposite of separation of church and state. To claim otherwise is 
> >>> Orwellian.
> >>
> >>My take on it, and ultimately I believe most citizens will stand here:  To 
> >>allow an employer to deny an employee an otherwise guaranteed employment 
> >>right, based  on the employer's religious convictions, is a direct violation 
> >>of the separation of church and state.   And it isn't Orwellian, it should 
> >>be a First Amendment Protection.  If this decision and the injunction 
> >>allowed Wheaton College are allowed to stand there will be little to keep an 
> >>employer from denying other employment benefits.  Of course, maybe this will 
> >>move us closer to a single payer system not based on employment.  That would 
> >>be good.
> >>
> >>Sue H.
> >>
> >>-----Original Message----- 
> >>From: Kenneth Marcy
> >>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:52 PM
> >>To: lfalen ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
> >>
> >>
> >>On 7/9/2014 6:06 PM, lfalen wrote:
> >>> The SCOTUS decision was in favor of the separation of church and state. 
> >>> This is not a disease. Why should someone else pay for the consequences of 
> >>> your pleasure. Abstinence is only one option. I agree that not many will 
> >>> use it. I listed others. If an Insurance Company wants to offer a birth 
> >>> control policy, fine. If someone wants to buy it, fine. If some one wants 
> >>> to provide it free, fine. I am not into forcing anyone to do anything, 
> >>> with a few exceptions such as paying taxes. Forcing some one to pay for 
> >>> the consequences of some one else's pleasure is the opposite of separation 
> >>> of church and state. To claim otherwise is Orwellian.
> >>> Roger
> >>
> >>Interesting.  So, then, you are in favor of higher taxes on families
> >>with more children, right?  Certainly those who have no or just one or
> >>two children should not be subsidizing those who have three, four, five,
> >>six, ... need the multiplications of the masses of the various pleasure
> >>promoting pulpits be repeated, begat after begat, yet again?  To avoid
> >>Orwellianism certainly you would be in favor of removing a standard
> >>deduction for child number three, and the second standard deduction for
> >>child number four, and then adding to taxable income a standard
> >>deduction for child number five, and adding a similar amount for child
> >>number six, etc., etc., to the limits of the procreative prowess of the
> >>fruitful multiplicity, correct?
> >>
> >>
> >>Ken
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>=======================================================
> >>List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>               http://www.fsr.net
> >>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>=======================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >=======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >=======================================================
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140712/afbad2fd/attachment.html>