<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Like single payer?<br><br>Sunil<br><br><div>> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:58:35 -0700<br>> To: lfalen@turbonet.com; suehovey@moscow.com; kmmos1@frontier.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> From: lfalen@turbonet.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision<br>> <br>> It would be best if all benefits were portable and not tied to an employer.<br>> Roger<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> >-----Original Message-----<br>> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision<br>> >From: lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com><br>> >To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey@moscow.com>, "Kenneth Marcy" <kmmos1@frontier.com>, vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >Date: 07/12/14 08:56:04<br>> ><br>> >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.<br>> >I am busy hauling hay and do not have time to respond to any thing on the vis. for the time being.<br>> >Roger<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> >>-----Original Message-----<br>> >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision<br>> >>From: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey@moscow.com><br>> >>To: "Kenneth Marcy" <kmmos1@frontier.com>, lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com>, vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >>Date: 07/10/14 06:49:06<br>> >><br>> >>Roger's comment: I am not into<br>> >>> forcing anyone to do anything, with a few exceptions such as paying taxes. <br>> >>> Forcing some one to pay for the consequences of some one else's pleasure <br>> >>> is the opposite of separation of church and state. To claim otherwise is <br>> >>> Orwellian.<br>> >><br>> >>My take on it, and ultimately I believe most citizens will stand here: To <br>> >>allow an employer to deny an employee an otherwise guaranteed employment <br>> >>right, based on the employer's religious convictions, is a direct violation <br>> >>of the separation of church and state. And it isn't Orwellian, it should <br>> >>be a First Amendment Protection. If this decision and the injunction <br>> >>allowed Wheaton College are allowed to stand there will be little to keep an <br>> >>employer from denying other employment benefits. Of course, maybe this will <br>> >>move us closer to a single payer system not based on employment. That would <br>> >>be good.<br>> >><br>> >>Sue H.<br>> >><br>> >>-----Original Message----- <br>> >>From: Kenneth Marcy<br>> >>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:52 PM<br>> >>To: lfalen ; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >>On 7/9/2014 6:06 PM, lfalen wrote:<br>> >>> The SCOTUS decision was in favor of the separation of church and state. <br>> >>> This is not a disease. Why should someone else pay for the consequences of <br>> >>> your pleasure. Abstinence is only one option. I agree that not many will <br>> >>> use it. I listed others. If an Insurance Company wants to offer a birth <br>> >>> control policy, fine. If someone wants to buy it, fine. If some one wants <br>> >>> to provide it free, fine. I am not into forcing anyone to do anything, <br>> >>> with a few exceptions such as paying taxes. Forcing some one to pay for <br>> >>> the consequences of some one else's pleasure is the opposite of separation <br>> >>> of church and state. To claim otherwise is Orwellian.<br>> >>> Roger<br>> >><br>> >>Interesting. So, then, you are in favor of higher taxes on families<br>> >>with more children, right? Certainly those who have no or just one or<br>> >>two children should not be subsidizing those who have three, four, five,<br>> >>six, ... need the multiplications of the masses of the various pleasure<br>> >>promoting pulpits be repeated, begat after begat, yet again? To avoid<br>> >>Orwellianism certainly you would be in favor of removing a standard<br>> >>deduction for child number three, and the second standard deduction for<br>> >>child number four, and then adding to taxable income a standard<br>> >>deduction for child number five, and adding a similar amount for child<br>> >>number six, etc., etc., to the limits of the procreative prowess of the<br>> >>fruitful multiplicity, correct?<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >>Ken<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >>=======================================================<br>> >>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >>=======================================================<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> >=======================================================<br>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> > http://www.fsr.net<br>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >=======================================================<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> http://www.fsr.net<br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br></div> </div></body>
</html>