Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23078)	2/18/2012 12:13:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Sometimes optics are the real issue, if you get the optics ok, then you get agreement. I don't think that's the case here. Also I don't think the government is looking for agreement, they want capitulation, perhaps they will negotiate the terms of surrender, but that's about as much agreement as they are looking for. As for the comparisons to tax payers, with tax payers paying its a general levy on the country, not directly on the church organizations. That doesn't make it unobjectionable, its still objectionable, just not as much. With the "insurance companies paying" it really is the church organizations paying. The first is some difference in reality. The 2nd is optics only. Also the church organizations are, or at least are mostly, non-profits, so in there particular case they wouldn't be paying even indirectly if the tax payers pay. (Which doesn't resolve the issue totally, but it does for them, and they are the main objectors.) Really the only good way to deal with objections like this, is to keep the government out of it. When the government gets involved in making the decisions on such issues, it has to either trample on one side or trample on the other (well if you consider having to pay for your own contraception to be trampled on, which is very dubious for multiple reasons).