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 (23107)	2/18/2012 2:36:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I think it would, even if perhaps only a modest gain. It would be a limitation on government's ability to impose against parts of civil society. My most important objections to this are 1 - The libertarian objection against an increase in government control and imposition. 2 - The constitutional one of government exceeding it authority 3 - And the pro-life one, since its trying to impose more than just payment for actual contraception but an additional reason is strengthening the pillars of civil society vs. the government. That might be considered a "fusionist" reason since it combines cultural conservative and libertarian objections (unless your enabling non-government actors to use new strength to impose on others, then it would be anti-libertarian but its not the case here, but would be if say this was an attempt to outlaw or restrict the sale of birth control) The concern about how it would be portrayed is mostly one of optics. As I've said before optics are normally a huge deal for me, but I think the optics would be positive for cultural and religious conservatives, and mildly positive for libertarians.