All the more reason to work with them and inform yourself at the same time.

It sounds as though medicine is like everything else: you have a better experience when you take a little initiative and work _with_ the experts instead of being completely passive, waiting for someone else to do absolutely everything for you.

I propose the following term for those who really want this: mental obesity.

If by that you mean he was outnumbered, drastically out-spent, and idiotically complex laws were used to prevent him from even being on the ballot in many areas, then yes indeedy, the American people gave him a great big "fuck you". But I'm sure he got a fair shake.

There are *plenty* of monogamous, married couples who also wish to use birth control.

It reminds me of the mentality behind the idiotic prohibition of drugs. There is always a cover reason, the way it is sold to the public, but then there is the real and actual reason: this insane and insecure desire to tell other adult people how they should live.

I sincerely believe that ACA is designed to fail. It's a stepping stone towards the single-payer system that the progressives really want, only they know it would be difficult or impossible to directly sell that to the American people, so they use these drawn-out tactics. And in the meantime the insurance companies get a nice hefty kickback so you also have multibillion dollar industries behind its stated purposes, making it politically feasible.

Those who have never played and understood chess, never made multi-part long-term plans of their own, etc., are fairly simpleminded and think that politicians would never, ever, ever do things this way. That's one of the biggest reasons why Americans have the sort of government they have.

Government is the very prototype from which the rest learn the methods of control. Force is but one way to control and manipulate. For example, a favorite tactic the US federal government uses to manipulate the states requires no direct force at all. They tax the citizens of a state and then offer to give them their own money back if and only if they behave as desired. Few states can meet their budgets without this money and no state can simply print money the way the feds can. It makes them most malleable.

If there is such a society, it would be outside of US jurisdiction for sure. So no, a US court should have no sway there.

I know what you mean. I've read the Bible and couldn't find anything about contraception anywhere. Except for one guy who was directly commanded by God to impregnate a specfic woman for a specific purpose and decided to pull out ("spill his seed on the ground")... but there was nothing even suggesting that this should apply to everyone universally.

I wish they had such hang-ups about violence instead, and left sex alone. That might actually do some good in the world.

That's great, because the guy you replied to never said that they do. He said that the way you and I cannot opt out of paying for things that go against our beliefs (such as taxes that fund pointless wars) is not so different from the way religious organizations were being asked to pay for things that go against _their_ beliefs (such as insurance that covers contraceptives). The difference is, the Catholic Church has clout and most of the rest of us don't.

Please sharpen your reading comprehension skills.

You're absolutely right about how and why (government overstepping its bounds) health insurance and employment were ever coupled in the first place.

I just wanted to add, there is another factor compounding the problem. A corporate employer can buy health insurance wholesale. They can go to health insurers and say "we have 50,000 employees and want to buy insurance, what can you do for us?" That's bargaining power that an individual buying their own coverage simply doesn't have. That's why the prices for individual health insurance are so ridiculously expensive. That lack of alternative is why employees don't resist the current system.

Understand, I think the whole "conservative vs. liberal" program of thought is a narrow self-limitation designed to make sure that who can get on the ballot and actually win an important election is easily controlled by monied interests. A spectrum of this type is illustrated by two points and a line because it is literally one-dimensional thinking. The fact that there are additional points between the two extreme points is supposed to lend the appearance of depth and give people something to argue about while their nation goes down the shitter.

Having said that, I notice that most (key word: "most" - for you reactive types) of the "I don't like what you think, therefore you are EVIL and I am so much better and smarter than you!" sort of behavior comes from those who identify themselves as liberals. Many (key word: many) of them seem eager to make everything into a personal matter rather than debating the principles behind their beliefs. They really do seem insecure and childish at times. I suppose that's why the emotional "we mean well but never really define what that means because fairness!" rhetoric of what Americans call liberalism appeals to them.

That's in addition to the naive and sometimes stupid perspective of anyone who thinks "left vs. right" has any real meaning.

A simple request: if you are functionally illiterate, emotionally volatile, or for any other reason have difficulty comprehending what words like "most" and "many" mean and why I might use them instead of using words like "all" and "every", do me a favor: fuck off and grow up. It's really tiresome.

Religious people need to broaden their horizons and realize that no one likes to be forced to do anything. When the thing you want to do does not impose a burden on anyone else and involves only consenting adults, it is wrong to apply force. Period.

To say that this issue is a religious one and this other issue isn't, that's exactly the kind of division that enables so many shitty laws of all kinds, not just within the realm of health insurance.

The difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Quakers is that the Catholics are an extremely powerful, politically well-connected, multinational, ridiculously wealthy and well-funded organization (you know, just like Jesus advocated! oh, wait...). They used to make or break kings and to this day, they have more wealth and influence than many nations.

It's not surprising the Catholics can create a big controversy that government actually listens to, while the Quakers cannot.

As someone uselessly pointed out, it's about contraception but your point stands. It's a worthy question and it has an answer that is not difficult to verify. They don't trust their own people because large organizations, all large organizations, are run by control freaks. It doesn't matter if the control is delivered in the name of an article of faith, in the name of king and country, in the name of making money, etc.

Control freaks are not people who are content to put forth their own views. They have no true confidence in the power of their own message. They certainly have no respect for your natural right to make decisions for yourself and then reap the consequences (separating the former from the latter causes insanity). What they prefer is to remove as many alternatives as possible to _make_ you conform to their vision of How It Should Be.