Hobby Lobby Ruling Should Move Us Toward Single Payer Health Coverage

Any number of GOP pundits have condemned the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) as the start of the slippery slope to single payer health care in the United States. To that I can add, I only hope!

But as part of yesterday’s Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom (I hope the company shows up at services on Sunday), the Court suggested that contraceptive coverage could be provided any number of other ways. Like having the insurance companies pay for it, similar to the arrangements with non-profit religious organizations. Or the government could provide coverage. Or…what a minute!

Or the government could provide coverage! So let’s take that next whoosh down the slip and slide and provide universal single payer contraceptive coverage for everyone…just flat out everyone!

It’s not unconstitutional…it’s a tax…the Supreme Court already has decided that!

Share:

Related Articles

2 thoughts on “Hobby Lobby Ruling Should Move Us Toward Single Payer Health Coverage

  1. SCOTUS absolutely stuck the Repubs +×@# in the mud with thay part of their ruling……..but you know, yoi absolutely have to know, that those same slick willies will re-interpret that portion of their own ruling down the road, denying what they have WRITTEN. Reminds me of an saying: I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure if you realize, that what you heard is not what I meant.

  2. Along the line of your single-payer solution, I see this exempting of privately held corporations from, “taxes,” because of closely held “religious beliefs,” as the decision which then opens the door a bit to almost a converse thinking of TAXING, all “churches,” and “official,” religious organizations as closely held families with particular religious beliefs).

    Not infringing on the “establishment,” clause of the US Constitution but merely taxing any families upon establishment.

    Open to other thoughts on this, it was simply an idea that popped up in my head. Equal protection clause of the Constitution seems to be being violated here, as basically one particular held religious belief appears to trumping other religious beliefs.

Comments are closed.