Yeah Matt! Before the evil government stepped in, we were "free" to go to the hospital's emergency room and get mediocre care from stressed-out, sleep deprived practitioners who don't know doodily-do about us and our health histories. And unless our pockets were deep, we were then "free" to be left stone broke and hounded by debt collectors. And if our medical issue was real serious, maybe even foreclosure as an added bonus.

Gee thanks for the clarification! I feel so much better now. - AIW

Asside from the health and political implications of this botched SCOTUS decision is the imediate impact on population. We, as a responsible and enlightened species need to take seriously the problem of overpopulation and act now to encourage pregnancy planning as much as possible. We need only look as far a China to see the consequences of irresponsible family management.

Quote Huffington Post:Overpopulation remains the leading driver of hunger, desertification, species depletion and a range of social maladies across the planet. Recently, a spate of op-ed essays have filled the pages of some of world's top newspapers and blogs -- from the Guardian to the New York Times -- challenged this view, declaring that overpopulations is not, nor has ever been, a problem. To make progress in the most recent round of the age-old debate between technological optimists and Malthusian realists, it's important to establish criteria and characterize consequences.

Quote unomaha website:Problems associated with overpopulation. China has the highest population in the world, encompassing 1.2 billion or twenty one percent of the world's population (P.R.B. 7). China faces serious social and economic problems associated with overpopulation in the years to come. Overly populated regions lead to degradation of land and resources, pollution, and detrimental living conditions. The Chinese government has tried to find a solution to the problem of increasing population with moderate success.

China's population control policy. The Chinese government has used several methods to control population growth. In 1979, China started the "one child per family policy" (Juali Li 563). This policy stated that citizens must obtain a birth certificate before the birth of their children. The citizens would be offered special benefits if they agreed to have only one child. Citizens who did have more than one child would either be taxed an amount up to fifty percent of their income, or punished by loss of employment or other benefits (Hilali 10). Furthermore, unplanned pregnancies or pregnancies without the proper authorization would need to be terminated (Hilali 9). In 1980, the birth-quota system was established to monitor population growth(Jiali Li 563). Under this system, the government set target goals for each region. Local officials were mainly held responsible for making sure that population growth totals did not exceed target goals. If target goals were not met, the local officials were punished by law or by loss of privileges.

Other population control methods. Other methods that have been used by the Chinese government to restrict rising population totals include birth control programs and economic changes. In the early '80's, sterilization target goals were set and made mandatory for people who had two children (Hilali 19). At its peak in 1983, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and abortions amounted to thirty-five percent of the total birth control methods (Hilali 20). In addition, the economy changed from primarily one of agriculture to industry (Hilali 22). The government used this to its advantage; spreading the view that economic growth would hinder population growth (Hilali 22).

We now have a chance to encourage and enable people to make responsible choices with their bodies, families, and future. If we do not take advantage of this oportunity, and proceed as right wing "Christians" would have us, the future we all have to look forward to is already painted for us on the streets of Beijing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-tal/overpopulation-is-still-t_b_3990646.html

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/geog1000/Sidebar/ChinaPop.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQN_vWhzPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-meaGqg-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKhsPO6yYko

Google Images For Overpopulation

mathboy -- methane, CH4, breaks down naturally into what?

OU -- You certainly would. However, the people paying to clean your house would have more lawyers than the person cleaning the house. Now, if wehad more lawyers than the insurance companies the US healthcare system might be functional.

AIW -- I think it is relevant for you to use some interesting numbers. 50% of all bankruptcies are cause by health related issues. In 50% of those cases they had health insurance. It seems to me that condition is a dagger in the heart of entrepreneurship.

Quote ChicagoMatt:What if the government passed a law that said employers MUST provide guns and ammo to their employees, for national defense reasons?

ChicagoMatt ~ More hypothetical hogwash! Instead of speculating on ridiculous scenarios why not just focus on the fact that this debacle never would have happened with single payer. The government is the best ticket to handle health care--no one else. The government has a special provision built into it that prevents it from making a law that respects any establishment of religion. That law forces the government to provide health coverage equally to everyone without any discrimination for any reason. Because of the way the government is set up and the constitution is written, were health care services every to be perverted by some obscene special interest group We the People would be able to pull in the reigns quickly with our justice system. It ain't perfect, however it is bound by the letter of the Constitution; and, even in this miscarriage of justice it is that stipulation of the Constitution, together with the top heavy bureaucracy of the for profit health care system and its unholy alliance with corporations and all other manner of special interest groups that made the problem possible.

Don't get me wrong. In a way I'm glad all this crap is hitting the fan. It's the only way to motivate this country to switch to single payer. Natural evolution at it's best sometimes feeds on conflict and hardship.

Quote ChicagoMatt:The law says they only have to provide it. You don't have to take it. You can find your own or, like a lot of people, get covered under your spouse's plan.

And they don't have to provide you with a job in the first place. That's one of the biggest problems I have with Progressives - they never seem to be satisfied. They want jobs, so they get them. But those jobs don't pay enough. Or they don't have enough benefits. Or they pollute too much. Or they don't provide maternity and paternity leave. Or the CEO makes too much. Or they're outsourcing some of their positions. And so on...

I wonder, after being on this blog for two months, and listening to Thom and other Progressive radio shows for about four years, if any Progressive has actually experienced happiness and contentment. All I see are complaints. Whatever is done, it's never good enough. Something tells me if they ever got single-payer healthcare and a $15-per-hour minimum wage, they would still just want more. It never ends. The entire platform is built on the notion that "Your situation isn't fair, and people with more than you owe you..."

ChicagoMatt ~ Wow! What kind of a CHRISTIAN are you anyway? Obviously you and I believe in a completely different God. Please keep your 'God' away from mine. Well, I'm not even going to waste my time with any kind of a response other than that to your selfish, apathetic, callous and clueless tirade. All I'm gonna say is, Hey everybody, read this, and get a load of this guy!

AIW -- Have you ever tried going into the chat room and asking SUEN if you can exchange email addresses securely with other posters? Palin probably can probably do it. However, if he tells us how, then no one would be secure.

L Bliss -- Having read your blogs, I have a hard time guessing why this site would not welcome you with open arms.

flyguy8650 -- How do you reconcile what SCOTUS clarified today with what you said? They said their ruling could be applied to all 20 types of contraceptives. I think this ruling fits in with your libertarian views. They said the 1% have the freedom take all the money (see above) from the 47%.

Quote OU812:Give me your source for 50,000 deaths/year for those who can't afford health care.

OU812 ~ The popular source for that data is this Harvard study entitled, "New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage" and is dated September 17,2009:

Havard Study

Quote Article:The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

Quote Article:Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

“The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance,” remarked David Himmelstein, study co-author, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance.

“Even this grim figure is an underestimate — now one dies every 12 minutes.”

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

The belief that a fertilized egg is human, with rights equal to the person carrying it, is a patriarchal notion that needs to go bye-bye.

And, if someone kills a pregnant woman, that person can be charged with double homicide.

And, NO ONE is saying a woman can't have these pills. The law says that closely-help companies (small family-owned businesses that grew larger but stayed in the family) don't have to pay for it via their ACA-required insurance packages.

what matters to me is freedom; the freedom of all people to live their lives as they see fit,

nothing could be more private in anyone's life and therefore, it is not for their employers (or the government) to restrict in any manner, shape or form.

As taxpayers, we are always forced to pay for things we don't believe in: imperial war mongering and subsidies to fossil fuel, to list just two examples. Gee wouldn't it be nice if we could pick and choose where our tax money went!

And, like you and I, Hobby Lobby has zero say in what its tax dollars are spent on.

We really need to break this connection between healthcare and employment

Didn't the ACA make that connection law? Before that, employers provided health insurance as a bonus, to attract employees. But individuals were always free to go get their own damn insurance. It's Obama and his law that forced this issue.

An egg is no more a human than a seed is a tree. Get over it.

At what point in your existence did you become a "human" with full legal rights? When you were born? You were still completely dependant upon others for your survival. Are the severely disabled or comatose also not humans, since they cannot survive on their own either?

You're kind of stuck on this "men are out to get me" anti-patriarchy theme. But there might be a little truth to that. Maybe men are jealous that we don't ever get the option of deciding someone's life or death legally.