I suppose that Jon's is the 64 billion dollar question. I think the answer would depend on the degree to which the single payer system was exclusive. If one could still purchase supplemental coverage (for heart transplants, say), then I assume the US could treat abortion as special. But if single-payer really did in all private insurance, then I assume that abortion would have to be covered.
Sandy Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 6, 2014, at 1:32 PM, "mallamud" <malla...@camden.rutgers.edu> wrote: > > Why wouldn't the Congress ban coverage of abortions under a single-payer > system? > Jon > >> On 2014-07-01 22:22, Levinson, Sanford V wrote: >> I do not understand why the complicity with evil rationale doesn't >> apply to taxpayers ( like Thoreau). The argument against is either >> that it would unduly burden the state to set up a c.o. system for tax >> protesters or that it would invite strategic misrepresentation. Are >> these sufficiently "compelling interests" to overcome undoubtedly >> sincere (and correct) beliefs that one's taxes are supporting >> oppression at home and around the world (as well as a lot of good >> things). As Uwe Reindhart points out, the craziest American >> exceptionalism is that workers are dependent on their employers for >> medical insurance. Hobby Lobby is another good argument for >> tax-financed single-payer coverage. >> >> Sandy >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:48 PM, "Steven Jamar" <stevenja...@gmail.com >> [13]> wrote: >> >>> The court accepts without inquiry the assertion that the complicity >>> with evil theory is the problem that leads to the substantial >>> burden. It merely accepts the claim that the adherents cannot comply >>> because of the complicity theory. It then bootstraps that there >>> would be costs of non-compliance. >>> At the core the court buys the argument that an attenuated >>> complicity can be the basis of a substantial burden. >>> >>> Sent from Steve's iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 1, 2014, at 12:20 AM, Arthur Spitzer <artspit...@gmail.com >>> [10]> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm puzzled by Steve Jamar's statement that yesterday's decision >>>> "arguably requires all courts to simply accept the religious >>>> adherent's claim that the burden is substantial." The majority >>>> analyzed whether the burden was substantial and found it was >>>> because the ACA would impose millions of dollars of financial >>>> penalties on the plaintiffs if they did not comply. Slip op. at >>>> 32. I don't think the Court tells us whether a $100 fine would >>>> have been a substantial burden. I'm curious what in the opinion >>>> Steve points to in support of the proposition that courts may not >>>> evaluate the substantiality of a burden, especially considering >>>> that the Court did evaluate that question, as an empirical matter, >>>> in this case. >>>> >>>> Art Spitzer >>>> >>>> WARNING: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Steven Jamar >>>> <stevenja...@gmail.com [7]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Brown eliminated the constitutional doctrine of separate but >>>>> equal -- in the Brown decision just for education, but it was >>>>> applied to all racial classifications. The 1964 Civil Rights Act >>>>> accomplished much more, of course, but the Brown decision >>>>> matters a lot. >>>>> >>>>> So it is with numerous decisions. Hobby Lobby's acceptance of >>>>> the complicity with evil theory in this attenuated context and >>>>> its ruling that arguably requires all courts to simply accept >>>>> the religious adherent's claim that the burden is substantial, >>>>> could dramatically change the landscape of RFRA interpretation >>>>> federally and by example at the state level. These underlying >>>>> principles could also be restricted by later decisions or >>>>> expanded. It is a very troubling expansion of RFRA beyond what >>>>> was intended originally. But that is hardly unique to this bit >>>>> of legislation. >>>>> >>>>> I think it is a very bad decision, but not even in the top ten. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 [1] >>>>> Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual >>>>> Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org [2] >>>>> Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 [3] >>>>> http://sdjlaw.org [4] >>>>> >>>>> "For all men of good will May 17, 1954, came as a joyous >>>>> daybreak to end the long night of enforced segregation. . . . It >>>>> served to transform the fatigue of despair into the buoyancy of >>>>> hope." >>>>> >>>>> Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1960 on Brown v. Board of Education >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu [5] >>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>>>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw [6] >>>>> >>>>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be >>>>> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read >>>>> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and >>>>> list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to >>>>> others. >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu [8] >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw [9] >>>> >>>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be >>>> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read >>>> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and >>>> list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to >>>> others. >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu [11] >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw [12] >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed >>> as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that >>> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can >>> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] http://crab.rutgers.edu/tel:202-806-8017 >> [2] http://iipsj.org >> [3] http://crab.rutgers.edu/tel:202-806-8567 >> [4] http://sdjlaw.org >> [5] mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> [6] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> [7] mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com >> [8] mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> [9] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> [10] mailto:artspit...@gmail.com >> [11] mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> [12] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> [13] mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
