Single payer advocates want a mandate to provide care to all Americans. Not a mandate to provide profit to private insurers.

who provides the care could still be private for profit providers. There will still be private medical device manufacturers and pharma and suppliers.

Single payer doesn't actually mandate anyone to provide care. If you want to use that terminology, EMTALA really does mandate emergency rooms to provide life saving stabilizing treatment to anyone who needs it.

and a government run non-profit universal health care system. Perhaps too much kool-aid and hearing false talking points has confused those who apparently think they are the same thing.

That's all.

I think a mandate to buy a crappy overpriced product from a provide corporation is not a good mandate.

But SS is a mandate, and the sky didn't fall when it was instituted, and most people accept it as a benefit today.

Personally, I think an option that allowed people to buy into Medicare would have been a better step in the right direction. Hard for people (except the vested interests) to object to something voluntary. And then, down the line, if people realized they'd get coverage at a better price and terms, it could move towards single payer.

The question is ... if a public option or Medicare-for-all plan, paid for by taxpayers, contained a directive to pay for all women's birth control ... would this directive also be challenged and overturned by the Court on the basis of "religious belief"? The answer is yes, it would be the same ... probably worse, because it would affect the financial interests of far more self-proclaimed "religious" people than just the business owners.

This is about women's health and women's rights, and about the application of government laws to all parties (not just those who "believe" in them).

There area already many elements in taxpayer funded public health programs that some kind of zealot could challenge in a worst case scenerio.

Heck, a Christian Scientist could theoretically sue the government because any medical treatment goes against their religious values.

Or the Christian Fundies who believe that "mindfulness meditation" opens people up to satanic influences (some do believe that) can object to any wellness programs that teach that for stress reduction.

But short of that-- which all public programs run the risk of -- a "public option" could skirt that because it is optional. Peopel who have objections would not have to buy into it.

It was always just going to be one choice among the many that people are MANDATED to get to cover themselves. And the regulations that applied to the commercial insurance plans would also apply to the public option. The public option changes nothing with regard to the requirement for insurers (public or private) to provide contraceptive coverage.

And if it had been available to the employees of Hobby Lobby, the employees could opt for that over the company plan.

It's like unicorn-rainbow-fairy-princess land versus ... well, reality.

I'm not interested in engaging with people on this level. It's like me complaining about the state of my house and saying, "if I only had a million-dollar estate with a gardener and maid." Well, I don't have that, so I will have to deal with the yard work and cleaning. It's sad, but true.

I'm not saying single-payer is not someday achievable, but it's not the hand we've been dealt at the moment, and it's probably a fair long ways off. And the only way we're going to get there is by improving what we've got, step by step. There are no magic ponies.

And yes, you are correct: single-payer is nothing but mandate, and paid for through taxes, so don't act as if today's horrific ruling would have been obviated by a different system.

you hit all the bases -- ponies, unicorns, reality.....

You can disagree without being disagreeable.

But could you overreact any more? Clearly my use of those cliched terms was intentional, and therefore not "cliched" in the end at all: they were being used to a purpose. Sorry if you don't like it. Was it the girly aspect of those terms that offended you? (If so, just "man up" and don't be afraid of the castle/fairy language. Words can't hurt you.)

I guess only certain people with certain views are allowed to be disagreeable. If you disagree with them, then you are somehow labeled "disagreeable." It's a puzzlement.

As for the "girly" stuff....well, I'll just let that go without comment.

But overall, I just think the debates -- no matter how heated over the subject -- are more interesting and constructive wothout disparaging people personally (or collectively) for the views they hold.

I'm not immune from that myself (as the previous post proved) but in general.....