Comments on Cooperation with evil and setting the terms of engagementTypePad2013-06-07T13:44:42ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/06/cooperation-with-evil-and-setting-the-terms-of-engagement/comments/atom.xml/Joe commented on 'Cooperation with evil and setting the terms of engagement'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20191033aa035970c2013-06-11T17:24:54Z2013-07-03T13:37:08ZJoehttp://joejp.blogspot.comETA: There are positives to the single payer system, but on principle, it does not quite solve the problem.<p>ETA: There are positives to the single payer system, but on principle, it does not quite solve the problem.</p>Joe commented on 'Cooperation with evil and setting the terms of engagement'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201901d44263d970b2013-06-11T16:31:58Z2013-07-03T13:37:08ZJoehttp://joejp.blogspot.comI agree with the first comment and do not find the responses that try to differentiate convincing. U.S. v. Lee...<p>I agree with the first comment and do not find the responses that try to differentiate convincing. U.S. v. Lee to me applies. The case is specifically about taxation, but the principle goes further. And, why involvement with a single payer system paid by taxation as compared to involvement with an insurance system matters at the end of the day is unclear to me. Bottom line. </p>Jim D. commented on 'Cooperation with evil and setting the terms of engagement'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20191033937aa970c2013-06-11T14:18:58Z2013-07-03T13:37:08ZJim D.Winters has issued a rebuttal to this post: http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/garnett-san-diego-msw-responds<p>Winters has issued a rebuttal to this post:<br />
<a href="http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/garnett-san-diego-msw-responds" rel="nofollow">http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/garnett-san-diego-msw-responds</a><br />
</p>Edward G. Burton commented on 'Cooperation with evil and setting the terms of engagement'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201910332d56d970c2013-06-10T23:10:37Z2013-07-03T13:37:08ZEdward G. BurtonIt seems to me that nothing in the Affordable Care Act requires the employer to do more than furnish insurance....<p>It seems to me that nothing in the Affordable Care Act requires the employer to do more than furnish insurance. What the insured does with that insurance is not controlled by the employer. Whatever the employee may choose to do with his/her insurance, the same employee may do with his/her wages or salary. If paying the paycheck is not immoral, neither is providing the insurance which as to this question is in practicality indistinguishable from a raise in wage or salary.</p>
<p>If I am wrong, then I would love someone to show me exactly where in my reasoning the fault lies.</p>