Hello:


Sandra Fluke is a prostitute who is having so much sex she can't pay for contraceptives.

It's clear that Limprod knows NOTHING about a woman's reproductive organs.. He thinks that the more sex a woman has, the more birth control she needs.. He's confused. Maybe he was absent that day in biology when the birds and the bees were discussed.. Or maybe his right wing parents kept him home that day.

Does HIS ignorance represent the right wing? I always figured ALL adults knew how babies were made. No, huh? Maybe that's because I went to a LIBERAL school where I actually GOT an education..

So, given the evidence that right wingers are CLUELESS about a women's reproductive system, should they be making laws about it?

Excon

Does HIS ignorance represent the right wing? Let me ask Bill Maher and get back to you.

The comment was based on her statement of many students not being able to afford contraceptives; of what the costs would be over the duration of their education at Georgetown. I'm not seeing where his comment shows a lack of knowledge regarding reproduction. In the event of purchasing condoms, for example, the more sex she engaged in, the more contraceptives she would indeed need to purchase. Of course with the use of something like the pill, that would not be the case. If she is going to engage in sex on a regular basis, she would need to purchase and use contraception on a regular basis.

I suppose you may be thinking his comment to mean that simply the act of frequent sex requires more birth control to be used regardless of what sort of birth control method... such as needing more pills than usual simply because she has frequent sex. That would make it appear that he is misinformed.

This was one man's attempt to voice his opinion and make a point, that many in both parties felt was handled terribly wrong. As with many who deal in politics, they don't always think before they speak, and certainly not everyone will agree with individual opinions or how they are expressed. Most definitely there are plenty who feel this way about Limbaugh on a regular basis.

His point being that taxpayers should not have to pay for contraceptives; that because it is a personal decision to engage in sex, it should be a personal responsibility to take proper precautions and accept the consequences.

Others feel that by providing contraception, unplanned pregnancies would decrease even more than they already have, and that it is proactive in decreasing costs for the health care that would be associated with such pregnancies.

Aw, c'mon. He was just trying to be funny: "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir."

Bill Maher told me to ask Ed Schultz.

BTW ;your typical law degree from Georgetown is $45,000 annually . Can someone again tell us why she should have her contraception paid for ?

What was lost on Limprod and the right, the testimony of Ms Fluke was not about having sex, but a medical need, and saying she is paying 45 G's and can afford her own contraceptives is ingenuous, as I doubt she is paying for it.

For sure you ain't paying for her pills, that's what insurance premiums are for. Bad enough the right supports all the extractions of loot from us through for profit institutions, but you also coddle the fools with the insult that add to the injury.

But he apologized after his bosses boss told him to cool it. That's right, the Mitt guy and Bain own the company Limprod works at and we all know it ain't PC, its money that makes those calls, and they ain't about to lose a dime because of the loose lips of a fat winger.

Somebody explain to me how you have no children to show for 4 marriages?

That is really not your concern is it ? Why is it that the left doesn't want the government in the bedrooms but wants the government to pay for what goes on in the bedroom ?

Look ;y' all keep calling it a women's health issue ;and the testimony of Ms Fluke indicated she thought it was . Well by all means ;if a medical condition is diagnosed to justify the prescription then by all means let it be covered . If not ;then you can't convince me that her expenses were anything but for recreation.

but you also coddle the fools with the insult that add to the injury.

Would that be like the insults that Chris Matthews made during the last campaign about Evita saying that her success was because Bubba is a womanizer [She may have gotten The Des Moines Register's endorsement the other day, thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher ]? Or perhaps you are speaking of the men of MSNBC ;a cesspool of misogeny .

There is no comparison between the rantings of Limprod, and the editorial comments of MSNBC!

You guys would love there to be a comparison. Ask Mitt. He knows there ain't.

Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a Right Wing Slut. What's the difference ? Oh except that Schultz has no ratings. David Schuster said that the Clintoons were pimping their daughter .

Hello again,

Look, both side call names.. Is it even? No. So what?

What I want to know is, do right wingers know how babies are made? You think I'm kidding.. I wish I was, but I actually DON'T think they do.

excon

Won't bother to replying to the question . The real point is that Ms Fluke used examples to address specific medical conditions . For that usage I have no problem with prescriptions being covered . That is not what the President's plan entails so her testimony was irrelevant to the issue of the discussion.
I will not defend Rush since his show is pretty much in line with the stuff Bill Mahrer routinely spews .

Won't bother to replying to the question . Hello tom:

Look. You can tell me. We're old friends... I come from a LIBERAL family. My mother sat me down and talked to me... I live in a LIBERAL city where they taught sex ed in school. I thought what happened to ME, happened to everybody...

Now, I'm not sure. I don't believe Limbaugh was misspeaking. I think he TRULY doesn't understand the female body. I don't know what happened to CONSERVATIVE children when it came time to learn the birds and the bees.. I have a feeling that their parents did NOT speak of such things, and did NOT let their children participate in biology class that day. Yes, we were NOTIFIED what was going to happen on THAT DAY, so SOME kids COULD be kept home. I'm sure they weren't the LIBERAL ones. In fact, I'll bet you replied to ME the same way your parents replied to YOU when you wanted to know what's going on.

Go ahead, tom. Reassure me.

excon

I can't speak to Limbaugh's education. You can ask him. What I do know is that in his 'apology' (first line) he wrote of the illustrating the absurd with absurdity.
Your generalization is equally absurd .

Won't bother to replying to the question . The real point is that Ms Fluke used examples to address specific medical conditions . For that usage I have no problem with prescriptions being covered . That is not what the President's plan entails so her testimony was irrelevent to the issue of the discussion.
I will not defend Rush since his show is pretty much in line with the stuff Bill Mahrer routinely spews .

Hi Tom,

It may well be the case that the testimony is irrelevant to the President's plan, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to the discussion since the discussion is actually about this particular individual's comments.

Producing counter examples may prove the left engages in the same type of tactics. But, no it is not irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Tut

Your generalization is equally absurd .Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry.. I'm NOT going away.. There WERE people who were NOT allowed to attend biology class to LEARN about sex.. That is SO.

Given that my FACTS are correct, I want to KNOW what happened to those people.. It's a LEGITIMATE inquiry. My feeling, is that you don't want to discuss it because you KNOW that I'm right... The BULK of the Republican party has NO CLUE about how a woman's body works.. I BELIEVE it. Convince me I'm wrong.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry.. I'm NOT going away.. There WERE people who were NOT allowed to attend biology class to LEARN about sex.. That is SO.

Given that my FACTS are correct, I wanna KNOW what happened to those people.. It's a LEGITIMATE inquiry. My feeling, is that you don't want to discuss it because you KNOW that I'm right... The BULK of the Republican party has NO CLUE about how a woman's body works.. I BELIEVE it. Convince me I'm wrong.

excon

Hi Ex,

I don't really know but perhaps it works this way.

In this day and age the majority of males know how a woman's biological reproductive system works ( regardless of the political party they are associated with).

Perhaps it is a problem of too many males in a position of power who think they know what it is like to be a woman, or what a woman should like. Perhaps policies in relation to woman's sexuality has a male bias.

Perhaps if woman were the dominating force in politics things would be different.

Just a thought.

Tut

It is a ridiculous proposition and I will not engage in it further .

In this day and age the majority of males know how a woman's biological reproductive system works ( regardless of the political party they are associated with).Hello TUT:

Where, prey tell, WOULD these people learn about it?? You ASSUME they did SOMEWHERE. I don't.

Oh, that doesn't mean they COULDN'T. The information is available. But, I STILL don't think a conservative would avail himself of the information.. Oh, I believe he'd LEARN about SCREWING... But, learning how to SCREW, isn't learning about reproduction.

excon

Hello TUT:

Where, prey tell, WOULD these people learn about it??? You ASSUME they did SOMEWHERE. I don't.

Oh, that doesn't mean they COULDN'T. The information is available. But, I STILL don't think a conservative would avail himself of the information.. Oh, I believe he'd LEARN about SCREWING... But, learning how to SCREW, isn't learning about reproduction.

excon

Hi again Ex,

I think I see what you are getting at.

A specified group within society had a lack of biological knowledge in regards to female reproduction.

This particular group is in a position of political power

This groups policies in regards to woman's health would reflect this lack of biological knowledge.

You could argue something like this. However, I think the problem is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to isolate a particular group and claim they have a lack of biological knowedge.

Tut

It is a rediculous proposition and I will not engage in it futher .Hello again, tom:

You DO keep engaging in it, only to say that it's wrong.. You offer NOTHING to support your supposition, which is VERY untom like. Me theenks you don't want to discuss it, just like yours, and the Limpone's parents, didn't want to discuss SEX.

I won't push further, but your refusal to engage me, says a LOT. I'd LIKE to be disabused of the fact that the right wing is CLUELESS when it comes to how a woman's body works. Maybe Steve will do it.

excon

I think the problem is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to isolate a particular group and claim they have a lack of biological knowedge.Hello TUT:

I agree. But, we've GOT a particular group isolated right here on THESE pages. If only they'd engage me on this issue, but they seem reluctant. I don't recall them being so reluctant to engage me on OTHER left wing loony ideas. Their silence is deafening.

excon

Hello TUT:

I agree. But, we've GOT a particular group isolated right here on THESE pages. If only they'd engage me on this issue, but they seem reluctant. I don't recall them being so reluctant to engage me on OTHER left wing loony ideas. Their silence is deafening.

excon

Really ex? You think we - or Rush - don't understand the female reproductive system? You keep flip flopping from the Libertarian I used to know to the shrieking liberal that thinks conservatives are too stupid to know anything. I've engaged you on this for what 3-4 weeks now?

It simply boils down to this, you think I should be forced to pay for every woman's birth control because they're a "protected class." I think we should keep the first amendment and women should buy their own contraceptives.

I think it's a shame that the women's empowerment movement keeps finding ways to turn women into helpless victims that can't do anything on their own.

The rights of other people is not the strength of the right wing. Only their own. The same guys hollering about female medical stuff are the same ones who blame feminism for males being out of work.

The only way they can have power and value is to make sure everyone doesn't. Ask Santorum. When the pope says NO pills, that means everybody.

It simply boils down to this, you think I should be forced to pay for every woman's birth control because they're a "protected class." I think we should keep the first amendment and women should buy their own contraceptives.


OR, we can continue to support the children of welfare. What's less expensive?

Pro life only cares about babies, not the children or person they will become. That's why they argue about when life begins, not where it ends up!

Pro life only cares about babies, not the children or person they will become. Thats why they argue about when life begins, not where it ends up!

I totally agree with this sentiment. Couldn't give you a greenie though Tal. Although I am a L&D nurse, that doesn't necessarily make me pro-life.

Pro life only cares about babies, not the children or person they will become. Thats why they argue about when life begins, not where it ends up!

Tal, that's the most ignorant straw man argument I think I've ever seen. How many World Vision, Compassion Intl, Save the Children, Manna Ministries, etc. children do you sponsor every month?

Do you volunteer as a Big Brother, Boy Scout leader, Sunday School teacher, youth league worker, etc. Who is forcing the church to either have leftists ideology forced on them or close orphanages, feeding centers, hospitals, clinics and homeless shelters?

Don't feed me that we don't care about "the children or person they will become" line of BS. My wife and I support 4 children every month that we've never met and I'd care for every child in need personally if I could do so. I do my part, do you? Perhaps if every liberal that throws out that pathetic line would put their money where their mouth is there would be no more children in need.

Correction, make that put "their OWN" money where there mouth is instead of taking MY money to buy contraceptives for some woman who can't control her sexual urges.

I work at a religious hospital, so I can understand where Tal is coming from. These people don't see the fetus as (excuse me for sounding harsh) a parasite on the mother until the time of viability, but they see it as a human from the time of conception. They don't care that this baby is born to a 13 year old child and will most likely grow up in the "system" to be a gang member and again pregnant at the age of 13. But rather that it is a "life" from the time the sperm meets the egg.

These people do not realize that that zygote/fetus cannot survive outside of the womb until at LEAST 24 weeks of gestation and then, most likely, will have long lasting permanent physiological and/or mental disabilities for the rest of it's life draining us of our tax dollars to pay for medical/occupational/physical therapies.

If you'll allow another observation from the uneducated...
So then it's simply a matter of economics ? I see... Wouldn't tubal ligation for all welfare recipients or vascectomies be much more economical than distribution of the pill ;which aren't without short an long term adverse side-effect ?

Margaret Sanger should have a day of honor;a national holiday , along with President's day ,for her eugenics solutions .

Wouldn't tubal ligation for all welfare recepients or vascectomies be much more economical than distribution of the pill ;which aren't without short an long term adverse side-effect ?


I agree, however there is a certain age limit. This limit is dictated by locality. Where I am (I can't speak for vasectomies) a woman has to be 24 (I believe) and have had at least 2 children. After which she can have the tubal done at the tax payers costs. The reasoning behind this is if she has a tubal at the age of 19, after one child, her circumstances may change and that she wishes to have children 10 years later with a man she is actually married to. A tubal reversal is controversial in that it may or may not work and is much more expensive.

The depo-provera shot is considered long acting and can take as long as 18 months to a year for contraception to happen once the woman begins treatment. It is an intramuscular injection given once every 12 weeks. It has a low failure rate compared to the birth control pill. Then there is the Mirena IUD that lasts 5 years and is no longer effective after the 5 year mark.

The bigger issue here is that I have to congratulate the Obots for ginning up this phony controversy . It is a big diversion from the real issues facing the nation. FACT ;there is no shortage of supply of inexpensive contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnencies .

Again ;as I've mentioned already in this thread ; I have no issue with the medication if it is being prescribed for a specific condition that a doctor diagnoses . However ;the Catholic Church and any other religious institution has a right to object to this heavy handed action by the administration,of requring that they cover contraception for the purpose of birth control . It is in complete violation of the 1st Amendment .

There you guys go, in the face of scientific facts you turn to opinion and name calling.

.. They don't care that this baby is born to a 13 year old child and will most likely grow up in the "system" to be a gang member and again pregnant at the age of 13...

I most definitely care. Perhaps if this culture and Planned Parenthood would stop pushing sex on our children we'd have fewer 13-year-olds giving birth.

I most definitely care. Perhaps if this culture and Planned Parenthood would stop pushing sex on our children we'd have fewer 13-year-olds giving birth.

Care to elaborate? Remember, this is my profession. I'm not going to agree nor disagree (my legaleze coming out), but I see it more the media pushing sex on our children.

I have posted extensively on Planned Parenthood, but this (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hooking-kids-on-sex-graphic-new-vid-report-shows-how-planned-parenthood-is-creating-future-customers/) will do for now (though Youtube keeps pulling the plug on the video). I don't think PP has any business tell 10-year-olds how to masturbate.

Again ;as I've mentioned already in this thread ; I have no issue with the medication if it is being prescribed for a specific condition that a doctor diagnoses .Hello again, tom:

Then you'd be AGAINST prescribing Viagra for recreation purposes.. How come you don't talk about that?

excon

Noted leftist, feminist, Democrat politician Donna Brazile says there should be no government role (https://twitter.com/#!/donnabrazile/statuses/176081251583803392) in birth control. I agree.

Then you'd be AGAINST prescribing Viagra for recreation purposes.. How come you don't talk about that?

Of course ! Why haven't I mentioned it ? No one asked me.

you turn to opinion and name calling.


Tal... I refer you to the 1st sentence of this op.
It's clear that Limprod knows NOTHING about a woman's reproductive organs..

I believe you used that "name calling " in your 1st reply too.

Oh dear: Hooking Kids on Sex II - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7XR9yH2ETk)
That's satire right? Please tell me this is satire...

So you think PP teaching 10-year-olds how to masturbate is a good thing?

But they aren't.

That video is full of logical fallacies made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Escpecially for those that think sex and our bodies are bad and dirty.

Limprod is a radio clown, a ratings chaser, who righty political types are scared to death of. He is fair game. And no way do you get to use inflammatory rhetoric and superlatives and I don't. Plain and simple.

Her we go again, we can debate facts and somehow get a consensus, but don't get mad at someone that you throw rocks at, and they throw back. Especially when you frame a debate about business policy as a freedom of religion issue and fail to recognize when the church jumps into the public domain of business, then it has to play by business rules.

Its like the freedom of speech allows you the right to say what you please, but doesn't entitle employers to keep you working if you feel religiously bound to not make him some money. The church doesn't pay for female pills, she pays through contractual agreement to have premiums deducted from her check like all of us do, so she pays for a service that a group rate provides for those employees.

Employees cannot by law be bound to the same constraint of a religious organization, or their flock, because they are not a part of a flock but are employees with certain rights and guarantee.

The law defines that role, not the church. Fee for service is an accepted way of doing business, and the church is clearly overstepping the boundaries of church, and state by attempting to blur the lines between religion, and business.

Like the pharmacist who works for a pharmacy. He is bound by law to sell the products the employer has at the risk of his job! Or find another job right?


So you think PP teaching 10-year-olds how to masturbate is a good thing?

Jokes on you if you believe the clearly adult satire as a statement of fact.

Limprod is a radio clown, a ratings chaser, Why is your name calling OK ,but mine isn't ?


when you frame a debate about business policy
Interesting you say that ;because the way I see it ,the biggest winner in this whole thing is Big Pharma. Is this payback by the President for their support for Obamacare ? Note the President doesn't qualify his mandate by saying they must offer generics .

The answer for the Church is clear. If you force them to either surrender their morals or to stop providing insurance they will chose to stop providing insurance. That works very well for the Obots because their goal is to destroy private insurance and have everyone in a single payer socialist system .

You can stop the pretext of women's rights to health care choices . That is bunk . Or are we to believe that the left thinks pregnancy is a disease ? Geesh!. and this thread questions the rights understanding of reproduction!

But they aren't.

That video is full of logical fallacies made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Escpecially for those that think sex and our bodies are bad and dirty.

I'm not commenting on the whole video, I asked a specific question. It has nothing to do with anyone thinking "sex and our bodies are bad and dirty". That sir is a logical fallacy.

I'm not commenting on the whole video, I asked a specific question. It has nothing to do with anyone thinking "sex and our bodies are bad and dirty". That sir is a logical fallacy.Which fallacy is it?

You're the smart guy, it's in my answer so you figure it out.

You're the smart guy, it's in my answer so you figure it out.
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies)

And your point is what, you can't figure it out? You assume because I don't think it's smart for PP to teach 10 year-olds how to masturbate with or without graphic images that would get a grown man arrested, that I think "sex and our bodies are bad and dirty". You can't get there from that.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice list karma and I see all of them in play on this site

Nice list karma and I see all of them in play on this site
Agreed. It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Current Events has never been the place for logical discussion. For an example of what it *could* be you can check out any thread at Slashdot.org. Anyone using false arguments based on fallacies gets modded down by their peers. There are some very learned people there.

A fallacy could be seen as a mistake in reasoning or inference and I think this is what some people are pointing out. The problem is that any list of fallacies presented is not exhaustive. What also makes it difficult is that some statements can contain more than on fallacy.

Perhaps we could look at the different types of fallacies as belonging to particular sub-species. Dog is a sub-species. So if something looks like a dog, acts like a dog and smells like a dog it is probably a dog. It belongs to this sub-species.

By the same token if a statement appears to be ambigious ( a type of broad deffinition of a particular fallacy) then we might apply the same criterion. If it looks ambigious, appears to be ambigious then perhaps we need to invistigatge the possibility that this statement is a specific type of fallacy that involves ambiguity.

Don't know if this is of any help.

Tut

Here's a fallacy . Sandra Fluke is not the typical co ed from Georgetown U she is portrayed as .In fact she enrolled there specifically to challenge their medical coverage . She is in fact an activist for the cause. She is also an activist for LGBTQ rights ,advocating that sex change operations should also be a "right" covered by employer provided insurance.

So Rush is wrong in his satirical description . He apologized for his words . But when speaking of fallices ;make sure you include the left's fallacies in their portrayal of Fluke.


Ps... do you think the President will drop Bill Maher as a $million donor given his frequent derogatory characterizations of women ?

Here's a fallacy . Sandra Fluke is not the typical co ed from Georgetown U she is portrayed as .In fact she enrolled there specifically to challenge their medical coverage . She is in fact an activist for the cause. She is also an activist for LGBTQ rights ,advocating that sex change operations should also be a "right" covered by employer provided insurance.

So Rush is wrong in his satirical description . He apologized for his words . But when speaking of fallices ;make sure you include the left's fallacies in their portrayal of Fluke.



Hi Tom,

This is not an example of a fallacy. This is an example of someone who is a plant undertaking an undercover operation. It would also be an example of dishonesty

Tut

Here's a fallacy . Sandra Fluke is not the typical co ed from Georgetown U she is portrayed as .Hello again, tom,

You're right... Yeah, I read where female "activists", don't have the same women parts as NON activists do.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

A college student activist, who would have thunk it? Seems to be a lot of those lately.

Hello again, tom,

You're right... Yeah, I read where female "activists", don't have the same women parts as NON activists do.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

You guys would consider her an "astroturf" activist if she were a conservative. Among other, less printable things.

Indeed .It doesn't come close to terms like teabagger ;or that urban dictionary definition of 'Santorum' .

A real fallacy I think is the notion that churches can control insurance company product that they sell.

Another fallacy, and just MY opinion, is the notion that churches pay for abortions or contraceptions. They don't as a matter of facts. The insured pays a premium for a policy. The church subsidizes a policy. The free market at work.

Its no fallacy to me that the right is undermining the affordable care act, as insurance companies yet again raise the cost of premiums, and the nation has a lower class that can't afford them. Its no fallacy that the money goes to the 1% faster a lot faster than it trickles down to anyone else. Its no fallacy that investors have not invested in JOBS, at a fast enough rate, while most banks, companies, and individuals benefit from the law to make safe money they extract from the economy as a whole.

Its no fallacy that republicans have a social agenda that cuts their own safety net while enriching those that need it least. Its no fallacy that republicans have angered females by minimizing their unique needs. Its no fallacy that republican state governments have focused more on overturning settled law, and turning the clock back on social gains, and education than they have in creating solutions to the needs of the many, who live in their state.

See, no name calling.

A real fallacy I think is the notion that churches can control insurance company product that they sell. Another fallacy, and just MY opinion, is the notion that churches pay for abortions or contraceptions. They don't as a matter of facts. The insured pays a premium for a policy. The church subsidizes a policy. The free market at work.

And yet the left actually believes if advertisers don't boycott Rush that means they endorse his insult of Fluke.


Its no fallacy to me that the right is undermining the affordable care act,

Wow, you saw right through us. I don't recall anyone on the right trying to hide their disdain for Obamacare or their intent to see it go down in flames. I don't to undermine it, I want to obliterate it.


as insurance companies yet again raise the cost of premiums and the nation has a lower class that can't afford them. Its no fallacy that the money goes to the 1% faster a lot faster than it trickles down to anyone else.

And as the new Medicaid rules force out small pharmacy owners (http://amarillo.com/news/texas-news/2012-03-04/new-medicaid-rules-hit-small-pharmacies), but who cares about the little guy? Everyone wants to keep lining the pockets of the 1 percent that will drive the small, home town pharmacy owner out of business, right?

As for the rest of your response, blah, blah, blah same old tired nonsense.

And yet the left actually believes if advertisers don't boycott Rush that means they endorse his insult of Fluke.

The power of the free market, what more could the conservatives ask for, oh wait I forgot, Rush is the right wing god, and untouchable. Good luck with that!


And as the new Medicaid rules force out small pharmacy owners, but who cares about the little guy? Everyone wants to keep lining the pockets of the 1 percent that will
Drive the small, home town pharmacy owner out of business, right?

New Medicaid rules hit small pharmacies | Amarillo Globe-News (http://amarillo.com/news/texas-news/2012-03-04/new-medicaid-rules-hit-small-pharmacies)


State law prohibits the companies from requiring patients to use mail-order pharmacies, but the more money the management companies save, the more they make because they are allowed to keep the savings, up to a certain level.

So these companies will likely encourage Medicaid patients to use their services, rather than local pharmacies.

Stephanie Goodman, the spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Health and Human Services, said state law requires the management companies to recruit enough pharmacies to make sure all patients have access to a drug store within 15 miles of their home, and a 24-hour pharmacy within 70 miles.

That's the state of Texas, you know Rick and the boys. AND the free market. What more could a conservative ask for??


Wow, you saw right through us. I don't recall anyone on the right trying to hide their disdain for Obamacare or their intent to see it go down in flames. I don't to undermine it, I want to obliterate it.

Yeah you rather be a slave to the ones who keep raising your premiums and kicking you off if care is to expensive, or you reach your limits.

Of course you have no stomach for a resolution that works for us both. Like most conservatives if you don't want it I shouldn't either huh? That's a very obvious FALLACY!!

Let's not pile fallacy upon fallacy

Let's not pile fallacy upon fallacyHello clete:

That sounds very dirty...

excon

No ex

Tal, if I'm forced out of my coverage into the Fed's plans I no longer have choice. I'd rather take my chances in the market than be a slave to unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

Just yesterday I found a licensed, legitimate online American pharmacy where I can buy my meds cheaper than with my insurance copay. I like the market, I prefer government playing the role of referee in the market instead of being our nanny. Why does that not work for both of us?

P.S. The only people who consider a mere human to be a god are Obots (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/).

I prefer government playing the role of referee in the market instead of being our nanny. Why does that not work for both of us?

I totally agree. But lets be clear, the affordable care act is a combination of government, and private insurance to promote broad coverages and slow the rising costs of both premiums, and prescriptions. A step down from the single payer system many of us rather have. As long as you have employer based health insurance then you are tied to what your job provides you, and you have no unions to balance what ever the employers prefer to buy. At least some of us.

Single payer takes those cost off your boss, and lets you take it with you no matter where you work, or choose to move to, and that's the part I like. It's the partnership gov/private, that supplies the safety net, standardizes premiums, and makes thing flexible for those that are insured. Plus the boss can pay me more money without the burden of carrying insurance, and the best news is for conservatives is... wait for it... churches would not be hindered by laws that now require every EMPLOYER to provide insurance.

Making the current debate of freedom of religion, non existent. Now why can't THAT work for us both?

You know as well as I do that the contraceptive mandate is just the first step in diminishing our rights. I will not budge in my opposition to Obamacare and a single payer system. You should thank me for defending your rights.

So you are now saying that the way for the Church to retain it's rights is to agree to a system where the government has total control . How does that address the choice issue Speech raised ? Surrender to the state to retain liberty ?
I don't like employer provided coverage either .I'd rather the benefit go towards wage or pension.
But my solution would be for people to self insure if they wish to ;get rid of silly regulations and mandates that drives up the costs and let each person negotiate on their own.

so you are now saying that the way for the Church Hello again, tom:

I thought you guys were opposed to politically correct speech. Let's call a church, a church... And, let's call a hospital, a hospital.. I could call my house an office building, but it ain't. Now, I know you WANT to call a hospital a church - not because you BELIEVE a hospital is a church, but because it's something you can use to challenge Obama.

I promise you, though, your freedom of religion has NOT been impacted.

excon

PS> I'm going to copy this post, because I'm SURE I'll have to use it again...

And religion is not confined by an edifice ;and the state can't tell a religion that they must confine themselves to 'worship' mass or prayer services . The ministries of the church are very much a part of what it means to be of that faith.

I guess I should copy this because I keep repeating it. The left demands we put aside 'religion' and practice our faith... then ties our hands.

This thread is a case in point, I defend the right of the unborn to life and someone eventually argues that we don't care for the child after it's born. At the same time you're telling us we can't practice our faith, as in caring for children in need unless we violate our beliefs by bowing to the state.

While you guys are busy being double-minded on such matters we're putting our money where our mouth is.

as in caring for children in need But you're charing money for it, it's not a charity, it's a business.

I don't know about other hospitals . The local Catholic Hospital in my area is a non-profit .

Non profit doesn't mean people don't get paid, or they don't charge for services. Non profit doesn't mean free. A free trader, and capitalist like yourself should know that!

They have to meet their expenses ? No ? Oh wait... that would be a government run institution that doesn't have to concern themselves with expenses.

But you're charing money for it, it's not a charity, it's a business.

I'm charging anyone anything.

Non profit doesn't mean people don't get paid, or they don't charge for services. Non profit doesn't mean free. A free trader, and capitalist like yourself should know that!

Do you guys have any NEW arguments? These have all been addressed ad nauseum and I'm not going to respond to any more posts implying I don't know what a word means.

They also pursue collection for non payment. Nobody begrudges them anything so what's to defend. But there would be no hospital if they didn't pay doctors and nurses, and janitors. What they work for free? They are catholic volunteers?

I don't think so. They have to attract employees like any other business, with wages, AND benefits. That's how they get equal protection under the law, so saying they can spread their religious beliefs to the public sector and get SPECIAL protection is absurd.

I tell you what--try getting qualified employees without benefits as you see it, especially females, and see how that works for your religious hospital.

Why should catholic hospitals be exempt from labor laws? Or any religious body that is fee for service?

I tell you what--try getting qualified employees without benefits as you see it, especially females, and see how that works for your religious hospital.

I don't think there are any staffing issues at our local hospital.

Not sure you are aware of this... but as of now... there is NO mandate for them to offer ANY medical insurance. That is why they call it a "benefit " . Just so you know that there are no labor laws mandating that .

This is a new requirement that the President and his commisar Sebillius ginned up to create a phony campaign issue .

Do you guys have any NEW arguments? These have all been addressed ad nauseum and I'm not going to respond to any more posts implying I don't know what a word means.

Hi Steve,

I am sure you know what a word means. I am sure you know what a lot of different words means.

The problem is that you and me are not in a position to argue in front of a bunch of judges as to exactly what a word means.

Smart lawyers will put forward convincing arguments as to what a word means. If this is unsuccessful they will argue that a particular word should carry a different meaning for legal purposes.


You, me, and most people, can argue that something is unconstitutional because the words don't reflect true meaning of the statement. We can argue this until the cows come home but in the end (rightly or wrongly) what is constitutional will be decided by the judges.

If it turns out the lawyers for the current administration are smart to put forward a convincing judicial arguments then word(s) will mean for legal purposes what every they say it means.

For legal purposes a corporation will be considered a person under certain circumstances. This idea of corporate personhood is a lot nonsense. However, more importantly it is legal nonsense and as far as the courts are concerned this is all that matters.

Tut

Factualy wrong, as this mandate for clarity of benefits started under Nixon, and continues to this day so don't make this out to be left wing thing, or a new mandate under Obama. This was when the GOP, wanted universal healcare, and a mandate for every one to participate. Before the extreme right got into the act, and the republicans were sensible, and logical.

U.S. Department of Labor - A Summary of Major DOL Laws (http://www.dol.gov/opa/aboutdol/lawsprog.htm)


Employee Benefit Security

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates employers who offer pension or welfare benefit plans for their employees. Title I of ERISA is administered by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) (formerly the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration) and imposes a wide range of fiduciary, disclosure and reporting requirements on fiduciaries of pension and welfare benefit plans and on others having dealings with these plans. These provisions preempt many similar state laws. Under Title IV, certain employers and plan administrators must fund an insurance system to protect certain kinds of retirement benefits, with premiums paid to the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). EBSA also administers reporting requirements for continuation of health-care provisions, required under the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) and the health care portability requirements on group plans under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

I would say Tal you are suffering from snakebite (COBRA) probably in the hippocket

No snake bite here Clete, just giving the facts, or is that dry Aussie humor showing?

Tal ;you can't quote a Nixon regulation as a right wing thing. This is the same Nixon who was very much into government control over everything [something you cal " sensible, and logical"].As I recall back then the Dems did not like such power ;at least not in the hands of a Republic.

And you definitely cannot argue that a brand new national mandate that clearly violates the 1st amendment is something that has been established since the 1970s .


Yes ;under Federal Law IF an employer offers medical coverage it has to comply with certain Federal requirements. It does not mandate that an employer must offer the coverage .

No snake bite here Clete, just giving the facts, or is that dry Aussie humor showing?

Hey Tal you got it in one

tal ;you can't quote a Nixon regulation as a right wing thing. This is the same Nixon who was very much into government control over everything [something you cal " sensible, and logical"].As I recall back then the Dems did not like such power ;at least not in the hands of a Repubic.

And you definitely cannot argue that a brand new national mandate that clearly violates the 1st amendment is something that has been established since the 1970s .


Yes ;under Federal Law IF an employer offers medical coverage it has to comply with certain Federal requirements. It does not mandate that an employer must offer the coverage .

Mandate - support from electorate: the authority bestowed on a government or other organization by an electoral victory, effectively authorizing it to carry out the policies for which it campaigned.

Obama ran on health care, so you can say the people mandated his mandate, despite the semantics you righties have presented. The supreme court will decide if its constitutional or not. Until then your assertion of clearly is just an opinion.

Woman's reproductive health care is a requirement for insurance companies, and by law, all employers with so many employees must offer insurance.

The issue before SCOTUS is can government mandate health insurance for all its citizens. Not whether it violates the churches first amendment rights, and the accommodation that has you righties drawers in a bunch is nothing more than a federal adoption of state law that already exists.

The number of states adopting these exemptions allowed by law, is expanding, not shrinking, I might add. But then this is a court that says corporations are people too, so we wait and see.

Hello again,

Let me examine this PC stuff a little further... I think the birth control pill is MEDICINE. I think it's medicine because your doctor has to prescribe it, and you buy it from the pharmacy, where they KEEP it from you until you've identified yourself... I don't think it could be ANYTHING else, BUT medicine.

Therefore, IF it's MEDICINE, it SHOULD be covered by HEALTH insurance.

excon

I don't know what plan you have . Mine ? There are many medicines that are not in the insurance company's formulary that are not covered... even if the doctor prescribed it .

Um, yeah, I already covered that before. No insurance company covers every medication, and your unelected, unaccountable Obamacare bureaucracy is going to do the same thing, decide what treatments they're going to allow. I thought you already knew how that worked.

They even go further under this unconstitutional mandate .They demand that the church or the insurance company that supplied their insurance plan provide them for "free" .

they even go further under this unconstitutional mandate .They demand that the church or the insurance company that supplied their insurance plan provide them for "free" .

Hi Tom,

I guess that's what happens when a government wants to introduce a universal health care plan. Under your system of government the only way this can be achieved is through 'back door' methods.

Tut

Hi Tom,

I guess that's what happens when a government wants to introduce a universal health care plan. Under your system of government the only way this can be achieved is through 'back door' methods.

Tut

"transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." -Barack Hussein Obama

Hello again,

Let me switch gears here... If you took the past several incidents, the church backlash, Santorum's stand on contraception, the Blunt amendment, the defunding of PP by Komen, the Limprod incident, the 400 bills in congress LIMITING abortion, and you lumped them all into ONE category, you could reasonably call it a WAR ON WOMEN..

No?

I think the Dems have picked that up.

excon

Yeah that's what the left hopes the debate is defined instead of 1st amendment free exercise issues ;and the power of the Federal government to mandate a product or service get purchased by individuals.

You really think the Komen group ;an organization dedicated to cure breast cancer is waging war on women ? Chuckle.

yeah that's what the left hopes the debate is defined instead of 1st amendment free exercise issues ;and the power of the Federal government to mandate a product or service get purchased by individuals.

You really think the Komen group ;an organization dedicated to cure breast cancer is waging war on women ? chuckle.

I don't think the organization in general wanted a war, or controversy, but a few of them(1) at the top had a specific agenda and got called on it, and now they are gone. That war is over.

Ex, we didn't ask for any debate about contraception, no one planned on banning contraception, contraception was the furthest thing from our minds. My wife has a full time job, I have no intention of ever keeping her barefoot and making my breakfast. In fact, I do most of the cooking and dishes, I do my own laundry and ironing. I SERVE her, so let's get this conservative sexist crap off the table.

George Stephanopoulos pimped for Obama's coming mandate to inject this irrelevant subject into the debate, which is NOT about contraception. Yet you've been a tool for the left that few weeks telling us a woman's 'healthcare' is none of our business, while making it EVERYONE's business by supporting a mandate to make me pay for it. I can't account for your contradictory views there, it baffles me.

It is in fact a war on the first amendment, not a war on women. I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink.

ex, we didn't ask for any debate about contraception, no one planned on banning contraception, contraception was the furthest thing from our minds. My wife has a full time job, I have no intention of ever keeping her barefoot and making my breakfast. In fact, I do most of the cooking and dishes, I do my own laundry and ironing. I SERVE her, so let's get this conservative sexist crap off the table.

George Stephanopoulos pimped for Obama's coming mandate to inject this irrelevant subject into the debate, which is NOT about contraception. Yet you've been a tool for the left that few weeks telling us a woman's 'healthcare' is none of our business, while making it EVERYONE's business by supporting a mandate to make me pay for it. I can't account for your contradictory views there, it baffles me.

It is in fact a war on the first amendment, not a war on women. I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink.


It baffles me too.

American history shows corporations waging an increasingly successful war against 1st and 14 amendment rights. Yet, this is conveniently overlooked. It's all right for corporations, but not government?

Tut

Some people Tut, have a vested interest in a weak central government, and a government fearing population. Its like the debate over regulations and tying them to jobs instead of seeing its corporation making money and being legally unaccountable when things go wrong. Think BP! Think AIG!

What I don't get is what's behind an ordinary citizen wanting a weak government that cannot protect, or ensure the security of citizens from corporate greed? I just don't get it?

Where is my free viagra?

Chuck are you suggesting women are clueless?

Hello wingers:

Free isn't the issue.. It NEVER was.. FREE is how the right wing TWISTED the issue to suit them. If you paid attention, you'd KNOW that. Instead, you take the EASY way out. You listen to bigots and fools.

The issue IS, and ALWAYS was, should the government mandate that insurance companies cover woman's health. Really. There ain't nothing FREE about it...

Over to you, wingers..

excon

I heard the President call it "free" .He plainly called it "free"

Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation's leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.
Obama delivers remarks on contraception insurance coverage | In Obama's Words | The Washington Post (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/928/)


And you call it the rights 'war on women ' when in fact it's the lefts war on liberty... in this case specifically.. religious liberty.

I think it showcases and brings to the forefront the massive religious hypocrisy. They gladly use the birth control in droves but will raise a stink about it on "moral" grounds. It is to laugh.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not here to defend Obama. I'm here to tell you what is going on, no matter WHO thinks it's NOT going on.

The issue IS as I described it - NOT how you wingers describe it. I guess you DO that because you KNOW you can't WIN if you tell it like it is... I'm used to it. That's why I'm here.

excon

And you call it the rights 'war on women ' when in fact it's the lefts war on liberty ....in this case specifically ..religious liberty.

If you mean the churches attempts to make laws based on their doctrines you got that right brudder! If they cannot control their own congregation then for darn sure they have NO right to control me!

You talk of religious freedom but what you mean is less freedom for actual, real people. You want absolute power for the church to do as it will. I DO NOT!

You cannot expect the church to make economic policy for the country, the state, OR the individual. Or use religion as a tool for taking away the free choice of individuals to pursue their own happiness. Even if the government backs off, the states have already limited church doctrine to affect private business through exemptions by a growing number of state policy makers.

YOU know the rules, sue in the courts! The states have won their case, and set precedent for the fed to win theirs.

Just because you say religious freedom, doesn't mean it is. So sue and find out!

No what I really mean is the lefts constant attempt to impose collective universalism on a very diverse country . Either there is freedom of religious conscious or there isn't .I think there is based on 1st Amendment guarantees. You ;you believe the government is the final arbiter on religious conscious .

No I think in this case the federal policy is but a duplication of the majority of states policies. 4 more states, and it meets the lawful status of what it takes to amend, and ratify the constitution to include religious exemptions.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what's constitutional, and what's NOT! That's what you always say. So we agree, AGAIN.

Either there is freedom of religious conscious or there isn't Hello again, tom:

I don't know how you guys confuse this... You HAVE freedom of religious conscience. You just can't IMPOSE it on me. The Blunt Amendment would have done that exact thing. It would allow ANY employer in this great land of ours to DECIDE, based on HIS own morals or RELIGION, to IMPOSE those RELIGIOUS matters ON his employees... He could decide that he doesn't like mixed marriage, and decide NOT to cover employees who do that...

And, YOU supported this piece of GARBAGE... What about MY religious freedom to be FREE from people like you?

excon

You just can't IMPOSE it on me. On the contrary.. it is Obama that is imposing values contrary to the Catholic church's values on them .No one is imposing them on YOU .
I have not come out in favor of the Blunt Amendment ;and it would not have been proposed if the President wasn't making the ridiculous mandate in the 1st place. So put your straw man away.

tal. The whole point of Federalism was for the states to make these decisions .It is the essence of my comment about the Federal government's universalism . I am not impressed that a handful of states have scored victories for their mandates . The only thing that SCOTUS decided with their non-action of not allowing the cases to be heard beyond the appellate courts was to confirm that such decisions was the perusal of the states . This national mandate ;like much, if not all of Obamacare will be declared unconstitutional

The states have made their decisions in ever increasing numbers. And having been to a catholic church or two, they don't seem to adhere to strict doctrines of the church either, so practically, this controversy of religious freedom, and the Blount proposal (which was defeated I might add) is a straw man argument as well. The church is forced to pay nothing, since it's the insurane company that does. And that's the free market.

Driven by the right wing to undermine the very essence of the health care bill, for women, while trying to repeal abortion rights, unions, and poor people bear the brunt of a far right wing agenda to minimize government and establish an oligarchy to replace the federal government.

You guys love churches and corporations but hate government and people. That's not a straw man argument either.

The states have made their decisions in ever increasing numbers. And having been to a catholic church or two, they don't seem to adhere to strict doctrines of the church either, so practically, this controversy of religious freedom, and the Blount proposal (which was defeated I might add) is a straw man argument as well.

Wrong, yours is the straw man. We've already shown that church doctrine isn't decided by the laity, and the notion that a local church acting contrary to church doctrine is justification is just as spurious an argument.


The church is forced to pay nothing, since it's the insurane company that does. And that's the free market.

YOu somehow still think that insurance companies are going to give this away? LOL, not going to happen, the policy holders will pay for it regardless, and you still ignore the fact that those who self-insure will most definitely be forced to pay for it under Obama's mandate. His "compromise" is smoke and mirrors.


Driven by the right wing to undermine the very essence of the health care bill, for women, while trying to repeal abortion rights, unions, and poor people bear the brunt of a far right wing agenda to minimize government and establish an oligarchy to replace the federal government.

Free contraceptives is not the "very essence" of Obamacare, it's the complete undermining of the first amendment, which apparently you find irrelevant (while exercising your free speech rights no less).


You guys love churches and corporations but hate government and people. That's not a straw man argument either.

No it isn't a straw man, it's an outright lie.

Hello again, Steve:

You poo poo the idea, but I don't see ANY difference between the church PAYING its employees, and THEY buy contraceptives, and the church PAYING its insurance and THEY buy the contraceptives... The money comes out of the SAME bank account.

You say it's a free choice matter, but doesn't the insurance company HAVE a choice?? You pay PETER to buy something you don't like, but you won't pay PAUL when he wants some.. .

I'm having trouble with that... Of COURSE, you'll poo poo it, because it DESTROYS your argument..

excon

Asked and answered, just like every other straw man you guys keep recycling over and over. Church doctrine does not mandate and regulate the private behavior of its members and employees. If they did you would be just as outraged, as you would the state mandating and regulating your private behavior in your home. What an employee or member does on their own time with the money they earned is irrelevant to the church defending its doctrine and rights and you know it.

Asked and answered, just like every other straw man you guys keep recycling over and over. Hello again, Steve:

I'll go away... Just please explain to me the DIFFERENCE between the church writing a check to an employee, and contraceptives get purchased, and the church writing a check to an insurance company, and contraceptives get purchased... I see NO difference - NONE!

Once somebody is paid, whether it's an employee or a contractor, the MONEY they got paid is THEIR money to do with as they please, isn't it?? Then why doesn't the church mind how their EMPLOYEES spend their money, but they VERY MUCH MIND how their insurance company spends theirs??

Getting rid if ME is easy. Just be straightforward and answer the question.

excon

Even self insurers have corporate under writers and managers. That's just the business of it, and who pays what is between the insurance company, and the claimant for service. They collect a premium for profit, and the church has no right to say what services or products a private company provides.

And please get off this idea its coming out of your pocket when someone else claims a service, because in truth, that means when you get a service, it comes out of my pocket, by your logic. And frankly I am tired of paying for your meds, and listening to you selfish righties take the benefits, but not responsibilities.

Sure keep blaming everybody else for your misconceptions. You only object when you get YOUR way, but scream like a banshee when you think someone else gets THEIR way. You act like you are the ONLY one paying for something.

You aren't!

And how come my arguments are phony, and yours are not?

Your closed minded hypocrisy is showing.

Christianity believes in free will. Once the money is in the employees hand ,the church has Zero say in how they spend their money. Forcing churches to pay ,either directly ,or through their coverage however, forces the church to act against it's doctrine.. It's a simple as that .

It's a simple as that .Hello tom:

Uhhnm, no it isn't. Their employees have free will, but their insurance company DOESN'T?? How's that?? What hold does the church have on it's insurance company, that it doesn't have on it's employees?

What if the insurance company is covering its OWN employees contraceptive needs, and is using the PROFITS it made from the church do so? Would the church object?? What if the insurance company was run by a liberal who gave to liberal, pro-choice causes. Should the church object? What if their employees did it? Can the church stop them? Should they?

And, about this free will crap... Why, when the money is in the hands of WELFARE recipients in Florida, DON'T they have free will to buy marijuana, or lottery tickets??

excon

Hello tom:

Uhhnm, no it isn't. Their employees have free will, but their insurance company DOESN'T?? How's that?? What hold does the church have on it's insurance company, that it doesn't have on it's employees?

Um, the church has to pay its employees, it doesn't have to do business with an insurance company.


And, about this free will crap... Why, when the money is in the hands of WELFARE recipients in Florida, DON'T they have free will to buy marijuana, or lottery tickets??


Oh, so you've moved from forcing me to pay for their contraceptives to forcing me to pay for their drug and gambling habits. See? Even you've recognized the slippery slope the Obama mandate puts us on.

Well dammit, I think I'm entitled to free Starbucks coffee, it helps me function physically and mentally every day. I also need some coffee contraceptives in the way of free coffee filters while you're at it. Oh, and some bottled water, I can't drink that chemical-laced crap the government runs through my faucet, it's a health hazard.

And you know, the cost of gas is way more than Sandra Fluke's contraceptives and far more necessary. If can't drive my 4Runner to work I won't be able to pay for her birth control you know. And then tires and maintenance is expensive. If you can give the 1 percent $7500 (soon to be $10,000 under Obama's plan) to buy a $40,000 car nobody wants then you can afford to pay for the upkeep of my $2500 4Runner.

When they earn their own money I will not care one whit what they do with it.

P.S. Dealing with liberal stupidity makes me anxious and stressed. I need you to buy me some free Xanax.

Um, the church has to pay its employees, it doesn't have to do business with an insurance company.Hello again, Steve:

How so? The church doesn't need employees any more than it needs insurance..

excon

What exactly do you think a church does during the week when they aren't holding services? Does it just run itself? Or do the people that make it function by maintaining the building, addressing the needs of the endless flow of people seeking assistance, visiting the sick and the shut-ins, etc. etc. etc. not need means of supporting themselves? You'd rather they live off on welfare, too?

How in this day can a church NOT need insurance? The church has no need to protect its assets. The employees and staff don't get sick? What world do you live in, ex?

As I said before, when you force the church out of the 'business' of ministry you're going to miss it. Tal argued ignorantly again that we don't care about people. I'm beginning to think it is because of ignorance because you guys apparently think the church does nothing during the week. Buddy, the church never really closes, it's on call and on the job 24/7, 365 days a year.

Um, the church has to pay its employees, it doesn't have to do business with an insurance company.

By law they do. Because employees have a right to employer insurance, fair wages, and a expectation of reasonable work hours, and OVERTIME!

They make money, pay no taxes, and help people. That's great, but even they are not above the law, nor can they dictate their law. I have volunteered at many churches, and seen no where that the church has suffered damage by OBEYING the law.

What you see as my ignorance, is an informed statement of fact since it goes against what you worship. I put my time an efforts where my mouth is, as do you!

Except for the part that employers are required to provide insurance you're right. Health insurance is a 'benefit' and you know it, employers are not required to furnish health insurance. Even under Obamacare they aren't, they can simply pay a penalty and let you pay for it which is what you want so enough of the charade.

Does it just run itself? Or do the people that make it function by maintaining the building, addressing the needs of the endless flow of people seeking assistance, visiting the sick and the shut-ins, etc. etc. etc. not need means of supporting themselves?
Tithing and volunteers.

What exactly do you think a church does during the week when they aren't holding services?Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I understand the church WANTS employees, just like it WANTS insurance. The NEED word, doesn't apply. There ARE little one preacher church's WITHOUT employees..

I know these left wing legal arguments, tire you... Bummer.

excon

Except for the part that employers are required to provide insurance you're right. Health insurance is a 'benefit' and you know it, employers are not required to furnish health insurance. Even under Obamacare they aren't, they can simply pay a penalty and let you pay for it which is what you want so enough of the charade.

You are correct as employer based insurance ties me to that company, and my own insurance I can take with me when I get laid off is a better option, see as the job creators aren't do there job.

Single payer, or Medicare for all is my hope. Then the poor beleaguered churches won't be making the straw argument about attacks on their freedom.

But all you see is what you want, and I don't count, right... or left?? Meet me in the middle! If you dare! Then neither of us has to have a charade.

Oh, so because there are little churches with only a pastor, no other church needs any employees. Man, your arguments are getting really lame. It's those lame arguments that tire me because apparently you and tal have no idea how a church works.

They can work inside the law, like you want the rest of us to or shut the mother down!

Hello again, Steve:

It's true. Fortunately I don't..

However, I KNOW they write checks. And, I know they they think they can tell their insurance company what to do with the money AFTER they've paid them, but their employees have FREE WILL.

You say they NEED one, and NOT the other... I've shown you that they DON'T. You don't LIKE my example, but the legal concepts DON'T change because of a church's size..

I'm NOT getting it. Seems like you'd be able to splain it to me in pretty simple terms.. I'm a simple guy.

excon

OK . The employer hires the insurance company and negotiates the terms for the plan they will provide for their employees. There are some services that are required by law on a state by state basis that have to be included in the plan ;but generally the employer decided the level of coverage that will be included in the company provided benefit.

I for one think that even this is too restrictive because better deals could be negotiated if the employer were able to negotiate outside the state monopoly system.

Now mandating that the church cover contraception against their doctrine is a complete violation of the 1st amendment . You know that it will not last court challenge. Even in your bluest of blue states a Federal judge has ruled that pharmacists can be guided by their consciences rather than the state with regard to stocking and distributing abortifacients contraceptive drugs.(Stormans v. Selecky)

They can work inside the law, like you want the rest of us to or shut the mother down!

Unfortunately for you the church has constitutional freedom, or are you ready to tear down that wall of separation between church and state?

Tithing and volunteers.

You obviously have no idea how the church functions either.

I'm NOT getting it. Seems like you'd be able to splain it to me in pretty simple terms.. I'm a simple guy.

excon

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Seems pretty darn simple to me.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Seems pretty darn simple to me.Hello again, Steve:

So, we're back to calling a hospital, a church, huh? I think this thread has run its course..

When do you want to draft?

excon

You obviously have no idea how the church functions either.
Is this a good resource to learn what function a church serves?
The Role of The Church - Catholic Bible 101 (http://www.catholicbible101.com/theroleofthechurch.htm)

I don't see where it says that it becomes a business.

Catholic health care is a ministry of the Roman Catholic Church continuing Jesus' mission of love and healing in the world today. Comprising more than 600 hospitals and 1,400 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states, the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation

Where is that mentioned in the bible?

Umm the Catholic church has it's own doctrine... but when I have the time I'll post any number of biblical passages that say healing is part of the Christian mission.

Oh I agree with that part but I'm pretty sure it relates to doing it from the kindness of your heart and not for money.

Ummm did you read the part that says "the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation "

Tom, that part has been skipped, ignored, pooh-poohed from the first mention of it a month and a half ago (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/switcherooski-632642-2.html#post3018116).

ummm did you read the part that says "the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation "
Don't they still employ people and pay them salaries? Y'know, like a regular business?

Don't they still employ people and pay them salaries? Y'know, like a regular business?

Asked and answered. Preachers and priests don't work for free, why should a hospital employee? Don't we all have to eat? Geez...

ummm did you read the part that says "the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation "Hello again, tom:

NOW we're getting somewhere. You didn't call it a church.. You, yourself, called it a "health care provider". Cool. Then, AS a health care provider, it doesn't have the same protections a church does. Its NON profit status doesn't confer any 1st Amendment protections either.

Consequently, when the government wants "health care providers" to cover their employee's contraceptive needs. As long as they are covering their males health care needs, it can't cry RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION.

Why? Because it's NOT a church.

excon

And I called them hospitals, so what? You guys are just arguing in circles.

I've already said more than once, the essence of the mandate is the regime is attempting to redefine what qualifies as religious (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-26.html#post3029627) in order to confine the church's ministries to within the church walls, contrary to the fact that the constitution CLEARLY and SIMPLY states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Tom and I have both shown that history and the constitution are on our side. But keep at it, you ain't going to like it when the church stops serving people. But I've said that already, too.

Hi Ex yes I think we have all got that, this argument has been about where the lines are blurred, and they are blurred not because the catholics haven't got a clear idea of the service they provide but because they have been stupid enough to take government money and open themselves to government regulation.

This idea that there is a separation between church and state has been, like everything else about your constitution, taken to extremes. It is easy to see that the state is making no law about the conduct of religion here, it hasn't mandated that contraceptives be used in worship or that all priests should wear condoms, it has said that the services covered by health insurers include contraceptives.

but because they have been stupid enough to take government money and open themselves to government regulation.Hello again, clete:

An excellent argument - one we haven't even made yet. Why should we? We're winning on IDENTIFYING a hospital as a hospital...

But, as long as you let the cat out of the bag, why IS a church, IF IT'S TRULY A CHURCH, accepting government MONEY for PAYMENT?? Doesn't a church work on DONATIONS? Since when does a church INVOICE? Isn't that WHY a church gets its exemption?? I think it IS.

excon

they have been stupid enough to take government money and open themselves to government regulation.

Are you saying that if a church did not get the tax exempt status ;and ran a health care ministry that the mandate wound not apply ? I'd like to see proof of that... The President did not distinguish.

The church does not accept a penny of "government money" . You guys really think that the money government confiscates in taxes is government money?? I guess that's liberal in a nutshell. I say it is the people's money ,and as such ,the tax exemption does not mean that the government isn't giving money to the church. It means that the church is not required to pay the tax.

We're winning on IDENTIFYING a hospital as a hospital... Steve and I already have answered this enough time... If the government can say that a ministry of the church is not a religious ministry, then the government is defining what is a religion ,and as such are violating the establishment clause to the 1st amendment .

Are you saying that if a church did not get the tax exempt status ;and ran a health care ministry that the mandate wound not apply ? I'd like to see proof of that ... The President did not distinguish.

The church does not accept a penny of "government money"Hello again, tom:

Your second question first. The hospital accepts Medicaid Patients. Who do you think Medicaid is?

Church's are exempt. Those are the FIRST words in MY copy of the tax law. A church IS exempt. That is so. It says so right there in the tax law. It also says it in the Constitution.

So, why would a church ASK the government IF it can BE a church by giving it PERMISSION to BE exempt? It doesn't NEED permission. It already HAS permission..

Secondarily, a church, since it's exempt, doesn't need any legal structure other than "church". It's NOT a corporation.. It's not a proprietorship. It's NOT a an association... It's a church. For legal purposes, a CHURCH is the creation of the tax code. A CORPORATION, on the other hand, is a creation of the state.

Church's structure themselves as corporation in order to meet the needs of the IRS, IF a church wishes to seek GOVERNMENT permission to BE a church... Of course, we already know that the government is precluded from deciding what a church IS and what ISN'T. The First Amendment tells us that...

But, the government CAN control a corporation and if a church is stupid enough to give the government dominion over its FORM, and asks the government to sanction it as a church, it DESERVES to be treated like ANYTHING but a church, because it's NOT.

Put that in your holy pipe and smoke it.

excon

QUOTE by tomder,
OK . The employer hires the insurance company and negotiates the terms for the plan they will provide for their employees. There are some services that are required by law on a state by state basis that have to be included in the plan ;but generally the employer decided the level of coverage that will be included in the company provided benefit.

Not true, the state or feds decide the level of coverage.


I for one think that even this is too restrictive because better deals could be negotiated if the employer were able to negotiate outside the state monopoly system.

That's EXACTLY what the Affordable Care Act mandates.


Now mandating that the church cover contraception against their doctrine is a complete violation of the 1st amendment . You know that it will not last court challenge. Even in your bluest of blue states a Federal judge has ruled that pharmacists can be guided by their consciences rather than the state with regard to stocking and distributing abortifacients contraceptive drugs.(Stormans v. Selecky)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1399273.html

The background. And this is the current law in Washington.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-863-095


(2) A pharmacist shall not delegate the following professional responsibilities:

(j) Decision to not dispense lawfully prescribed drugs or devices or to not distribute drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies.

(3) Utilizing personnel to assist the pharmacist.

(a) The responsible pharmacist manager shall retain all professional and personal responsibility for any assisted tasks performed by personnel under his or her responsibility, as shall the pharmacy employing such personnel. The responsible pharmacist manager shall determine the extent to which personnel may be utilized to assist the pharmacist and shall assure that the pharmacist is fulfilling his or her supervisory and professional responsibilities.

(b) This does not preclude delegation to an intern or extern.

(4) It is considered unprofessional conduct for any person authorized to practice or assist in the practice of pharmacy to engage in any of the following:

(a) Destroy unfilled lawful prescription;

(b) Refuse to return unfilled lawful prescriptions;

(c) Violate a patient's privacy;

(d) Discriminate against patients or their agent in a manner prohibited by state or federal laws; and

(e) Intimidate or harass a patient.

Put simply, you cannot discriminate against a patient/customer because of religious views, and its up to the pharmacy, be it private, or public, to decide to accommodate the practice of employees. Private VS the public good.

Not only can you be fired for not performing your job description, you may also be denied employment if you cannot perform your job description.

Ex and tal, you are both still ignoring the fact that this regime is trying to redefine what qualifies as religion in violation of the establishment clause. You asked for simple and we gave it to you. Here it is again for umpteenth time:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"Hello again, Steve:

I don't believe, that YOU believe, that this right is absolute. Certainly, a church based on, say, ROSES, couldn't SELL roses without paying taxes. A church, that believed in NAKEDNESS, wouldn't be allowed to practice IN THE OPEN.

Given that it's NOT absolute, and you BELIEVE that it's NOT absolute, you're going to need a better argument.

excon

And you ignore the expansion of the church into the private sector where rules, and regulations, keep order, and stability on private markets. Why do you ignore the rights of the people, as consumers, customers, and employees?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" And you do know there is more to the first amendment than just one sentence and several court precedence to establish and define freedom of religion.

You have not shown that churches pay for things they are against, but you have shown that private citizens are adversely affected by the church. By one church in particular, the Catholic church. Its illegal to favor one church over another in America.

EXPANSION of the church into the private sector? You have it bass ackwards tal, the church has been into health care, education and other areas for centuries. It is the government expansion into the church's business that's at issue here. You guys can pretend it's not true but history is on our side.

Aside from the church tending to the sick prior to her time, St Fabiola used her own personal wealth to establish a hospital in the fourth century (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05743a.htm) and it's only progressed from there. Hospitals being secular is a relatively new invention on this continent, so there is no EXPANSION of the church into the secular here.

Same with education, prior to the 19th century every college in America was a religious institution until University of Pennsylvania and the University of Virginia came along.

Harvard College [University], Massachusetts founded in 1636 was founded as a Congregational school.

William and Mary, Virginia founded in 1693 was an Anglican school.

Yale, Connecticut, founded in 1701 was a Congregational school.

Princeton, New Jersey, was founded in 1746 as a New Light Presbyterian school.

Columbia, New York, was founded in 1754 as an Anglican school.

Brown, Rhode Island was founded in 1765 as a Baptist school.

Rutgers, New Jersey, was founded in 1765 as a Dutch Reformed school.

Ignore it all you want, but the facts are on my side. The government is intruding on religion, not the other way around.

That's not the point as they have thrived and survived, and grown, and expanded enormously. That only proves the point that this is an issue of cleric leaders wanting more, while the congregation clearly does not, specifically the females who are discriminated, and targeted against.

But of course for some church comes first, even though the congregation is free to follow their own conscious. The whole right wing agenda is focused on denying the rights of females to make choices. Specifically the ones they EMPLOY. The church cannot set price or business policy, and don't get the bill for the services rendered nor do they make a payout. A private company under contract does.

Talk about a straw argument, this is one. Clearly the government has a compelling need to NOT limit anyone from a service it provides and equal protection under the law is for everyone, NOT just non catholics, that would be discrimination. A church is not free to make doctrine that negatively, or adversely forces your doctrines on any one. History tells us, by your own admission, that churches can service the society and do very well operating inside the law of the land, and so far NO church has limited its charities, or ministries because of the laws of the land.

That makes your freedom of the church a NON argument, and you can get away with shielding criminals from prosecution, but I doubt you get away with denying employees their rights under the law. Why doesn't the church shut down those ministries that provide not only contraceptives, but abortions also? Like the one you linked to before?

A) You made unprecedented expansion of the church into the secular realm the point. And I proved you wrong. Government intrusion on religious freedom is the issue. I don't get why you can't acknowledge that fact.

B) No one is forcing anyone to work at a religious institution. They are free to work elsewhere.

C) Again, church doctrine is not subject to the whims of the laity OR discrimination laws. The constitution expressly forbids the government establishing religion, something you guys on the left used to love.

D) I addressed NKs wild goose chase a month ago (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-24.html#post3028191).


Mr. S****,

We do not provide the morning after pill and we do not perform abortions at BSA. There are cases where, if a mothers' life is in imminent danger through the birthing process, a decision may need to be made by the family and physician but these instances are extremely rare and unique. The ADAM site is a general comprehensive database library that we source through our web developer and gives information on numerous topics of which BSA does not make any claims as to representing our views and practices. That being said, in the "Terms of Use" for the ADAM health library we are going to insert stronger language regarding the fact that content on the site does not in any way represent the views/opinions of BSA.

Appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

You lose again.

Healing has been a mission of Christianity since it's founding. Jesus charged the Apostles in explicit terms to heal the sick (Luke 10:9) ( Matthew 10:1).
And promised to those who should believe in him that they would have power over disease (Mark 16:18). The Apostles in Jerusalem made healing one of their main missions ,They healed the lame man (Acts 3:2-8), the palsied (Acts 9:33-34)and of the cripple(Acts 14:8)
Peter ,the 1st Pope delivered the sick from their infirmities (Acts 3:6-8).
For christian religions , there is no difference between their faith and the act of healing .

P.S. Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to _close_adoption_program/)

D) I addressed NKs wild goose chase a month ago (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-24.html#post3028191).

The weird thing about that is that I never brought up abortions - you did. I was talking about birth control. I'm not sure how you hijacked that conversation, made it about abortion, then attributed some kind of "win" to yourself. Oh well.

P.S. Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to _close_adoption_program/)Wow, one should scroll down and read the comments section about that item.

P.S. Same-sex 'marriage' law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to _close_adoption_program/)Hello again, Steve:

I'd use different words.. Catholic Charities CHOOSE to close their doors, and let 1,000's go WITHOUT charitable services, because they won't accept change...

Look. I'm not a Catholic. I DON'T know Catholic history, so I'm making it all up... In the beginning, I'm absolutely CERTAIN that Catholic charities didn't start with the blessings of the rulers of the day. As a matter of fact, if the ruling class thought what the Catholic charities were doing was a GOOD thing, they would have been doing it themselves... I'm sure surviving through the century's as a religious charity can't be easy. But the Catholic church did it for generations, and in the face of zillions of iterations of the law...

So, I'm having a hard time believing that THIS particular iteration of the law is FORCING them to close their doors.. Yup, a REAL hard time. I don't think Jesus would abandon the poor. I think he'd MINISTER to the needy in SPITE of the laws of the day.

But, what do I know about Christianity?

excon

The weird thing about that is that I never brought up abortions - you did. I was talking about birth control. I'm not sure how you hijacked that conversation, made it about abortion, then attributed some kind of "win" to yourself. Oh well.

No sir, I made the distinction (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-7.html#post3022628) between the hospital and the content provider. BSA verified my argument. That equals a win for me.

I'd use different words.. Catholic Charities CHOOSE to close their doors,

Nothing new here, I said that first.


and let 1,000's go WITHOUT charitable services, because they won't accept change...

And back to the essence of the issue. It is because the church has a spine, stands on its values and refuses to bow at the altar of Obama to compromise their integrity. The feds have no right to force the church to violate its doctrine and you know it. You KNOW this without a doubt, you are willfully ignoring the constitution and the facts.

BSA verified my argument.Concerning abortion, which I never brought up. The fact that you need an 'internet win" so bad is sad. LOL!

Concerning abortion, which I never brought up. The fact that you need an 'internet win" so bad is sad. LOL!

The word "abortion does not appear in my response (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-7.html#post3022628) to your post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-7.html#post3022617):


You do realize that does not necessarily reflect the views of the Hospital, it's provided by ADAM.

I repeat, I made the distinction between the hospital and the content provider. Ignoring plain facts because of your inexplicable need to try and humiliate others is what's sad.

You KNOW this without a doubt, you are willfully ignoring the constitution and the facts.Hello again, Steve:

I don't. And what YOU know is that you won't find a more ardent supporter of our vaunted Constitution, than me. But, it is NOT absolute. If the Constitution were so clear, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

When you break down the issues, you find one group of citizens pitted against another. Some times deciding who's right is EASY for me. Some times it's not. Here we have the rights of women pitted against the rights of the church..

I BELIEVE in religious freedom. I also BELIEVE in women's rights. Therefore, the compromise Obama worked out satisfies MY Constitutional ruffles. It GIVES the church the OPPORTUNITY to adhere to its principals, if it would only view the payments made to their employees the SAME way they view the payments to their insurer.

But, the church CHOOSES not to. In my view, it absolutely COULD, WITHOUT compromising its religious freedom, as it did in all those states where they never raised a peep, and the same Constitutional issues were at play. Are they doing it now for religious reasons, or political reasons?

excon

Nope.. They self insured . Now that won't be an option.

nope .. They self insured . Now that won't be an option.Hello again, tom:

Cool. As long as they cover women's health EQUALLY with men's health, there won't be a problem.

But, then there's this problem about taking money from Medicaid. If the church renounced THAT, then I think they could tell the government where to go...

excon

The word "abortion does not appear in my response (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-7.html#post3022628) to your post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-7.html#post3022617):Not there but it obviously was the main point of your email to them since that's what they responded to.

In Obama's adopted home town of Chi-town Francis Cardinal George sent a message to parishioners that the Catholic Church would shut down its various institutions in the community before violating the core doctrine of Humanae Vitae by providing contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients to its employees, free or otherwise.

Catholic New World - What are you going to give up this Lent? - Cardinal's Column (http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/0226/cardinal.aspx)

Obamacare will collapse on it's own weight if they think they can replace all the Catholic charities with government institutions .


Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

Hello again, tom:

Cool. As long as they cover women's health EQUALLY with men's health, there won't be a problem.

But, then there's this problem about taking money from Medicaid. If the church renounced THAT, then I think they could tell the government where to go...

excon

They self insured to get by the state mandates . The President's plan won't give them the option.

The church has already shut down some services over these type of mandates already. Do you really want to test their resolve ?

I don't think it will happen.Now that the President has stoked the culture wars ,he will back down .

Not there...

Thank you, stick to the known facts please.

which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system. Hello again, tom:

So, like the air traffic controllers of years gone by, the church is threatening Obama. I'd call their bluff.

Excon

I don't. And what YOU know is that you won't find a more ardent supporter of our vaunted Constitution, than me. But, it is NOT absolute. If the Constitution were so clear, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

I never said it was absolute. I know I can't start a church that sacrifices What I said was the Obama regime is "redefining" religion in violation of the establishment clause. You admit it in saying the problem is churches won't "change".

You admit it in saying the problem is churches won't "change".Hello again, Steve:

THIS church won't change THIS time. However, I believe history is RIFE religious accommodations. We stopped nuns from abusing pupils in Catholic schools, didn't we? The church didn't close the schools. I don't know why THAT wasn't the state stomping on religious freedom.

excon

As far as I know abusing others, including sexually assaulting children is and always has been against church doctrine. Healing the sick is not.

As far as I know abusing others, including sexually assaulting children is and always has been against church doctrine. Healing the sick is not.Hello again, Steve:

Fortunately, I didn't go to Catholic school.. Are you telling me that all the stories I heard about nuns whacking students are BS? Are you sure?

excon

Did I say the stories were BS? No, I said "As far as I know abusing others, including sexually assaulting children is and always has been against church doctrine." I can't help it anyone in the church abused someone else, that doesn't change doctrine. Again, you guys seem to think the tail wags the dog.

P.S. I'm not Catholic, but I'm smart enough to know that if they can do it to Catholics, they can do it to me. And you.

What if Obamacare Really was Like Auto Insurance?
(http://cnsnews.com/blog/eric-scheiner/what-if-obamacare-really-was-auto-insurance)
60SD4RexVlo

Hello Steve:

What makes Jon Stewart funny, is that HIS stuff has the ring of truth.. THIS, is just pure bunk.

The fellow in your video DOES say that he sold his car. That would be consistent with the guy giving up his body. In other words, he's DEAD. Obamacare mandates, no matter HOW invasive they are, you don't have to pay them when you're critically DEAD!

excon

Obamacare forces you to purchase or pay a penalty just because you exist. You only purchase auto insurance if you own a car. If I have a license and don't own a car ? It is not required . If I'm a pedestrian that has to cross the street ? Nope... no insurance necessary .


Obamacare insures you.. The part of auto insurance that covers you is voluntary (comprehensive ) . The only part of it that is mandatory is to cover injury or property of the person you get into an accident with (liability ) .

Auto insurance does NOT cover maintenance of any kind or even routine repair . It only covers what in the health insurance equivalence would be catastrophic care . Imagine the cost of auto insurance if you had coverage for gas ,oil change ,tune up ,and tire change ?

Obamacare forces you to purchase or pay a penalty just because you exist.
Otherwise, you'll be picking up the tab.

If you don't have auto insurance, I end up paying for damages you caused.

You are missing the point . I have no problem with the mandatory liability auto coverage .

There is no requirement for you to cover my losses if I don't have comprehensive coverage ,and that is as it should be.

The commerce clause has already been twisted beyond recognition by progressive laws and court decisions. If it can be used to force people to purchase a product or pay a fine for not purchasing it then there are no limits to federal government powers.

There is no requirement for you to cover my losses if I don't have comprehensive coverage ,and that is as it should be.
No, but if I'm hit and end up with PD (property damage) and BI (bodily injury) caused by an uninsured driver...

Again... that's a liability issue that is covered by auto insurance .There is no mandate for me to purchase auto insurance to cover me or my property loss.

Again ... that's a liability issue that is covered by auto insurance .There is no mandate for me to purchase auto insurance to cover me or my property loss.
Right. So I end up paying for damage you cause me.

What are you talking about ? Mandatory liability is required . THAT COVERS YOU in the case of an accident with me! Comprehensive coverage for me is NOT required .

Obamacare is the equivalent of comprehensive coverage .

The point is this Rep is arguing Obamacare will be upheld based on the states' auto liability requirements.


During a March 8th interview on C-Span Rep. Jackie Speier (D- Calif.) was discussing the upcoming Supreme Court date focused on Obamacare.

When asked what would happen if part, or all of the healthcare law was overturned she said, “ I don’t think that it’s going to be overturned. We have a long history of requiring proof of auto insurance at the time of registration of a vehicle, mandatory responsibility to carry auto insurance. So this individual mandate for health insurance, I think, will be held constitutional.”

Liability is to cover damage done to others, not me, while performing a voluntary activity.

Do you know how many uninsured drivers there are driving around?? Insurance coverage may be mandated, but people apparently don't always buy it.

That's a horse of a different color. What they did was illegal. Evidently the mandate to medical self insurance will also make one a criminal... hence the fine.But how are they hurting anyone else ?

If they hit me while uninsured and I have both PD and BI, they are hurting someone else.

If people have no medical insurance, I end up paying for their Medicaid coverage.

There is no guarantee of medical care if they are not insured... even if they pay the fine. You do know that this has the greatest negative impact on the poor... don't you ? The individual mandate falls more heavily on low and moderate income families. They will be required to enroll in health insurance plans , and if they don't do so pay a fine or a tax that they do not pay today. These added costs will mean these households have less discretion to spend their limited resources on other priorities, such as food or housing.

there is no guarantee of medical care if they are not insured....even if they pay the fine. You do know that this has the greatest negative impact on the poor ...don't you ? The individual mandate falls more heavily on low and moderate income families. They will be required to enroll in health insurance plans , and if they don’t do so pay a fine or a tax that they do not pay today. These added costs will mean these households have less discretion to spend their limited resources on other priorities, such as food or housing.
So I am stuck footing the bill for their healthcare?

Speaking of Texas and health care. Texas defunded Planned Parenthood so what did Obama do? He cut off all federal funds for the Texas’ Women’s Health Program. Apparently Obama cares more about Planned Parenthood than he does women's health. And since our governor is OK with funding the program without the feds' help it sure sounds to me like Obama is the one waging a war on women (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/03/16/war_on_women_feds_cut_off_womens_health_funding_to _texas).

there is no guarantee of medical care if they are not insured....even if they pay the fine. You do know that this has the greatest negative impact on the poor ...don't you ? The individual mandate falls more heavily on low and moderate income families. They will be required to enroll in health insurance plans , and if they don’t do so pay a fine or a tax that they do not pay today. These added costs will mean these households have less discretion to spend their limited resources on other priorities, such as food or housing.

Man we could sure teach you guys something about providing affordable health care

Man we could sure teach you guys something about providing affordable health care


Just as in the UK, "affordable" is debated and often depends on where you live in the country.

You pay one way or the other with any system. Many have incorporated paid private coverage to go along with, or subsidise, the national coverage. This has, in turn, caused even more wait times for services for some nationals, and fewer options in care.

There is no question that the American system can use some tweaking, but not sure if they want to go the NHS type route. It can only sustain itself for so long and with higher costs, longer life spans, and fewer medical professionals, the cracks are showing.

So I am stuck footing the bill for their healthcare?

That is not really the relevant question. The question is if the system funded by mandatory purchase of a heath insurance policy is constitutional or not. If it is not ;I think the whole house of cards falls down . Not saying that a new version of socialist national health care won't replace it . But it will need new means to fund it .If it is Constitutional ;then the system just becomes another unsustainable entitlement .

I think that if a system like this is deemed Constitutional ,then we may as well scrap the document into the dustpan of history ,and go with Tut's model of trusting in the wisdom of a benevolent Levithian,for all our needs (even if that Levitian is democratically elected it perverts our system as envisioned by the Founders ) .

SCOTUS will hear arguments in a couple weeks ,and will probably create a major campaign issue with it's decision right before the Party conventions .

Just as in the UK, "affordable" is debated and often depends on where you live in the country.

You pay one way or the other with any system. Many have incorporated payed private coverage to go along with, or subsidise, the national coverage. This has, in turn, caused even more wait times for services for some nationals, and fewer options in care.

There is no question that the American system can use some tweaking, but not sure if they want to go the NHS type route. It can only sustain itself for so long and with higher costs, longer life spans, and fewer medical professionals, the cracks are showing.

Wasn't suggesting UK style NHS, look the cracks show up in any system particularly in a society that doesn't look after itsself, but there are much better models than the US system, there are only two people getting rich in the US system, the doctors and the Insurance companies.

Everyone has their own opinion and some people will not have the best and right opinions.

everyone has their own opinion and some people will not have the best and right opinions.

I think every opinion has been offered here but what is at the root of the discussion is the same as for other healthcare debates, some people just don't want to be part of a pool, without realising that that is exactly what insurance is.
When you are young and healthy or rich enough not to care, health insurance doesn't seem important, but comes a time for most where the bills are bigger than the bank account. Some here think that charity begins with a decision, but in reality it begins with attitude.

going back to the auto insurance example ,the higher the risk the higher the premiums charged . So initially a young driver ,being inexperienced ,are a higher risk. Then if they prove they can drive safetly the premiums drop ;but if they continue to be a high risk ,they continue to get charged higher rates ,or in some instances they get dropped and lose the privilege to drive .
It wouldn't work that way in a medical plan . A medical plan takes that model and turns it on it's head. The safer bet is on the young... and yet they pay the same premium as the ones who are in constant doctor care .

In fact ,using the auto insurance = Obamacare example ,if a person chose to not own a car ,and is just a pedestrian ,they are still forced to carry comprehensive insurance for the privilege of being alive... you know... some time in the future they may own a car.

everyone has their own opinion and some people will not have the best and right opinions.


Who determines the best and right opinions?

going back to the auto insurance example ,the higher the risk the higher the premiums charged . So initially a young driver ,being inexperienced ,are a higher risk. Then if they prove they can drive safetly the premiums drop ;but if they continue to be a high risk ,they continue to get charged higher rates ,or in some instances they get dropped and lose the privilage to drive .
It wouldn't work that way in a medical plan . A medical plan takes that model and turns it on it's head. The safer bet is on the young ....and yet they pay the same premium as the ones who are in constant doctor care .

In fact ,using the auto insurance = Obamacare example ,if a person chose to not own a car ,and is just a pedestrian ,they are still forced to carry comprehensive insurance for the privilage of being alive ....you know.... some time in the future they may own a car.

Tom your analagy is not quite correct The highr risk might be with those in constant care but the principle is a pool where people contribute over a period, because unlike the car insurance the risk cannot be calculated so precisely since the value of the individual care that is going to be provided cannot be calculated but the value of the vehicle is known. As to your pedrestrian, this person is just as much a risk since no one can calculate who or where illness will strike, and in any case pedrestrians get run down; another bad analagy

You should think about it like this, you are all on a cruise liner and you would like to think there is a doctor on board, in fact you would think twice about taking the voyage without one

Hello again, wingers:

You people who don't want the government involved in your health care, AREN'T doing a very good job.. Right wingers in Kansas are making a law (http://frugivoremag.com/2012/03/kansas-proposes-law-allowing-doctors-to-lie-to-patients-to-prevent-abortions/) that is going to require that a doctor LIE to his patient, if telling the truth MIGHT result in an abortion...

That's Got to disgust you SMALL government wingers, right?

No?? How come?

excon

It's wrong to not provide the patient with all pertinent information available through diagnostics wheter your position is pro-life or pro-abortion. A sonogram and information about the pregancy should be provided in all cases. No ?

You are right Tom some people go to ridiculous lengths to push their agenda

A sonogram and information about the pregancy should be provided in all cases. No ?Hello again, Dr. tom:

NO!

I thought you wingers didn't want the government IN the doctors office with you... But, it's OK when the government is ENFORCING something YOU want them to enforce.. That ain't right...

The key here, is whether the DOCTOR thinks it's appropriate - NOT you, and NOT a right wing politician.

excon

Hello again, Dr. tom:

NO!

I thought you wingers didn't want the government IN the doctors office with you... But, it's ok when the government is ENFORCING something YOU want them to enforce.. That ain't right...

The key here, is whether the DOCTOR thinks it's appropriate - NOT you, and NOT a right wing politician.

excon

LOL Ex, you nailed 'em. The opposition for Obamacare said it would create bureaucracy between you and your doctor and I will be darned if the right wing isn't determined to make its so!

Its like their politics, absent of facts, and based in the thought that they know better for you what you need. I guess that's why they calculate the value of a car, and the value of human life. So it doesn't cost as much to replace either. Flawed logic, as is the flat tax (earth?) theory.

And you don't want the government in your bedroom and your doctors office . You just want the government to provide the care free.

and you don't want the government in your bedroom and your doctors office . You just want the goverment to provide the care free.Hello tom:

You're getting close.. I just want the government to write the checks, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes for it.

excon

and you don't want the government in your bedroom and your doctors office . You just want the goverment to provide the care free.

Always with the overstatement of the argument, you just want to be personally recognised for your philanthropy

Ex you seem to be straddling both sides of the fence. Correct me if I'm wrong but for the mandate it seems you think if a Catholic hospital accepts Medicaid or Medicare or a tax exemption that would be justification for the feds to be in the middle of things.

But when it comes to you wanting the government to write the check for you, you think they wouldn't have a right to be in your bedroom or doctor's office?

Dude.

Hello again, Steve:

Ummm, not really.

A hospital isn't a church and doesn't qualify for a religious exemption... Being PAID by the government for services rendered, is further PROOF that it's NOT a church. Governments DON'T receive services from church's and DON'T pay them. Given that it's a hospital WITH employees, it should be treated NO differently than ANY hospital with employees.

To your next point.. I want the government to write the checks for my health care. That's all. If we made a LAW that says, the government shall write checks and THAT'S ALL, then that's ALL the government will do. Seems simple enough to me.

excon

Ex, you still apparently believe Catholic hospitals don't have expenses. I thought you knew how such things worked, like when the government writes the check the government has the say. Ask any Medicare patient or provider. And remember, Obama said if we liked or plans and providers we could keep them? He lied.

You're worried about Petraeus spying on you through your dishwasher but you believe if the government writes a check for your healthcare and stay and out of your affairs? Dude!

You're worried about Petraeus spying on you through your dishwasher but you believe if the government writes a check for your healthcare and stay and out of your affairs? Dude!Since the first part of the statement is not true it follows that the other part is not true either.

There will be a slew of private employers who are not affiliated in any way with the Catholic church who will bring this outrageous overstep of executive authority to court over violations of their 1st amendment free exercise of religious conscious rights .

The President stepped into it big time .

but you believe if the government writes a check for your healthcare and stay and out of your affairs? Dude!Hello again, Steve:

I don't know WHY you have such a problem with government OBEYING the law. Somehow, you just think they're just not going to. I have NO idea why you think that..

Let's take Social Security... They WRITE me a check every month. They're NOT in my business. They don't CARE where I spend the money. They don't decide to pay me based on anything OTHER than what the numbers say. They don't care whether I'm white, sick, a homosexual or a raving maniac. They PAY. That's ALL they do, and it works fine.

Why you think they couldn't or WOULDN'T do the same thing with your doctors bills, is beyond me.

excon

Since the first part of the statement is not true it follows that the other part is not true either.

The first part is true (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/petraus-ill-spy-you-through-your-dishwasher-644108.html) and even if it weren't I believe that would be logical fallacy. Do you just enjoy being proven wrong?

I read that thread and the article it relates to - it never said that the government could spy on you through your dishwasher... never. Not even about a general spying on you. It did talk about web connected devices but that's about it.

Agree... however Steve was commenting on Ex's perception and not on the content of the article. .

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno WHY you have such a problem with government OBEYING the law. Somehow, you just think they're just not gonna. I have NO idea why you think that..

Let's take Social Security... They WRITE me a check every month. They're NOT in my business. They don't CARE where I spend the money. They don't decide to pay me based on anything OTHER than what the numbers say. They don't care whether I'm white, sick, a homosexual or a raving maniac. They PAY. That's ALL they do, and it works fine.

Why you think they couldn't or WOULDN'T do the same thing with your doctors bills, is beyond me.

excon

So because the feds portion your own money back to you every month they won't be involved in managing health care? Then what the heck is this mandate about? They're not supposed to be involved according to you now. Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.

There will be a slew of private employers who are not affiliated in any way with the Catholic church who will bring this outrageous overstep of executive authority to court over violations of their 1st amendment free exercise of religious conscious rights .

The President stepped into it big time .
Here's the 1st of many to come...

http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/pdf/aclj-complaint-obrien-v-hhs-obama-abortion-pill-mandate.pdf

Here's the 1st of many to come .....

http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/pdf/aclj-complaint-obrien-v-hhs-obama-abortion-pill-mandate.pdf

Hi Tom,

Interesting isn't it?

I have said all along you guys have the moral high ground. But will that be enough?

The Obama administration will probably want to argue that this is a economic pursuit as much as it is a religious pursuit. And that, The Free Exercise Clause should be read in conjunction with,The Establishment Clause, or some such related clause.

Whichever way the decision goes I can't wait to read the majority decision handed down.

Tut

I read that thread and the article it relates to - it never said that the government could spy on you through your dishwasher...never. Not even about a general spying on you. It did talk about web connected devices but that's about it.

What tom said. Apparently you didn't read ex's title for the thread so I'll quote it for you, "Petraus: I'll spy on you through your DISHWASHER!"

Yea, people have been bemoaning Wired's online articles as of late. They seem to have taken a sensationalistic bent there that happily doesn't exist in their print version. The article title doesn't mesh with the content. It's sad that they have gone this route; at least my print subscription doesn't have that crap.

Why are you worrying about a benign organisation like the CIA? Their focus is supposed to be external anyway. It took them ten years to find OBL how long do you think it will take them to find you?

Lol didn't you just post how one of your moguls thinks the CIA funds Greenpeace ? That is more delusional than thinking that the CIA can spy though electronic devices.

lol didn't you just post how one of your moguls thinks the CIA funds Greenpeace ? That is more delusional than thinking that the CIA can spy though electonic devices.

No, really, the CIA does use electronic devices, and they are not above inserting a bug in your dishwasher, nor are they above funding and infiltrating all sorts of organisations. None of these things are as far fetched as you imagine, you just don't want to believe it. None of these things are delusional, in fact the truth is far beyond what we might imagine

Here's the 1st of many to come...

http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/pdf/aclj-complaint-obrien-v-hhs-obama-abortion-pill-mandate.pdf

The number of plaintiffs is almost to 60 now. The latest is Wheaton College (http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2012/07/Wheaton-College), which brings the number of Protestant plaintiffs to four because we recognize this is not just an attack on Catholics.

The money quote (http://www.catholiccharities.net/media_room/media_release/339) from Monsignor Michael Boland of Catholic Charities of Chicago:


As all of us know, Catholic Charities serves the poor because we are a Catholic organization, not because our clients are Catholic. We strongly believe at Catholic Charities that we witness our faith by our service to the poor. We ask only, “Are you hungry?” “Do you need clothing?” or “Are you homeless?” Under the HHS mandate, to be a “religious employer” we would now have to ask, “Are you Catholic?” This goes against everything that Catholic Charities stands for as an organization. Under the HHS mandate, we are punished for both employing and reaching out to serve non-Catholics, which is an injustice.

Like I've said many times, you're going to miss the church when she can longer carry out it's mission to be our brother's keeper. All so some college student can have free birth control when there was never a problem with access to begin with. I'll be more than happy for you to tell that hungry, homeless guy his shelter and food for the night has closed so Sandra Fluke can have sex.

Like I've said many times, you're going to miss the church when she can longer carry out it's mission to be our brother's keeper. Why do you need some organization to do this for you? Why can;'t people help people and not go through some authoritative socialist organization who wants to redistribute goods and money?

Why do you need some organization to do this for you?

Do you really need me to answer that for you? That's as elementary as it gets, NK. I can't get to my sponsored child in Peru for $35.00, but World Vision can and be remarkably efficient with my $35.00. I mean really, NK, I thought you were smarter than that.


Why can;'t people help people and not go through some authoritative socialist organization who wants to redistribute goods and money?

Like a wasteful federal government, I've been asking that question for years.

Do you really need me to answer that for you? That's as elementary as it gets, NK. I can't get to my sponsored child in Peru for $35.00, but World Vision can and be remarkably efficient with my $35.00. I mean really, NK, I thought you were smarter than that.So they take funds from you and redistribute it to poor people? Karl Marx would be proud.

So they take funds from you and redistribute it to poor people? Karl Marx would be proud.

That just shows either how ignorant you are or how desperate you are to make me look foolish. Which is it?

Unlike the government World Vision TAKES nothing from me.

That just shows either how ignorant you are or how desperate you are to make me look foolish. Which is it?

Unlike the government World Vision TAKES nothing from me.

You just posted that it takes 35$ From you was that a lie?

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Unlike the government World Vision TAKES nothing from me.

Your empathy for disadvantaged kids abroad is admirable. To bad it doesn't extend to the ones here, as you are for the candidate that wants you and the poor kids and their parents to pay for them to get even bigger tax cuts to pee on your head.

What's confusing is that you are against abortions (so am I to be fair), and birth control pills (the best solution to abortions). You were against GWB, but you love his policies, and want more of them.

But of course I can understand it! You would extract money from the economy, hide it, and forget about your own country, and that's okay? Let me know how that voucher works for you in your old age! Maybe your kids will like it too!

you just posted that it takes 35$ From you was that a lie?

You obviously cannot read and/or comprehend. I said no such thing.

Do you really need me to answer that for you? That's as elementary as it gets, NK. I can't get to my sponsored child in Peru for $35.00, but World Vision can and be remarkably efficient with my $35.00. I mean really, NK, I thought you were smarter than that.



Like a wasteful federal government, I've been asking that question for years.


It's probably not quite that straight forward. Entrepreneurs and charitable organizations may well operative from different motives.

This seems to be the case at the moment. Probably worth making this distinction.


Tut

It's probably not quite that straight forward. Entrepreneurs and charitable organizations may well operative from different motives.

This seems to be the case at the moment. Probably worth making this distinction.


Tut

It is that straightforward Tut. I don't know where entrepreneurs came in, the comparison is between charitable organizations and the government. But the question was "Why do you need some organization to do this for you?"

It's obvious, World Vision can do much more with combined resources than I can with $35.00 on my own.

Your empathy for disadvantaged kids abroad is admirable. To bad it doesn't extend to the ones here,

Do you REALLY want to challenge my compassion for children anywhere? Do you REALLY want to go there?


as you are for the candidate that wants you and the poor kids and their parents to pay for them to get even bigger tax cuts to pee on your head.

The left apparently has no concept of incentives and thinks rich people are stupid. You whine about the wealthy, who already pay most taxes, but promote policies that encourage them to do exactly what you're pi$$ed about. You're peeing on your own heads.


What's confusing is that you are against abortions (so am I to be fair), and birth control pills (the best solution to abortions).

Wrong, I am not against contraceptives that PREVENT pregnancy. I just happen to believe the first amendment trumps the mandate. You apparently believe crushing the first amendment and forcing the church to violate its beliefs or give up her ministries is no big deal. You might want to think about that the next time you imply I don't care about poor kids in America. I'm not the one trying to close ministries to the poor.


But of course I can understand it! You would extract money from the economy, hide it, and forget about your own country, and that's okay? Let me know how that voucher works for you in your old age! Maybe your kids will like it too!

You can have policies that encourage success or you can have policies that punish success. Your choice.

It is that straightforward Tut. I don't know where entrepreneurs came in, the comparison is between charitable organizations and the government. But the question was "Why do you need some organization to do this for you?"

It's obvious, World Vision can do much more with combined resources than I can with $35.00 on my own.

"Why do you need some government organization doing this for you?"

The short answer is that the government must play a major role in this process.


Many, if not most charitable organizations operate on a altruistic basis.In other words, their motives are self-less. They provide help where needed regardless of politics. As you say they are much more efficient in distributing resources to where it is needed.

However, you cannot have a society distributing resources based solely on altruism. Altruism is one of many reasons resources should be distributed but it is not the only motivation- nor can it be the only motivation.

Another motive for distributing resources can found in the self-serving individual. These individuals see that by promoting their own welfare they are promoting the welfare of others in the process. I am not disputing this- but the important point is that this represents a political position.

Why? Because when these people object to governments taking their money and distributing it inefficiently. They also object to the fact that the payer has no part in this redistribution process.

Two different motives that can appear to be the same but are in fact very different.

No one has said government has no role but we are talking about two different things. You want to talk motives when I am only addressing results.

Fact is and you seem to agree, the private sector is far more efficient regardless of motive.

I have no doubt that liberals are sincere (for the most part) in helping others via government means. In practice the government can't touch the efficiency of the private sector, so why keep investing more hope and resources in a failed system while destroying what works?

It's not logical.

I think we take the failures in the system, and correct them rather than tear down the structure of what's in place. I think I can agree that inefficient results are not logical, and the intended result can be ineffective.

It doesn't have to be that way.

I think we take the failures in the system, and correct them rather than tear down the structure of whats in place. I think I can agree that inefficient results are not logical, and the intended result can be ineffective.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Ok, let's correct the failures. You don't do that by throwing more money at it and gutting the welfare work requirements.

If unemployment is 8%, then what's the point of having strict work requirements that cannot be met? How about some mandatory training, and day cares for the working moms with no skills? Maybe bus passes for those that don't, or can't drive, or have no car?

Requiring work when there is little or none is not very fair is it? I mean what work would you be requiring them to do for their benefits?

If unemployment is 8%, then whats the point of having strict work requirements that cannot be met? How about some mandatory training, and day cares for the working moms with no skills? Maybe bus passes for those that don't, or can't drive, or have no car?

Requiring work when there is little or none is not very fair is it?

I said nothing about punishing people if they can't find work did I? Let's discuss what is in evidence and stop the assumptions.

You can't eliminate work requirements and expect people to have any incentive to get off welfare, which should be reserved for the truly needy. It's likes the voter ID uproar, a fraudulent vote disenfranchises those who play by the rules. If a guy can find work but sucks the system dry anyway it takes food from the one who needs it. And a working member of society contributes to the benefit of all.

I thought libs were about fairness and what works. Well, are they or is that just more bluster?

The nature of government is such that programs are almost always implemented in a way to benefit those with a vested interest in them rather than to actually achieve the programs' stated goals… Among the nonpoor with a vital interest in antipoverty programs are social workers and government employees who administer the programs and business people, such as landlords and physicians, who are paid to provide services to the poor. Thus, anti-poverty programs are usually more concerned with protecting the prerogatives of the bureaucracy than with actually fighting poverty.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
The measure of success is not how many people are administered to ;it's how well they are administered to . That is where private charities run circles around government run charity.


And now for some Christmas in July ;courtesy of Scrooge the lib .


"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge.

I said nothing about punishing people if they can't find work did I? Let's discuss what is in evidence and stop the assumptions.

You can't eliminate work requirements and expect people to have any incentive to get off of welfare, which should be reserved for the truly needy. It's likes the voter ID uproar, a fraudulent vote disenfranchises those who play by the rules. If a guy can find work but sucks the system dry anyway it takes food from the one who needs it. And a working member of society contributes to the benefit of all.

I thought libs were about fairness and what works. Well, are they or is that just more bluster?


I made no assertion that you would punish people so quit making up stuff,Geeeeeeee!

I suggested we change the work requirement to reflect that there are more people than jobs. I was looking back at how other presidents dealt with recessions and they all grew the government at least 3% temporarily to let the economy grow on its own.

I mean they don't have to be paper pushing bureaucrats. Pipeline technicians and inspectors and water, and air testers, and even a few building inspectors could be useful to all of us.

I mean they don't have to be paper pushing bureaucrats. Pipeline technicians and inspectors and water, and air testers, and even a few building inspectors could be useful to all of us.
I like former President Clinton's idea of paying people to wield a paintbrush and paint the roofs of buildings white, or turn those roofs into gardens. Chicago is creating urban gardens for food panties and food desert areas out of empty lots or after tearing down derelict buildings.