Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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, 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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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??

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Let's not pile fallacy upon fallacy

---

Hello 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

---

I'm charging anyone anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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?