 |
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Wow, one should scroll down and read the comments section about that item.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
No sir, I made the distinction between the hospital and the content provider. BSA verified my argument. That equals a win for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Nothing new here, I said that first.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.Quote:
and let 1,000's go WITHOUT charitable services, because they won't accept change...
Concerning abortion, which I never brought up. The fact that you need an 'internet win" so bad is sad. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The word "abortion does not appear in my response to your post:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.Quote:
You do realize that does not necessarily reflect the views of the Hospital, it's provided by ADAM.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Not there but it obviously was the main point of your email to them since that's what they responded to.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
Obamacare will collapse on it's own weight if they think they can replace all the Catholic charities with government institutions .
Quote:
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.
They self insured to get by the state mandates . The President's plan won't give them the option.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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 .
Thank you, stick to the known facts please.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello again, tom:Quote:
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.
So, like the air traffic controllers of years gone by, the church is threatening Obama. I'd call their bluff.
Excon
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
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 ?
Otherwise, you'll be picking up the tab.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
No, but if I'm hit and end up with PD (property damage) and BI (bodily injury) caused by an uninsured driver...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
Liability is to cover damage done to others, not me, while performing a voluntary activity.Quote:
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.”
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.
So I am stuck footing the bill for their healthcare?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
Man we could sure teach you guys something about providing affordable health careQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.
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 .Quote:
So I am stuck footing the bill for their healthcare?
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 .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoulaLC
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:39 PM. |