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.Quote:
Originally Posted by celticfc
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by celticfc
Who determines the best and right opinions?
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 analagyQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 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
Hello again, Dr. tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You're getting close.. I just want the government to write the checks, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes for it.
excon
Always with the overstatement of the argument, you just want to be personally recognised for your philanthropyQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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!
Since the first part of the statement is not true it follows that the other part is not true either.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 .
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
The first part is true and even if it weren't I believe that would be logical fallacy. Do you just enjoy being proven wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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. .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Here's the 1st of many to come...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rack...ll-mandate.pdf
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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!"Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.
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 imagineQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The number of plaintiffs is almost to 60 now. The latest is Wheaton College, which brings the number of Protestant plaintiffs to four because we recognize this is not just an attack on Catholics.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The money quote from Monsignor Michael Boland of Catholic Charities of Chicago:
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 $35.00. I mean really, NK, I thought you were smarter than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Like a wasteful federal government, I've been asking that question for years.Quote:
Why can;'t people help people and not go through some authoritative socialist organization who wants to redistribute goods and money?
So they take funds from you and redistribute it to poor people? Karl Marx would be proud.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That just shows either how ignorant you are or how desperate you are to make me look foolish. Which is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Unlike the government World Vision TAKES nothing from me.
You just posted that it takes 35$ From you was that a lie?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Unlike the government World Vision TAKES nothing from me.
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 obviously cannot read and/or comprehend. I said no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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?"Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
It's obvious, World Vision can do much more with combined resources than I can with $35.00 on my own.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 AM. |