Hello:
Do I NEED to ask a question??
excon
|
Hello:
Do I NEED to ask a question??
excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
I said no one is refused care. It may not be ideal
Given your daughters situation, I'd think you'd WANT it to be ideal. When you say, it's not ideal, what do you mean? Do they reuse bandages, or do they REFUSE treatment for some stuff??
In fact, your daughters situation is an EXAMPLE of shoddy health care that YOU seem to think is FINE for everybody else, BUT your daughter.. Look, Steve. I don't wanna get personal. All I know is your daughter is on Medicaid, and you think it sucks.
Is it NOT true, that under Obamacare, your daughter would be eligible for a great policy at a reasonable cost where she'll actually GET top notch health care???
excon
It's good to be king, if just for a whileQuote:
Hello again,
To the powers that be. How come THIS thread can go WAYYYYY past 1,500 posts, but the one about healthcare can't?
Just askin..
To be there in velvet, yeah, to give 'em a smile
It's good to get high and never come down
It's good to be king of your own little town
Yeah, the world would swing if I were king
Can I help it if I still dream time to time
(Tom Petty)
back to topic
California exchange rejects extension of Obamacare-canceled plans - U.S. News
Look, I have always been an advocate for improving the safety net so we can dispense AGAIN with that meme. I think the evidence is clear enough already that the "Affordable" Care Act is nothing more than a redistribution scheme that puts even more people in a bind and will concentrate wealth more. If you want to FIX something you don't make it WORSE.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And no, my daughter will likely always be on Medicaid unless somehow I become fabulously wealthy. Seriously ex, you argue for Medicaid expansion in one breath and think those on Medicaid will be able to get a wonderful policy the next? No, that expansion will come at a cost to the disabled such as my daughter by expanding it to cover able-bodied adults of prime working age at the expense of the most vulnerable.
Hello again, Steve:
To be clear, you DISAGREE with Rick Perry and ALL the other Republican governors who are refusing to accept federal $$'s to improve the safety net.Quote:
Look, I have always been an advocate for improving the safety net so we can dispense AGAIN with that meme.
Just checking...
excon
latest nonsense from the Slimes .... Defrauding consumers out of health insurance is analogous to ending slavery. Actually I've heard simular arguments here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/op...ause.html?_r=0
I didn't stutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Simply expanding Medicaid is NOT a solution to improving the safety net. I am an advocate of caring for the poor and needy, not creating more of them.Quote:
And no, my daughter will likely always be on Medicaid unless somehow I become fabulously wealthy. Seriously ex, you argue for Medicaid expansion in one breath and think those on Medicaid will be able to get a wonderful policy the next? No, that expansion will come at a cost to the disabled such as my daughter by expanding it to cover able-bodied adults of prime working age at the expense of the most vulnerable.
P.S. Expanding Medicaid is just making it worse for Obamacare.
Medicaid enrollment spike a threat to Obamacare structure?
And in yet another shameless, transparently self-serving regulatory maneuver, HHS has pushed back the 2015 enrollment a month...to just past the midterm election. It ain't gonna help.
HHS to delay 2015 Obamacare enrollment by a month - Susan Levine - POLITICO.com
So the whole house of cards will come tumbling down because a few low income people get medicaid? The insurance company ploy to insure and gouge the healthy has failed because this option is available? get real!Quote:
P.S. Expanding Medicaid is just making it worse for Obamacare.
Medicaid enrollment spike a threat to Obamacare structure?
Damned clever those insurance companies
Today, my private-pay son got a BC/BS notice about his health insurance premium. It's being REDUCED by $14 a month.
That would have to be a first
Yet another federal court sided with our first amendment rights on the HHS mandate and the regime's (along with the ACLU) effort to redefine religious freedom.
Catholic dioceses of Pittsburgh, Erie win injunction against Affordable Care Act - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Quote:
At an evidentiary hearing earlier this month, the dioceses' pro bono attorneys from Jones Day argued that the act forced the organizations to facilitate evil. A Department of Justice attorney argued that the act didn't force church-related organizations to do anything they wouldn't have otherwise done.
"It just can't be that there's a substantial burden on religious beliefs in filling out a form," Ms. Amiri said.
The Department of Justice attorney also reminded the judge that not all of the organizations' employees are Catholic, nor are all of the people they serve.
Judge Schwab, though, adopted the diocesan argument that no distinction could be drawn between the charitable arms of the church and its houses of worship.
The judge wrote in his 65-page opinion that he was ruling on whether "the Government will be permitted to sever the Catholic Church into two parts (i.e., worship and faith, and 'good works') -- in other words, whether the Government will be successful in restricting the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion as set forth in the First Amendment to a Right to Worship only."
The judge wrote that he "is constrained to understand why religious employers such as Catholic Charities and Prince of Peace Center -- which were born from the same religious faith, and premised upon the same religious tenets and principles, and operate as extensions and embodiments of the Church, but are not subsidiaries of a parent corporation -- would not be treated the same as the Church itself with respect to the free exercise of that religion."
"What the judge essentially said in his decision was that faith without works is dead," Bishop Zubik said.
Judge Schwab, who noted at the hearing that he is not Catholic, wrote that the "sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and the dignity of all persons are central tenets of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"This belief necessarily prohibits providing, subsidizing, initiating or facilitating insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization services, contraceptives and related educational and counseling services."
The provision of the coverage, he wrote, could result in "decreased donations, loss of employees to other employers, loss of services" and fines that could force the closure of community assets.
and the point is, things change. I agree no church should be forced to act against its faith. The logic therefore dictates that the church not offer health coverage, and allow the employees to seek coverage themselves
the logic dicatates that the state stay out of the church's business. The logic dicatates that if the employee doesn't like the terms of the insurance they are offered by their employer ,that they are free to seek it elsewhere.
That's way too logical, tom.
Way to go Tom
Tom, "...latest nonsense from the Slimes" isn't actually the latest nonsense. Did you read the article before you posted it? The author is saying the comparison between slavery and health care ISN"T apt.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:37 AM. |