[NeedKarma]

Now thats just ridicules! You can't make up a scenerio and offer it as fact! It hasn't happened in reality. Come ON!!!

He does it all the time.

[talaniman]

Bit of a disconnect there Tal, I fail to see how debt collection shrinks the pie and sinks the economy. The economy sinks because people, corporations, don't pay their bills leading to bankruptcy of suppliers, so with responsible debt collection (and responsible taxation and collection) you get a bigger pie. Now lending also adds to the pie by enabling economic activity, no lending and the economy slows down (economics 101.)

Look at Greece, no responsible policies there and the result; chaos

No Clete its called predatory lending and its not responsible. Its extraction with transparency. And if the ratings agency had been honest and did its due diligence the banks wouldn't have to default, and need a bailout.

Austerity isn't the answer. Never was, and just another way of putting profits before people. Another name for predatory lending is de leveraging, which has become an accepted practice of taking money with NO risk. You want a bigger pie, then you make sure circulation is enabled.

I can go along with responsible lending, but its not happening in Greece. If you have no income stream, or assets by which to leverage, then you don't get a loan. That's economics 101. And debt collection which is a growth industry works with predatory lending to to extract cash, and assets, with no investment or down side.

I guess you guys don't have companies whose sole existence is to use debt and assets to make themselves and their clients money while tearing companies apart. Heck we had a President (BUSH43) who bankrupted 7 companies, and a baseball team, and got rich!

[TUT317]

Because it needs to be read, Bishop William E. Lori's testimony regarding the effort to destroy our liberty.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let's call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don't should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that's not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people, who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn't need to be on the menu, and didn't need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things.

First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis' meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.

I think there is one important point being missed in this hypothetical.

This goes back to my point earlier post. No one wanted to respond even though a asked a number of questions. Let's look at this again in light of this hypothetical.

I would argue there are not two food outlets on the one premisses. What we seem to have is a 'quasi kosher deli'. This is the worrying aspect of the whole thing from my point of view.

Once you let in one quasi legal definitions in relation to the Constitution then there is no reason not to let in another, and another and so on.

Quasi legal definitions are very handy because they only operate in legal arenas. Therefore, its no good saying this is unconstitutional or that is unconstitutional because in the end what is constitutional will be decided in the courts.

In the future I would be rather worried by a Constitutional lawyer armed with quasi legal definitions. Look at the problems created by 'corporate personhood". Anyway time will tell.

Tut

[talaniman]

Have to agree with you Tut, and raise you an ordinary personhood, but I take your point. Things can change in a society, so it stands to reason so should the laws, and no doubt, so will the interpretation of the Constitution. I think that's what the amendment process is about, and why its not an easy thing to do.

A minority opinion just won't do that.

[TUT317]

Have to agree with you Tut, and raise you an ordinary personhood, but I take your point. Things can change in a society, so it stands to reason so should the laws, and no doubt, so will the interpretation of the Constitution. I think thats what the amendment process is about, and why its not an easy thing to do.

A minority opinion just wont do that.

Hi Tal,

Yes, I think you are right.

What I have outlined is also a hypothetical. The direction things are moving (for better or worse depending on your politics) is not hypothetical. The fact is that our society is continually evolving.

I don't really see the point of being the conservative mayor of 'Pleasantville' (the film). Secondly, I don't really see much value in having you eyes firmly on the ideal while at the same time claiming that everything changing around you is an anathema. If you have seen the film you would know what I mean.

Lastly, I don't really see the point of a response that points even harder at the ideal. Then again Australian politics is different. We don't have much of a constitution compared to yours. Perhaps that's why I don't understand conservative politics over there.

Wouldn't it make more sense to work within the changing framework in order to slow down change? It is hard to accept change but it is almost impossible to stop it.

Tut

[talaniman]

I don't think we are at a point that change can occur without a lot of friction, or conflict, but I would rather have a lot of hot words, rhetoric, and hurt feelings than bullets and blood of our last civil war.

Right or wrong, the ballots are better. It's a long, hard, never ending process, and that's what the whole point our constitution calls for, no matter who interprets what, which way. It's the process that's the most important I think.

So we vote every other year whether you love who wins or NOT! Sometimes I don't understand my conservative brothers either. But they do keep us from running head first into a brick wall, and we progressives keep them from being stuck in the mud. It's the American Way.

Go figure.

[paraclete]

No Clete its called predatory lending and its not responsible. Its extraction with transparency. And if the ratings agency had been honest and did its due diligence the banks wouldn't have to default, and need a bailout.

Austerity isn't the answer. Never was, and just another way of putting profits before people. Another name for predatory lending is de leveraging, which has become an accepted practice of taking money with NO risk. You want a bigger pie, then you make sure circulation is enabled.

I can go along with responsible lending, but its not happening in Greece. If you have no income stream, or assets by which to leverage, then you don't get a loan. Thats economics 101. And debt collection which is a growth industry works with predatory lending to to extract cash, and assets, with no investment or down side.

I guess you guys don't have companies whose sole existence is to use debt and assets to make themselves and their clients money while tearing companies apart. Heck we had a President (BUSH43) who bankrupted 7 companies, and a baseball team, and got rich!

Confused arguments here Tal, no one is talking about austerity, which is reducing welfare and wage payments, Regulation is important banks need to have proper prudential oversight, but a deal is a deal and debt collection is part of that. You also need to understand that our mortgage laws are different to yours, no walk out and leave the bank with the debt here. Of course we have corporate predators but we have better regulation than you do so some of these questionable practices aren't allowed here, you see we didn't come down in the last shower and so we don't believe all the B/S put in front of us, we also have accountable government so the big questions get asked sooner.

Greece is a different issue, what happened there is pure fraud with no proper oversight, and those fellows are going to pay for it and so are those who lent to them without doing their own due diligence. The Greeks have been overpaying themselves and the clawback will be vicious, like any situation where you lend to a non credit worthy borrower, you will loose out

[tomder55]

The question is... are rights inalienable ? And what are those rights ? In this country religious liberty predates the revolution The Enlightenment began as a defence of religious freedom, not an assault on it.

[talaniman]

No one is assaulting religion, the debate is about the rights and needs of people. Of course the right characterizes anything people do that they don't like as an assault on them. Its obvious you are not open to the ideas, and rights of others unless YOU get to define them. That's why you come off as taking my rights and want to destroy them and everyone should live by the rights YOU think they should have, and I respectfully disagree strongly to that, or your premise that exercising MY rights is leading us to hell!

Rights became unalienable with the constitution Tom, which says basically no matter what the church preaches they cannot stop my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we all are equal under the law. But lets not forget it took 250 years to evolve to the point that ALL men are equal, and woman are too!

Religion has evolved to Tom, and has expanded its endeavors and reach into a lot more of the society than ever before, and as its role expands so do its responsibilities under the law. NO the church has NO rights in a free society, to restrict the rights of its followers. And health care is the new civil rights issue because not to have it is economically stupid, and morally reprehensible.

And lets be honest, the right wing would rather take away a persons choice in the name of life, and wants to use religious freedom as a vehicle to that end. More so the right also has an agenda to limit the government of the people to do for the people as we want them to. I disagree, so we have to go through the process of debate and see where we are. I think in this, and other social matters you guys are simply OUT VOTED. Just my opinion.

Just a curious observation though, I wonder if the churches rights would be violated by single payer, as opposed to employer based health care insurance??

[excon]

Just a curious observation though, I wonder if the churches rights would be violated by single payer, as opposed to employer based health care insurance???

Hello tal:

If they pay taxes, and taxes are used for women's health, OF COURSE, they're going to complain...

The problem they have is balancing religious freedom with an individuals rights... They TALK a big story about inalienable rights, but they DON'T understand that if they DON'T respect others inalienable rights, they'll soon lose their own...

Of course, if you asked them, they'd say that Christianity is under attack in the US, when all the available evidence says otherwise.

excon

[speechlesstx]

He does it all the time.

And you sir attack me all the time and usually as in this case, your attacks are not based on reality. The reality is I said it was Bishop Lori's testimony, nothing made up about that.

You and Tal for some inexplicable reason don't think examining the possibilities and consequences of the laws being imposed on us is wise - when you AGREE with them. I happen to think it wise to lay out the scenarios and the fact is the Bishop's parable is not in the least far-fetched.

[tomder55]

Rights became unalienable with the constitution Tom, which says basically no matter what the church preaches they cannot stop my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

.

Nah they are God given. And you like rights others pay for.

[talaniman]

So you are afraid of what might happen if affordable employer based health insurance is available to all? Please tell me what your solution is, and what the people affected are supposed to do.

Sorry your parable is nice, but not based in fact as I could say just as effectively the parable about being hit by a bus. It may be a concern but doesn't rise to the level of FACT! My position is you cannot tell a female what to do and call it moral objection. The churches opinion is NO better than mine and they have choices to make as we all.

So I ask you what do female EMPLOYEES of the church have in the way of CHOICE! Why are employees of the church different than McDonalds or Ford motors. You mean church employees are less than other employees?

[talaniman]

.

nah they are God given. And you like rights others pay for.

Whose God?

[tomder55]

There is only one .if you are denying they are endowed by the creator you are denying the existence of unalienable rights . If it's humans that giveth then humans can taketh away.

[cdad]

So you are afraid of what might happen if affordable employer based health insurance is available to all? Please tell me what your solution is, and what the people affected are supposed to do.

Yes I fear it. I fear it with a passion as I have seen it in action before. Do you really think that if something is free then people won't abuse it? I was involved years ago with a health care plan that eliminated copays. Then when the bills came in everyone started screaming as the money started disappearing at an alarming rate. Do you really believe that this affordable health care your talking about has no cost? How about a trade off. No raises for the next 10 years to pay for it? Hey at least its affordable. We have no idea of the real costs of this goliath and with things being added in for free. The sky is the limit.

Solution: Pay what you can afford. Keep a copay. Don't overregulate the system.

So I ask you what do female EMPLOYEES of the church have in the way of CHOICE! Why are employees of the church different than McDonalds or Ford motors. You mean church employees are less than other employees?

They have the right to access services that they can afford if they aren't offered by their current plans. Should we also pay for plastic elective surgury too? Im sure there are lots of women that would get work done if it were free.
It is no different from any other employer. If they pay for the plans they choose the plans. What is left is what we are stuck with to figure out how to modify to suit our needs. Is it any different then having a company choose a plan that goes from a $500 deductable to one that is $5,000 ? The choice is always there to accept it or walk away. That is how employer healthcare plans started in the first place.

There is always a choice.

[excon]

there is only one .if you are denying they are endowed by the creator you are denying the existance of unalienable rights . If it's humans that giveth then humans can taketh away.

Hello tom:

That's YOUR religious viewpoint. Mine is that the UNIVERSE created me, or a passing comet... What makes YOUR religious viewpoint take precedence over mine?

But, I wonder... Did YOUR God only give these unalienable rights to Americans?? You DO keep lists of people who don't qualify.. Why would your God do that?

My comet didn't.

excon

[tomder55]

Hello tom:

But, I wonder.... Did YOUR God only give these unalienable rights to Americans??? You DO keep lists of people who don't qualify.. Why would your God do that??

My comet didn't.

excon

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

My government secures mine .Again this so called right to get the pill is a right paid for by someone else. The founders were careful to not enumerate so called positive rights that require taking property from someone else to pay for them.

[talaniman]

Yes I fear it. I fear it with a passion as I have seen it in action before. Do you really think that if something is free then people wont abuse it? I was involved years ago with a health care plan that eliminated copays. Then when the bills came in everyone started screaming as the money started disappearing at an alarming rate. Do you really believe that this affordable health care your talking about has no cost? How about a trade off. No raises for the next 10 years to pay for it? Hey atleast its affordable. We have no idea of the real costs of this goliath and with things being added in for free. The sky is the limit.

Solution: Pay what you can afford. Keep a copay. Dont overregulate the system.






They have the right to access services that they can afford if they arent offered by thier current plans. Should we also pay for plastic elective surgury too? Im sure there are lots of women that would get work done if it were free.
It is no different from any other employer. If they pay for the plans they choose the plans. What is left is what we are stuck with to figure out how to modify to suit our needs. Is it any different then having a company choose a plan that goes from a $500 deductable to one that is $5,000 ? The choice is always there to accept it or walk away. That is how employer healthcare plans started in the first place.

There is always a choice.

I have my own horror stories of insurance companies that went bankrupt, and left us all scrambling for coverage. But a sliding scale tied to income sounds logical. But the difference between elective, and preventive is a crucial distinction.

[talaniman]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

My government secures mine .Again this so called right to get the pill is a right paid for by someone else. The founders were careful to not enumerate so called positive rights that require taking property from someone else to pay for them.

If your government secures your rights, why can't they secure your Wife's rights? That's fair isn't it? I mean insurance ain't free and we all have to pay a premium, so nobody pays for what others get because they have their own group or individual policies. That's how it works, and insurances put all the money in the bank and deliver coverage, so the notion you pay for a pill is erroneous, and misleading.

So do catholic employees pay a premium for insurance coverage or does the catholic church offer it at no cost, and no deductible is the question? If the church benefits from group rates and deducts premiums from employees paychecks, they are obligated by law to not discriminate on the basis of color creed or gender, no matter what the doctrine of the church is.

Since science and the medical field deems woman's reproductive health care as preventive medicine, its free as is mens medicine. I don't pay for yearly exams which include a range of tests for diseases, including prostrate and rectal exams (hehehe!), so why would a female pay for it?? If they pay their premiums they should get it whether the church, any church is against it or not.

I mean if your rights are unalienable so is hers.