• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholics sue Obama over birth control mandate

j-mac said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I see it as governmental bullying plain and simple. Clearly, yourself and other libs have no regard for religious freedom, so you see it as a simple business decision. What ever you tell yourself to get through the night is not my concern. You think I am wrong, and I conversely think you are, but the fact of the matter is that BC is relatively cheap enough for people to afford already, it doesn't need to be forced through insurance coverage.

The other fact of this is that it is an election year distraction that is designed to take the attention off the failure of the Obama first term. And that is easy enough to see.

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, like many, you see what you want to see. You missed a lot under Bush because you didn't want to see it. I wish this ability to see clearly was limited to just you, or even just republicans. It isn't, sadly. However, such inability to recognize what the issue really is, selectively, hinders a lot today. Speaking for myself, I'm all for religious freedom. If anyone starts telling cleregy, churches, even believers that they have to use BC, I'll stand with you. But that has to actually happen, and not be mere hyperbolic fear mongering that misses the actual issue.

BTW, if it is a distraction, quit being distracted. It really is that simple. Keep pretending this matters, and you play into what you THINK is his plan. Who does that make the fool?
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's not from lack of trying. Bills have been entroduced to change things. Why don't you write your Congressmen and bitch? I did.


On the other hand, I doubt Goldman would even open your e-mail or letter.
Click to expand...


It is that shift to a heavy handed, redistributive model that are abhorrent to Americans. Can't you see that? American's don't want nanny statists to take care of their needs, they want the ability to take care of themselves.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
J, like many, you see what you want to see. You missed a lot under Bush because you didn't want to see it. I wish this ability to see clearly was limited to just you, or even just republicans. It isn't, sadly. However, such inability to recognize what the issue really is, selectively, hinders a lot today. Speaking for myself, I'm all for religious freedom. If anyone starts telling cleregy, churches, even believers that they have to use BC, I'll stand with you. But that has to actually happen, and not be mere hyperbolic fear mongering that misses the actual issue.
Click to expand...


Bull!

BTW, if it is a distraction, quit being distracted. It really is that simple. Keep pretending this matters, and you play into what you THINK is his plan. Who does that make the fool?
Click to expand...

Why should I care what some pseudo intellectual BS artist thinks? Hint...I don't Joe...:wink:


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
It is that shift to a heavy handed, redistributive model that are abhorrent to Americans. Can't you see that? American's don't want nanny statists to take care of their needs, they want the ability to take care of themselves.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure to what that is in reference.

I don't see where government telling the banks they have to split off into investment and savings banks - as they were for sixty years prior to 2000 - is a problem for anyone except the banks.
 
j-mac said:
Bull!



Why should I care what some pseudo intellectual BS artist thinks? Hint...I don't Joe...:wink:


j-mac
Click to expand...

Never thought you did, but that doesn't change the turth j. I spoke the truth to you, what you do with it is up to you.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I agree, the government should pay for it. What do you think UHC is all about?
Click to expand...
UHC is all about command and control. It substitutes bureaucratic judgment for individual judgment and, as in the core of this thread, it leads to violation of our most fundamental rights.

I agree, monopolies are a bad thing, which is why no capitalist system can be without regulation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The question is one of degree. Our Constitution spells out the limited powers delegated to the federal government, and UHC isn't there.

The government shouldn't be a customer.
Click to expand...
The government sure as hell isn't qualified to be a provider. Visit an Indian reservation some time.

We need a basic UHC to cover things like an annual check-up, broken bones, flu shots, emergency treatment and/or operations, and etc. The insurance companies should not be involved at all in these very basic services. After that if you want more coverage then knock yourself out. I'm sure Kaiser et al will be happy to take your money.
Click to expand...
And why should the government be involved in deciding what the seller must offer and the individual must buy?
 
Diogenes said:
UHC is all about command and control. It substitutes bureaucratic judgment for individual judgment and, as in the core of this thread, it leads to violation of our most fundamental rights.
Click to expand...
No, it's about providing for the general welfare of the people. Simple, basic medical needs. If an artery got nicked in an accident then we'll fix you up. If you want a heart transplant then you'd better be rich or have your own health insurance. It might be cheaper to provide a liver transplant over providing dialyses, I don't know, that would be up to the number crunchers top figure out. Certainly many drugs are too damn expensive and government could change that by negotiation with the drug companies. You want name brand drugs? Buy them yourself or get your own insurance.

Diogenes said:
Agreed. The question is one of degree. Our Constitution spells out the limited powers delegated to the federal government, and UHC isn't there.
Click to expand...
See #1 - General welfare.

Diogenes said:
The government sure as hell isn't qualified to be a provider. Visit an Indian reservation some time.
Click to expand...
A provider would be a clinic, hospital, or doctor's office. I'm not talking about that. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Diogenes said:
And why should the government be involved in deciding what the seller must offer and the individual must buy?
Click to expand...
With UHC there is no "buy" - that's the whole point of UHC.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm not sure to what that is in reference.

I don't see where government telling the banks they have to split off into investment and savings banks - as they were for sixty years prior to 2000 - is a problem for anyone except the banks.
Click to expand...


What do banks have to do with any of this? Can't you stick to the subject?

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Never thought you did...
Click to expand...

Again, more BS...Of course you did, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to continue your attempts.

but that doesn't change the turth j.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you think that your pseudo intellectual blather is anything but foolishness? LOL...Funny, funny guy....

I spoke the truth to you
Click to expand...

No, you wrote your opinion, part of which I might add includes you thinking you know more than the top Catholic clergymen of the US in terms of what the Church's path is, stunning hubris on your part.

what you do with it is up to you.
Click to expand...

Flush it down with a healthy dose of Rid-X so that it doesn't clog the septic system.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
What do banks have to do with any of this? Can't you stick to the subject?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should go back and read posts #422 and 423 then try again?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Maybe you should go back and read posts #422 and 423 then try again?
Click to expand...


Ah, I see, so because you originally tried to take the shot at banks on a thread about the government forcing BC insurance mandates on the Church, I believe is called derailing the thread.

If you want to talk about 2008, and the financial collapse, I am sure there are threads on that, conversely if you want to talk about UHC there are threads on that as well. Post there. This one is about the Church, and HHS, with their "Tiller 'the baby killer" supporter at the helm of that outfit, running blocker for the Obama failing record in this election by picking a fight with the Church....

j-mac
 
Diogenes said:
UHC is all about command and control. It substitutes bureaucratic judgment for individual judgment
Click to expand...

No matter how much you say it, it does not make it true.

I have lived in 2 UHC countries (Britain and Canada) and never have I been told by anyone what treatment I can and couldn't have, but just like HMO's there's certain things that they won't pay for.

A boob job is a good example :mrgreen:
 
j-mac said:
Ah, I see, so because you originally tried to take the shot at banks on a thread about the government forcing BC insurance mandates on the Church, I believe is called derailing the thread.
Click to expand...
No, I believe the topic under discussion was about trusting government and trusting businesses, which in turn was related to UHC. If you want the full discussion and how it got there then follow the little blue arrows back through the thread. I'm sorry you weren't keeping up with that discussion but that's really not my problem.

I noticed you aren't whining to Diogenes about his reference to the GSA, the KGB, and various other organizations also completely unrelated to the topic as you see it. Why is that???


Making judgments without all the facts is very much on point, though - and you've done a great job of demonstrating what that means.
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
No matter how much you say it, it does not make it true.

I have lived in 2 UHC countries (Britain and Canada) and never have I been told by anyone what treatment I can and couldn't have, but just like HMO's there's certain things that they won't pay for.

A boob job is a good example :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


You asked for a boob job? :mrgreen:


j-mac
 
MoSurveyor said:
No, I believe the topic under discussion was about trusting government and trusting businesses, which in turn was related to UHC.
Click to expand...

No, no...Let me refresh your memory..

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ver-birth-control-mandate.html#post1060517552

If you want the full discussion and how it got there then follow the little blue arrows back through the thread. I'm sorry you weren't keeping up with that discussion but that's really not my problem.
Click to expand...

irrelevant snark win you nothing. :roll:

I noticed you aren't whining to Diogenes about his reference to the GSA, the KGB, and various other organizations also completely unrelated to the topic as you see it. Why is that???
Click to expand...


Oh Boo freakin' Hoo....Cry me a river. :lol::doh

Making judgments without all the facts is very much on point, though - and you've done a great job of demonstrating what that means.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Again, do you have anything to add to the topic of the thread? If not then I suggest you fight the need to show your ass.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Again, do you have anything to add to the topic of the thread? If not then I suggest you fight the need to show your ass.
Click to expand...
You started this, then you got embarrassed because you made a mistake, now you're mad and still trying to take your mistake out on me.
:lamo


If you don't want it to continue then you don't have to respond.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
No matter how much you say it, it does not make it true.

I have lived in 2 UHC countries (Britain and Canada) and never have I been told by anyone what treatment I can and couldn't have, but just like HMO's there's certain things that they won't pay for.

A boob job is a good example :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

That may be true, as I understand Canada for an example, you can get into see a GP Doctor readily, however if you need a specialists, that's a whole different thing. Meaning that is when the "get in line" and wait for a specialists comes into play. I understand it can be months before you can get in to see a specialists. One could be dead before you see your specialists.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You started this, then you got embarrassed because you made a mistake, now you're mad and still trying to take your mistake out on me.
:lamo


If you don't want it to continue then you don't have to respond.
Click to expand...


What? :lmao: You libs really do have a problem with projection don't you?

Get back on topic please.

j-mac
 
Born Free said:
That may be true, as I understand Canada for an example, you can get into see a GP Doctor readily, however if you need a specialists, that's a whole different thing. Meaning that is when the "get in line" and wait for a specialists comes into play. I understand it can be months before you can get in to see a specialists. One could be dead before you see your specialists.
Click to expand...
Funny - my wife recently had to see a specialist and had to wait almost 2 months. We live in Missouri, not Canada.
 
j-mac said:
What? :lmao: You libs really do have a problem with projection don't you?

Get back on topic please.
Click to expand...
Like I said last time ...
MoSurveyor said:
If you don't want it to continue then you don't have to respond.
Click to expand...
Seems to me like you Cons just like to dictate terms.


You responded to my post first. You've had your say - let me have mine, leave it alone, and we'll be done. YOU keep pulling off topic, I'm just responding to your posts.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Like I said last time ... Seems to me like you Cons just like to dictate terms.


You responded to my post first. You've had your say - let me have mine, leave it alone, and we'll be done. YOU keep pulling off topic, I'm just responding to your posts.
Click to expand...


Grow up dude, you are making a fool out of yourself.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Grow up dude, you are making a fool out of yourself.
Click to expand...
You keep re-posting - why not just stop posting and end it?

Just gotta' have both the first word AND the last word?!? LOL!


Third time around ...
MoSurveyor said:
If you don't want it to continue then you don't have to respond.
Click to expand...
 
MoSurveyor said:
No, it's about providing for the general welfare of the people. Simple, basic medical needs. If an artery got nicked in an accident then we'll fix you up. If you want a heart transplant then you'd better be rich or have your own health insurance. It might be cheaper to provide a liver transplant over providing dialyses, I don't know, that would be up to the number crunchers top figure out. Certainly many drugs are too damn expensive and government could change that by negotiation with the drug companies. You want name brand drugs? Buy them yourself or get your own insurance.
Click to expand...
And according to Obama, it might just be cheaper to give you a pain pill. It seems to be the goal of Obamacare to make sure there is no other insurance for you to buy (at least in the US), so your suggestion of being rich is probably the best answer.

A provider would be a clinic, hospital, or doctor's office. I'm not talking about that. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Where the government is in charge of providing care, the care isn't there and the IHS is a prime example. See link. It infuriates me that this could happen to any child in my country.

With UHC there is no "buy" - that's the whole point of UHC.
Click to expand...
And like the man says: If you think it's expensive now, just wait until it's free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom