• 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:
So start your own religion. Gheeze, what is it with libs that they feel that they have to meddle with everything to suit them, even if they have no intention of living by their own dictates?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Seriously. I have no religion. But I also have no use for discrimination. Whether it's religious or otherwise. I would ask you if all conservatives react before they think in response to your post.

As to meddling from the left. Hilarious considering meddling is the creedo of the religious right. Irony redefined.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, Coke?
Click to expand...
That's about as strong as it gets around here. And I don't mean Pepsi, either - ewww.

j-mac said:
I was actually kind of surprised to find out that with all the increased ER traffic espically in the West, and SW that ER's are starting to dump patients more and more.

Heck, even some speculation that Michelle Obama's hospital was accused of that under her time there.
Click to expand...
It's possible though I'd have to wonder why it's happening?
 
MoSurveyor said:
That's about as strong as it gets around here. And I don't mean Pepsi, either - ewww.
Click to expand...


LOL, the wife agrees....

It's possible though I'd have to wonder why it's happening?
Click to expand...

The article I was reading cited mostly cost due to the increase of non paying patients.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ah, but mandated BC coverage is not a law, minimum wage is.


j-mac
Click to expand...

About to become one, isn't it? Mandating the insurance cover BC is like mandating that employers pay minimum wage.
 
Boo Radley said:
About to become one, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Um, No. All the experts say that at the very least the mandate in the law will be struck down. Heck, even Obama says he needs a second term to 'fix' it.


Mandating the insurance cover BC is like mandating that employers pay minimum wage.
Click to expand...

If Minimum wage were dictated through a regulatory body with no congressional say so, then you might have a salient analogy. As it stands, you do not. What you have is a President that currently in office can not run his re election campaign on his failure of a record, so in order to pick a fight that will make headlines, turns to his HHS czar to craft this distracting regulation that will go down in court, just as his unconstitutional HC law will, all for the cynical end of pulling our eye off the fact that he is quite possibly the worst President in history. Obama will be the first President to leave office with the stigma of,

a net loss of jobs

the highest debt accumulation in the shortest time

the highest energy costs

the most corrupt administration in history

not getting a single initiative done while having a majority in both houses for his first two years.

highest dependency on welfare in history

Progressive Liberalism/Marxism is a failure in this country, and Americans don't want your statist vision of nanny state, under governmental thumb top down control of their lives, and society.

You progressives need to find that rock y'all hid under for 100 years, and crawl back under it so we can fix the mess y'all just created.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Um, No. All the experts say that at the very least the mandate in the law will be struck down. Heck, even Obama says he needs a second term to 'fix' it.

If Minimum wage were dictated through a regulatory body with no congressional say so, then you might have a salient analogy. As it stands, you do not. What you have is a President that currently in office can not run his re election campaign on his failure of a record, so in order to pick a fight that will make headlines, turns to his HHS czar to craft this distracting regulation that will go down in court, just as his unconstitutional HC law will, all for the cynical end of pulling our eye off the fact that he is quite possibly the worst President in history. Obama will be the first President to leave office with the stigma of,
a net loss of jobs
the highest debt accumulation in the shortest time
the highest energy costs
the most corrupt administration in history
not getting a single initiative done while having a majority in both houses for his first two years.
highest dependency on welfare in history
Progressive Liberalism/Marxism is a failure in this country, and Americans don't want your statist vision of nanny state, under governmental thumb top down control of their lives, and society.
You progressives need to find that rock y'all hid under for 100 years, and crawl back under it so we can fix the mess y'all just created.
Click to expand...
What a bundle of half-truths and horse crap! From which Right-winger site did you copy that? LOL!



And weren't you earlier dissing me for running amok and off topic?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Um, No. All the experts say that at the very least the mandate in the law will be struck down. Heck, even Obama says he needs a second term to 'fix' it.




If Minimum wage were dictated through a regulatory body with no congressional say so, then you might have a salient analogy. As it stands, you do not. What you have is a President that currently in office can not run his re election campaign on his failure of a record, so in order to pick a fight that will make headlines, turns to his HHS czar to craft this distracting regulation that will go down in court, just as his unconstitutional HC law will, all for the cynical end of pulling our eye off the fact that he is quite possibly the worst President in history. Obama will be the first President to leave office with the stigma of,

a net loss of jobs

the highest debt accumulation in the shortest time

the highest energy costs

the most corrupt administration in history

not getting a single initiative done while having a majority in both houses for his first two years.

highest dependency on welfare in history

Progressive Liberalism/Marxism is a failure in this country, and Americans don't want your statist vision of nanny state, under governmental thumb top down control of their lives, and society.

You progressives need to find that rock y'all hid under for 100 years, and crawl back under it so we can fix the mess y'all just created.


j-mac
Click to expand...

If it's struck down j it doesn't happen. We're discussing if it does happen. Then it will be law.

BTW, have your experts ever been wrong? Just wondering. . . . :coffeepap

The rest of post is kind of nonsenseical. Did the government mandate minimum wage or not? Will it not be the government mandating BC be covered or not? This is really pretty simple j.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I am not now nor have I ever considered the idea of the government replacing my local doctor's office, or the local hospital, or any other health care provider.
Click to expand...
But, alas, that is what you will get when you depend on the government to pay for your care and the government decides what they will pay for. The only solution then is for you to be rich enough to fly to India or Thailand and pay for your care directly. The link accurately describes what you can expect under Obamacare.
 
Diogenes said:
But, alas, that is what you will get when you depend on the government to pay for your care and the government decides what they will pay for. The only solution then is for you to be rich enough to fly to India or Thailand and pay for your care directly. The link accurately describes what you can expect under Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Oh stuff and nonsense.. Don't you know anything about the healthcare industry over the past 25 years?
 
Diogenes said:
But, alas, that is what you will get when you depend on the government to pay for your care and the government decides what they will pay for. The only solution then is for you to be rich enough to fly to India or Thailand and pay for your care directly. The link accurately describes what you can expect under Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Again, not true. I think your read too much propaganda on this and too little factual information.
 
Diogenes said:
But, alas, that is what you will get when you depend on the government to pay for your care and the government decides what they will pay for. The only solution then is for you to be rich enough to fly to India or Thailand and pay for your care directly. The link accurately describes what you can expect under Obamacare.
Click to expand...
:scared: They wanna' kill me!!! :scared:





LOL! Doesn't sit well with the other half of your camp that thinks they're increasing the number of poor for voting power. You guys need to get your conspiracies straight. LOL!
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
:scared: They wanna' kill me!!! :scared:



LOL! Doesn't sit well with the other half of your camp that thinks they're increasing the number of poor for voting power. You guys need to get your conspiracies straight. LOL!
Click to expand...

We need to get the message right. We can't afford to kill anybody who is/will contribute to the economy and tax revenue stream. The rest however...

I think you are ok Mo.
 
sharon said:
Oh stuff and nonsense.. Don't you know anything about the healthcare industry over the past 25 years?
Click to expand...
Evidently I know much more about it than you do.
 
Diogenes said:
Evidently I know much more about it than you do.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you have not demonstrated knowledge. When you make statements as you did above that are not factually true, it is fair to question your understanding.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm afraid you have not demonstrated knowledge. When you make statements as you did above that are not factually true, it is fair to question your understanding.
Click to expand...


You can say whatever you want, however I don't think you are an honest observer in this....Here is an Obama advisor on the issue speaking at Berkley University.




j-mac
 
j-mac said:
You can say whatever you want, however I don't think you are an honest observer in this....Here is an Obama advisor on the issue speaking at Berkley University.




j-mac
Click to expand...


And he has what to with the issue? There any many types of UHC. The most flexiable is a single payer system which can be tiered to allow individuals to buy anything they want. I realize you read stuff that lacks basic factual information, but nothing siad in this video contradicts basic facts, let alone a skewed and false reading of it so many republicans try to paint with it.
 
How does single payer add flexibility?
 
Aberration said:
How does single payer add flexibility?
Click to expand...

I kind of said up above. Though I didn't use the word add. I said it was the most flexible single UHC system. It can be teired. Essentially the single payer meets the minimum adequate standard, and individuals are allowed to purchase more service or more insurance from private companies.
 
Being the most flexible, would mean its more flexible than now. Or adding flexibility. I don't see how single payer does that.
 
Aberration said:
Being the most flexible, would mean its more flexible than now. Or adding flexibility. I don't see how single payer does that.
Click to expand...

No, read the sentence again. I said the most flexible UHC system. So, you're still having reading issues.

As for a single payer system, it adds having everyone's basic needs met, which we don't have now, while still allowing you and other to buy as much as you do now if you want.
 
Yeah you still aren't getting it. Being UHC or not, irrelevant. Matters not one bit. But again I am sure you will come back with another way to not answer how you think single payer adds any flexibility.
 
Aberration said:
Yeah you still aren't getting it. Being UHC or not, irrelevant. Matters not one bit. But again I am sure you will come back with another way to not answer how you think single payer adds any flexibility.
Click to expand...

Actually, to the meaning of the sentence, it does matter. I don't mind discussing it, but you do need to understand what is being said. Otherwise, we'll spend too much time going down a false path, or trying to explain your misunderstanding to you.

Not only that, you have not addressed the flexibility I keep showing you.

Do you really want to discuss this or are you merely trying to hold on to a misunderstanding on your part?
 
Erod said:
Obama's suing Arizona over its right to protect its borders. The Catholic Church is suing Obama over his infringement on their rights. The Supreme Court is about to vote on an unprecedented power play by Obama to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Stay tuned for more of "Obama versus the United States of America."
Click to expand...

I am so happy that my Church got out of its apathy and lethargy and started doing what protestant churches have been doing, fighting the Leftists who are destroying this country
 
Boo Radley said:
And he has what to with the issue?
Click to expand...


Reich was an advisor to the Obama administration on this issue, also was in the Clinton administration during their attempted take over of the HC industry.

There any many types of UHC.
Click to expand...

There are. And all of them essentially place government at the deciding role of what treatment is approved.

The most flexiable is a single payer system which can be tiered to allow individuals to buy anything they want.
Click to expand...

How is that different from today? I assume that you have employer based insurance, let's say an 80/20 plan with deductibles. Are you not free to buy additional insurance if you choose?

I realize you read stuff that lacks basic factual information, but nothing siad in this video contradicts basic facts, let alone a skewed and false reading of it so many republicans try to paint with it.
Click to expand...

Oh stop....Gheeze, can you even discuss anything without your backhanded slaps, and down the nose view of anyone that disagrees with your statist positions?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Reich was an advisor to the Obama administration on this issue, also was in the Clinton administration during their attempted take over of the HC industry.
Click to expand...

Has no bearing and means nothing to what we're discussing. Sorry.

There are. And all of them essentially place government at the deciding role of what treatment is approved.
Click to expand...

That is again false. All the Government will be in charge of is what they pay for. You can buy more.


How is that different from today? I assume that you have employer based insurance, let's say an 80/20 plan with deductibles. Are you not free to buy additional insurance if you choose?
Click to expand...

You assume wrong. Nothign will stop your employer from offering more insurance, but he won't have to, so I expect fewer will. However, you can buy more. You can pay for service yourself. All the government policy does is pay for minimial adequate care. It doesn't stop there.



Oh stop....Gheeze, can you even discuss anything without your backhanded slaps, and down the nose view of anyone that disagrees with your statist positions?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have a point here, but we have to cover the same misinformation over and over again. What will it take to have someone actually learn what the differences are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom