Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obamacare doesn't guarantee you're going to get whatever you need. If you need a knee replacement when you're 75 years old they will probably just give you a walking stick instead. That is unless you happen to slip a $5000 bribe to the nurse like they do in socialist countries. Just doing away with Obamacare in of itself is a healthcare plan. It's would allow us to buy healthcare plan we want and not the one the government says we must have. It's called "Liberty".
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Where do you get your information from?
If you are 75, Medicare, not Obamacare makes the call.
Hip and knee replacements are the most common inpatient surgery for Medicare beneficiaries . In 2014, there were more than 400,000 procedures, costing more than $7 billion for the hospitalizations alone.
No one is slipping a nurse $5000.
ACA /Obamacare is legislation, not insurance.
The ACA/Obamacare leaves it to the states to decide what to include in a standard marketplace insurance plans, beyond the essentials, and some states excluded outpatient surgery.
Inclusions/exclusions can and do vary state to state and by plan, within state.
To answer your question, too many people get their 'information,' such as it is, from talk radio talking points.
The reality is that Medicare doesn't ration care for seniors. My mother was 91 and for a year before she passed, Medicare spent at least $100,000 on her hospital and medical bills.
lilydopip, statement above, "Just doing away with Obamacare in of itself is a healthcare plan. It's would allow us to buy healthcare plan we want and not the one the government says we must have," was a profound show of how much people just don't know. What she wants is exactly what we had pre-Obamacare that left millions without access to health insurance. She also thinks that the government is providing the insurance, when it is not. Obamacare plans are private policies issued by private insurance companies that the individual gets to select and buy the amount of coverage they want.
Is religion in the courts? Battling over the restriction of religion in anything government, or out in the open that might offend someone.
It is not what it was just 30 short years ago, after 200 year of existence.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the first line of the first amendment in the United States Constitution; religious freedom was clearly a legal priority of the men who drafted the Bill of Rights. Yet, 225 years later, the Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project has said the United States places a "moderate" level of restrictions on religious practice compared to the other countries in the world. According to Pew, the U.S. saw a marked increase in hostility toward religion starting in 2009, and this level remained consistent in the following years.
the "moderate" restrictions on religion in the U.S. aren't primarily abridgments of freedom; they're part of the complex puzzle of governing a pluralistic political community. The right to free exercise of religion may seem simple in principle, but in practice, it involves figuring out how one group's rights intersect with another's. The U.S. Puts 'Moderate' Restrictions on Religious Freedom - The Atlantic
Earlier this month, for instance, a federal appeals court approved San Diego State University's policy of denying a Christian sorority and fraternity official campus benefits simply because the groups restricted membership to Christians.
And in October, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in what might become the most significant religious liberty case in decades, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC, which will, disconcertingly, consider whether a religious school has the right to fire a teacher who contradicts official church teachings.
Should the court rule against Hosanna-Tabor, it could indicate that American courts will intrude more and more upon the internal affairs of religious organizations, dictating that the right to free exercise must bow before judges' and bureaucrats' current conceptions of legal equity. Placing religious groups under special legal disadvantages, and forbidding them from operating according to their own beliefs, is certainly not what the Founders had in mind when they banned an "establishment of religion" in the First Amendment.
Let's hope that, instead, America will renew its commitment to the genius of the First Amendment's religion clauses. The government should never promote the interests of any one faith — including secularism — but should protect the free exercise of religion for all.
In light of the Pew report, the world needs our example more than ever.
Did you actually read the story you linked? The Supreme court ruled in favor of the church in that case. The rest of your post was just more unspecified claims of religious restrictions.
Government wants to use the IRS to deny religious organizations a first amendment right to discuss things like "politics"..
I'm not at all religious, but I do hold ones rights up as fundamental to the importance of the country..
No one ever denied a church the right to discuss politics. However they may lose their tax exempt status. This would not even be an issue if we would do the right thing and repeal the tax exempt status of churches and the deduction of charitable donations. I'm speaking as someone who donates over $5000 per year to my church.
No one ever denied a church the right to discuss politics. However they may lose their tax exempt status. This would not even be an issue if we would do the right thing and repeal the tax exempt status of churches and the deduction of charitable donations. I'm speaking as someone who donates over $5000 per year to my church.
Money motivates, by bribe and penalty.
IMO, the government was/is definitely wrong (morally) in silencing the church (politically); but the church also sold out - much too cheaply and for far too long. IMO, the church was told to sit down and shut up, and so it did. It's too bad.
lol, you talk like atheists have clandestine meetings and secret handshakes where they plot to overthrow the government.
No, just the erasure of the Judeo- Christian foundations of America. Their efforts, er, ah, 'movements' are quite noticeable.... In case you hadn't noticed.
No, it brings back bad memories. I will never again want to hear anyone tell me the economy is on solid foundation when we are in a free-fall.
I for one dont want to hear we need to pass it to see whats in it, that welfare and unemployment stimulates, that we're going to go through the budgets, line by line, that debts unpatriotic while running up record debts, that we're going to save $2500 per family etc..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
