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.
1. Why on earth is this post alive? There is a Politics and Other Controversies Forum just for this kind of thing.
But since it is here...
2. This issue would simply not exist if everyone owned their own health insurance. The issue of portability would not exist if everyone owned their own health insurance. The issue of preexisting conditions would not be an issue if people owned their own health insurance. Most of the issues of dissatisfaction with health insurers would go away (since customers could change largely at will - just like we do with car insurance). Many of the cost run ups these last couple of decades would not have arisen either - when has car or homeowners insurance gone up at double digit rates for years upon end?
There have may have been more stupid, roundabout means of getting services than having your employer to select an insurance provider who will in turn pay the doctors and hospitals for your illnesses, but I cannot think of any.
3. The cost of health care has become ridiculously high because our government(s) have poured endless amounts of money into it. A chart showing the increase in Federal and State cash flows into health services will match almost exactly the increase in total health expendatures. The same is true of education, by the way.
I calculated recently that every person in the greater Springfield market area is paying - one way or another - $500 per year just to build new medical facilities. Every person. $2,000 for a family of four. Just for buildings. Why are they doing this? Because they can.
4. Free health care is possible only if we a) repeal the 13th Amendment and legalize slavery again and b) invade India and haul back all their doctors rather than wait for them to immigrate one at a time. Failing that, somebody has to pay. The average person is going to have to pay - on average - the average amount for the services provided. This is currently about 17 cents of every dollar you and I and everyone else makes. If I can't pay that amount, and my next door neighbor can't, then lumping us together does not make it possible either. Nor does adding another person, and another, and another. Even if you put us all together, everyone in the country, it is still 17 cents for every dollar earned by every one of us. What we cannot afford individually, we are not able to afford collectively. So, for those who think we just let the gumment pay; paying the IRS to pay for our health coverage does not make it any cheaper, it just means we will pay for it through our taxes.
5. Insurance is for unexpected expenses which occur at random intervals. We do not have gallon of milk insurance. We do not have oil change insurance. We do not have cable television insurance. These routine purchases are all just that - routine. To pay someone to pay these bills for us would be pointless and stupid and just makes the whole process more expensive and complicated. Contraceptives certainly come under that heading.
6. By the way, Planned Parenthood has a billion-dollar-a-year budget. Shouldn't they be able to spring for a condom or two for those who can't afford one? Or do they even do that kind of "planning" anymore?
7. I do employ a few people in a very, very small business. There is zero change that I, a private individual, am going to pay for anyone's abortion. Not directly. Not through insurance. Not at all. If the law does come to that, I will go dark.
8. Gee, I wonder why so few companies these days want to expand and build new businesses here in the US? Why is it that there are fewer payroll jobs today than there were in the year 2000, even though the population has increased by 30 million? I guess it is just one of those inexplicable mysteries....
Arrby's post here examines this ongoing dilemma/debate through the lens of a small business owner, which I personally believe constitutes the backbone of our economic engine. His/her argument is rooted in dollars and cents, i.e. practicality. The idea that 17 cents out of every dollar you earn is spent on health care is sobering. However, the fact is that most Americans either do not have the financial discipline to account for this reality, or do not conceive of health care as an expense, because in many cases, it constitutes a sudden, critical need. Much the same way as if the radiator on your car blows (as mine did in fact earlier this year) or if the hot water tank in your home expires (again, as mine did earlier this year). When a small business owner threatens to 'go dark', the public need pay attention, because that's where your economy trends, seemingly, if government mandates small business to adhere to newly formed public policy. Again, this is through the lens of someone who maintains a budget i.e. practicality.
I think on the other side of this fence, the opposition argues from a standpoint of morality and humanity. After all, at its core, DENYING someone in need of a critical medical procedure seems inhumane, cruel, and as an advanced Western society, the temptation is to argue this from a moralistic stance. However, as Arrby states, if you want to take this tact, then someone has to pay. The argument is who, and how. The moralist, I suppose, believes the government should intercede and tax those who earn more money through income and savings at a higher rate than those who don't, in order to pay. Arrby's side, the small business community, then argues from a standpoint of accounting, dollars and cents, and threatens to cease productive activity (i.e. maintaining a profitable business) if regulations from government persist. He/she also states that there are fewer payroll jobs than 10 years ago, even though we have 30 million more people.
If these statistics are verified, I would concur with Arrby, and think rationally, the idea of health savings should be instilled. That would entail fiscal discipline, however, for all of us. 17% of your income, it seems, has to be allocated for health expenses.
Perhaps at the root of this is that as we age, that percentage increases. The 17% is not a fixed rate over the course of life: most of this is incurred as we age. Perhaps health savings should be treated the same way as a 401k or an IRA.
Arrby's post here examines this ongoing dilemma/debate through the lens of a small business owner, which I personally believe constitutes the backbone of our economic engine. His/her argument is rooted in dollars and cents, i.e. practicality. The idea that 17 cents out of every dollar you earn is spent on health care is sobering. However, the fact is that most Americans either do not have the financial discipline to account for this reality, or do not conceive of health care as an expense, because in many cases, it constitutes a sudden, critical need. Much the same way as if the radiator on your car blows (as mine did in fact earlier this year) or if the hot water tank in your home expires (again, as mine did earlier this year). When a small business owner threatens to 'go dark', the public need pay attention, because that's where your economy trends, seemingly, if government mandates small business to adhere to newly formed public policy. Again, this is through the lens of someone who maintains a budget i.e. practicality.
I think on the other side of this fence, the opposition argues from a standpoint of morality and humanity. After all, at its core, DENYING someone in need of a critical medical procedure seems inhumane, cruel, and as an advanced Western society, the temptation is to argue this from a moralistic stance. However, as Arrby states, if you want to take this tact, then someone has to pay. The argument is who, and how. The moralist, I suppose, believes the government should intercede and tax those who earn more money through income and savings at a higher rate than those who don't, in order to pay. Arrby's side, the small business community, then argues from a standpoint of accounting, dollars and cents, and threatens to cease productive activity (i.e. maintaining a profitable business) if regulations from government persist. He/she also states that there are fewer payroll jobs than 10 years ago, even though we have 30 million more people.
If these statistics are verified, I would concur with Arrby, and think rationally, the idea of health savings should be instilled. That would entail fiscal discipline, however, for all of us. 17% of your income, it seems, has to be allocated for health expenses.
Perhaps at the root of this is that as we age, that percentage increases. The 17% is not a fixed rate over the course of life: most of this is incurred as we age. Perhaps health savings should be treated the same way as a 401k or an IRA.
Great post. We just are not ever going to get the masses to be fiscally responsible and do proper budgets due to our "i want it now" mentality. A good example is the housing debacle. A massive amount of people should have never been given the mortgage they got.Still they wanted it NOW!
The subject of my thread is about the bill giving an employer that provides insurance to the right to decide on their own moral ideas as to what medical care you should have. Why should your employer have the right to decide what medical care you should have by their moral standards? There are people against blood transfusions thus Mr employer says i think you can cure this with prayer and we won't pay for it..Not good in my book. Sure dollars figure into the equation overall; but not for the purpose of this thread.
I am just bringing attention to the merits of the bill and whom is proposing it.
As i first stated in my first post. I posted it here in the Mo forum because many Missourians read these threads for Mo but avoid the Political forum like a plague. We all need to know what our Congress people are doing. I have not even seen this mentioned on any local Kansas City news.
Great post. We just are not ever going to get the masses to be fiscally responsible and do proper budgets due to our "i want it now" mentality. A good example is the housing debacle. A massive amount of people should have never been given the mortgage they got.Still they wanted it NOW!
The subject of my thread is about the bill giving an employer that provides insurance to the right to decide on their own moral ideas as to what medical care you should have. Why should your employer have the right to decide what medical care you should have by their moral standards? There are people against blood transfusions thus Mr employer says i think you can cure this with prayer and we won't pay for it..Not good in my book. Sure dollars figure into the equation overall; but not for the purpose of this thread.
I am just bringing attention to the merits of the bill and whom is proposing it.
As i first stated in my first post. I posted it here in the Mo forum because many Missourians read these threads for Mo but avoid the Political forum like a plague. We all need to know what our Congress people are doing. I have not even seen this mentioned on any local Kansas City news.
Blunt's bill/amendment may go too far, but HHS should not be unilaterally issuing mandates to employers such as catholic institutions that clearly violate some basic tenants of their belief system. You can choose not to work for such institutions if you so choose.
It's a stretch to say that Blunt's amendment gives your employer the right to decide your medical care. I'd be more concerned about the government deciding what is and what is not covered (i.e. rationed care), as they do in places with nationalized healthcare, such as England.
Blunt's bill/amendment may go too far, but HHS should not be unilaterally issuing mandates to employers such as catholic institutions that clearly violate some basic tenants of their belief system. You can choose not to work for such institutions if you so choose.
It's a stretch to say that Blunt's amendment gives your employer the right to decide your medical care. I'd be more concerned about the government deciding what is and what is not covered (i.e. rationed care), as they do in places with nationalized healthcare, such as England.
Exactly! I am concerned more about an employer abusing the rights of the employees insurance agreement with them. This bill would allow that. As with the govt deciding i think that all government programs have to take a shakedown cruise to get the bugs out. This is one bug that needs to go before it gets buried in.
Explain your personal attack against me. Haven't you even read the article?
Blunt's words don't mean much to me. The truth is in what is written.
Religious freedom is one thing. My thread is about the so called MORAL OBJECTION.
Last edited by Versatile; 02-16-2012 at 03:01 PM..
Reason: To add a period and a capitalization of the letter M
I don't know if this will get deleted as well, but expect more government mandates in the future as to what is and what is not covered. If you're fine with that, so be it, but it's coming.
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.
heaven forbid the OP address the FACTS
