Healthcare bill will pass the senate.

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3194120
Reef: You really don't believe that, or you would have given me one of your usual information-filled filled responses and made a good argument for your opinion (this is not an ironic statement, fwiw). What "slid", and how was the slide related to the growth of federal programs? There were lots of other changes occurring during that time, so be careful. One could argue that if a slide began in the early 20th century it was due to a variety of things, so be careful with cause and effect.
Take a look at the percentage of GDP consumed by the feds. It shot up like crazy from the depression up until the end of WWII, sucked back down a little and has continued to grow since then.
The Slide I am talking about is going from an exporting manufacturing economy to an importing consumer economy and from budget surpluses to deficits.
You going to dispute our standard of living reached it's peak in the 1950's? I mean we didn't have microwave ovens and cable TV but people could afford to take vacations every year, buy nice things that were expected to last years, not months and did it in the majority of cases on a single income.
This is the only link I have right now showing some of the Data, I don't have time to dig up the other stuff
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...t-in-america/#

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3193607
They aren't dictating what size home you can live in, you can live in whatever size house you want, but you must pay for the additional size. It's just like my assessed value going up or down on my house based on some guys rolling wheel and camera. If it were taxes that were being used for something like healthcare in this case, I'd probably be okay with it. Something like this is unlikely here though since, nothing in the U.S. ever gets done right. We only take care of other countries and not our own.

In a sense it is. The tax was put in place to limit the size of developments....essentially a green action years ago. A double tax on an item to me is ridiculous. They claimed it would only affect the "rich" but this tax eventually swallowed up the middle class as well. This is my problem with government. Who are they to say what size home is sufficient for your family? That is essentially what they are doing....This is no different than say a sugar tax, or trans fat tax.....
These people are already paying a similar tax on their property as you and I. It goes up with assessment as ours do...then they are taxed again on the same property. If you own a larger home you property tax should be enough...because as you own a larger home you pay more in taxes.....This is just a double wammy.
I wonder, if you are a family of midgets if your square footage is reduced as well?
I love how so many people point to other countries and what their govt are doing (viewing them as good) yet they have never actually lived there. I lived in Germany for 6 years.
We have a Canadian on this board that has said Americans will not be happy with Govt. run health plan because we demand a higher service value from our merchants...It works in Canada because they are used to it...they don't know any better. So they are fine with the wait times for Appt. the lines, and so on....because it is what it is.....Mark my words.....For god sake we complain to management if we have to wait 30 minutes for our food at a restaurant...lol.......If we have to find an associate in a store to ask a question about a product, we complain to management. If we are not the sole attention of whomever we are dealing with in any store, we complain.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3193602
How about the christian right trying to overturn Roe Vs Wade and criminalize legal abortions?
No different than the homosexual left trying to dictate what religions view as a marriage. Using government law to circumvent religious views.
But regardless.....That is your one issue you can bring up? Tell me again...what state is Abortion illegal in now? This is a judicial decision anyway. And for it to get back to the supreme court new evidence must be presented for it to be appealled. Doesn't matter what congress, or the president think on the issue....it is a matter of law.
You bring up one issue (which isn't solely a religious stance) one issue that is still legal in this country and you say the line is real thin because of one issue? I can bring up and show several instances of government intercedeing and PREVENTING the practice of religion in many cases in this country....But you can only give me roe VS wade....which is still a legal standing in this country.
Weak......try harder.

 

[dragonzim]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194185
No different than the homosexual left trying to dictate what religions view as a marriage. Using government law to circumvent religious views.
But regardless.....That is your one issue you can bring up? Tell me again...what state is Abortion illegal in now? This is a judicial decision anyway. And for it to get back to the supreme court new evidence must be presented for it to be appealled. Doesn't matter what congress, or the president think on the issue....it is a matter of law.
You bring up one issue (which isn't solely a religious stance) one issue that is still legal in this country and you say the line is real thin because of one issue? I can bring up and show several instances of government intercedeing and PREVENTING the practice of religion in many cases in this country....But you can only give me roe VS wade....which is still a legal standing in this country.
Weak......try harder.
You're bringing up the issue of gay marriage only helps to illustrate my point further. It is the religious right that is so against allowing people that love each other, regardless of what gender they are from being able to marry each other and be afforded all the same rights and privileges of their hetero counterparts. If religious views were not so embroiled in our politics why on earth would there be any logical reason to NOT allow these people to marry?
I never stated anything to the fact that abortion is illegal anywhere. However, for you to deny that its the bible thumpers that are trying to overturn a woman's legal right to terminate a pregnancy is ludicrous.
How about the debate over teaching evolution vs creationism in school? Keep in mind that not everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs in how the earth was made that you do, so should we teach kids nothing at all or teach them ALL of the theories from every religion. I'm sure the christian right would just as up in arms over their kids being taught about the buddhist, muslim, hindu, and any other religion you can come up withs views on creation as they are about evolution. Or, we do what is currently done in most schools and teach kids about the scientific theory of evolution and leave it up to each child's parents and whatever religious institution they subscribe to to teach their view to kids in whatever passes for religious school in their faith.
Seriously, you really do just like to argue for the sake of arguing dont you?

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3194196
You're bringing up the issue of gay marriage only helps to illustrate my point further. It is the religious right that is so against allowing people that love each other, regardless of what gender they are from being able to marry each other and be afforded all the same rights and privileges of their hetero counterparts. If religious views were not so embroiled in our politics why on earth would there be any logical reason to NOT allow these people to marry?
I never stated anything to the fact that abortion is illegal anywhere. However, for you to deny that its the bible thumpers that are trying to overturn a woman's legal right to terminate a pregnancy is ludicrous.
How about the debate over teaching evolution vs creationism in school? Keep in mind that not everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs in how the earth was made that you do, so should we teach kids nothing at all or teach them ALL of the theories from every religion. I'm sure the christian right would just as up in arms over their kids being taught about the buddhist, muslim, hindu, and any other religion you can come up withs views on creation as they are about evolution. Or, we do what is currently done in most schools and teach kids about the scientific theory of evolution and leave it up to each child's parents and whatever religious institution they subscribe to to teach their view to kids in whatever passes for religious school in their faith.
Seriously, you really do just like to argue for the sake of arguing dont you?
I think this post gets a

. Well stated.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3194196
You're bringing up the issue of gay marriage only helps to illustrate my point further. It is the religious right that is so against allowing people that love each other, regardless of what gender they are from being able to marry each other and be afforded all the same rights and privileges of their hetero counterparts. If religious views were not so embroiled in our politics why on earth would there be any logical reason to NOT allow these people to marry?
I never stated anything to the fact that abortion is illegal anywhere. However, for you to deny that its the bible thumpers that are trying to overturn a woman's legal right to terminate a pregnancy is ludicrous.
How about the debate over teaching evolution vs creationism in school? Keep in mind that not everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs in how the earth was made that you do, so should we teach kids nothing at all or teach them ALL of the theories from every religion. I'm sure the christian right would just as up in arms over their kids being taught about the buddhist, muslim, hindu, and any other religion you can come up withs views on creation as they are about evolution. Or, we do what is currently done in most schools and teach kids about the scientific theory of evolution and leave it up to each child's parents and whatever religious institution they subscribe to to teach their view to kids in whatever passes for religious school in their faith.
Seriously, you really do just like to argue for the sake of arguing dont you?
Yes I like to debate just for the sake of it..lol....You like to bash religion just for the sake of it as well.
Now back on point. I have no problem with schools teaching the scientific theories behind the creation. As long as they teach it as Theory. I feel religious teachings should not be taught in school unless as an elective class or college course study. I agree it is up to family to teach these things and NOT the job of the GOVT. employee.
On to gay marriage and homosexuality. See this is where you fall short on your argument. It is not wrong for a man to love another man in the bible under the christian religion. In fact there are many cases in the bible of men stating they love another man and doing things for those men out of love. What it is against is the "s3xual" action involved with it. In the eyes of "god" the marriage has to be consumated for it to be binding. This action is not allowed by two men or women, thus why the church CAN NOT sanction gay marriage. They can love each other, but according to christian tenants they can not consumate with each other. They can even kiss....and it ios not against christian tenants. But the gay community wants to force churches to marry gay people. If it is just about rights and taxes/benefits, what is wrong with the judge doing it and performing a civil union. 60% of the country supports civil unions. It is the same thing....but see it isn't about rights truly...it is about forcing a political view onto someone else.
Do you believe it is right that a doctor that disagree's with abortion be forced to perform an action they believe to be wrong? Especially since their are millions of doctors in the country that will perform the same action?

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194237
Yes I like to debate just for the sake of it..lol....You like to bash religion just for the sake of it as well.
Now back on point. I have no problem with schools teaching the scientific theories behind the creation. As long as they teach it as Theory. I feel religious teachings should not be taught in school unless as an elective class or college course study. I agree it is up to family to teach these things and NOT the job of the GOVT. employee.
On to gay marriage and homosexuality. See this is where you fall short on your argument. It is not wrong for a man to love another man in the bible under the christian religion. In fact there are many cases in the bible of men stating they love another man and doing things for those men out of love. What it is against is the "s3xual" action involved with it. In the eyes of "god" the marriage has to be consumated for it to be binding. This action is not allowed by two men or women, thus why the church CAN NOT sanction gay marriage. They can love each other, but according to christian tenants they can not consumate with each other. They can even kiss....and it ios not against christian tenants. But the gay community wants to force churches to marry gay people. If it is just about rights and taxes/benefits, what is wrong with the judge doing it and performing a civil union. 60% of the country supports civil unions. It is the same thing....but see it isn't about rights truly...it is about forcing a political view onto someone else.
Do you believe it is right that a doctor that disagree's with abortion be forced to perform an action they believe to be wrong? Especially since their are millions of doctors in the country that will perform the same action?
I don't think they're too concerned with making a church marry them. I'm pretty sure they just want to be able to get married and be considered a couple. You can go the courthouse and get married, they can't.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3194196
You're bringing up the issue of gay marriage only helps to illustrate my point further. It is the religious right that is so against allowing people that love each other, regardless of what gender they are from being able to marry each other and be afforded all the same rights and privileges of their hetero counterparts. If religious views were not so embroiled in our politics why on earth would there be any logical reason to NOT allow these people to marry?
I never stated anything to the fact that abortion is illegal anywhere. However, for you to deny that its the bible thumpers that are trying to overturn a woman's legal right to terminate a pregnancy is ludicrous.
How about the debate over teaching evolution vs creationism in school? Keep in mind that not everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs in how the earth was made that you do, so should we teach kids nothing at all or teach them ALL of the theories from every religion. I'm sure the christian right would just as up in arms over their kids being taught about the buddhist, muslim, hindu, and any other religion you can come up withs views on creation as they are about evolution. Or, we do what is currently done in most schools and teach kids about the scientific theory of evolution and leave it up to each child's parents and whatever religious institution they subscribe to to teach their view to kids in whatever passes for religious school in their faith.
Seriously, you really do just like to argue for the sake of arguing dont you?
Marriage is a religious institution. For the government to be involved in any way shape or form is a technical violation of the first amendment. I personally think the government should instead of issuing marriage licenses issue kinship contracts for people who wish to form a family unit. End of discussion. You eliminate religious opposition (by us reasonable religious folk anyway) and the government isn't discriminating against those with abnormal life styles. Then it is up to churches, which the government has no right to meddle in, to decide if they want to recognize and perform gay marriages.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3194240
I don't think they're too concerned with making a church marry them. I'm pretty sure they just want to be able to get married and be considered a couple. You can go the courthouse and get married, they can't.

Probably true..however calling it "marriage" opens the door to forcing churches to marry folks even if they disagree with it. I believe ( I could be wrong) that this is the positions of many churches. Look at abortion....a doctor must perform the abortion procedure ...they can not state it is against their beliefs...they HAVE TO do it. As I said...If it was purely about rights and so on, the Gay community would be fine with civil unions....as I stated, 60% of the country supports that....This fact alone shows it isn't about equlity and all about forcing religions to accept it....If two people truly love each other, does it matter who marries them or if it is even called marriage? as long as all the same things go along with it, taxes, rights, benefits, hospital bedside support.......it shouldn't matter.....

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194247
Probably true..however calling it "marriage" opens the door to forcing churches to marry folks even if they disagree with it. I believe ( I could be wrong) that this is the positions of many churches. Look at abortion....a doctor must perform the abortion procedure ...they can not state it is against their beliefs...they HAVE TO do it. As I said...If it was purely about rights and so on, the Gay community would be fine with civil unions....as I stated, 60% of the country supports that....This fact alone shows it isn't about equlity and all about forcing religions to accept it....If two people truly love each other, does it matter who marries them or if it is even called marriage? as long as all the same things go along with it, taxes, rights, benefits, hospital bedside support.......it shouldn't matter.....
How about the woman who got fined for refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs? That was an obvious violation of her first amendment rights yet she was still fined by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194247
Probably true..however calling it "marriage" opens the door to forcing churches to marry folks even if they disagree with it. I believe ( I could be wrong) that this is the positions of many churches. Look at abortion....a doctor must perform the abortion procedure ...they can not state it is against their beliefs...they HAVE TO do it. As I said...If it was purely about rights and so on, the Gay community would be fine with civil unions....as I stated, 60% of the country supports that....This fact alone shows it isn't about equlity and all about forcing religions to accept it....If two people truly love each other, does it matter who marries them or if it is even called marriage? as long as all the same things go along with it, taxes, rights, benefits, hospital bedside support.......it shouldn't matter.....
I agree.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3194155
Apparently, you're piss poor at getting the point there. You are actually supporting my original argument. Nutcases kill people who they consider "traitors" just because they don't agree with them. That goes against the constitution, that you so strictly abide by. pffft.
Strapping someone to a pole and shooting them ,stretching necks or however the method for treason is justifiable if the traitor or traitors are trying to destroy the principals of this country ,specifically the Constitution.You see these "Nutcases" you speak of overthrew a existing government,so there is a difference and therefore your comparison is still piss poor.

 

[dragonzim]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194237
Do you believe it is right that a doctor that disagree's with abortion be forced to perform an action they believe to be wrong? Especially since their are millions of doctors in the country that will perform the same action?
Not sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, I feel that a doctor should have the right the refuse to perform a treatment that he doesnt agree with, but on the other, he is being paid, quite well actually, to perform a service that he is qualified to perform and it should not be up to him to impose his moral views on a person who chooses to undergo said procedure. I dont have a good answer either way on this issue.
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3194242
Marriage is a religious institution. For the government to be involved in any way shape or form is a technical violation of the first amendment.
Hmm, I got married to my wife 2 years ago. I was brought up Jewish and she is Protestant. We made a decision that we didnt want religion to have anything at all to do with our wedding ceremony, so this in fact proves that marriage is NOT just a religious institution. Now that we have children of our own we have decided that they can and will learn about each religion and make their own choice when they are older, whether it be to choose Judaism, Christianity or any other religion, or none at all. I refuse to cram religion down their throat like it was mine and just about everyone else out there.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3194273
Strapping someone to a pole and shooting them ,stretching necks or however the method for treason is justifiable if the traitor or traitors are trying to destroy the principals of this country ,specifically the Constitution.You see these "Nutcases" you speak of overthrew a existing government,so there is a difference and therefore your comparison is still piss poor.

You are one of the most hard headed, never admit I'm wrong (even though I am), but not very smart people I've ever interacted with. Don't give me the overthrown government b.s. You know exactly what I meant by my post. AFTER Castro took power in Cuba, AFTER he took power, anyone who spoke against him, or was opposed to his beliefs at all was shot where they stood. That is in line with my argument and makes perfect sense. You say if Jefferson was alive today he'd be shooting the people/traitors you disagree with basically. You're saying your argument is right and everyone who says otherwise is wrong and a traitor. Who the hell are you to say someone with an opposing view is a traitor? You're no one. I'd be more inclined to believe our foudning fathers had more brains and self-respect than to do what you imply they would. Your imaginary scenario of Jefferson shooting traitors, in this case anyone who you disagree with, he'd be hindering freedom by shooting any American that opposed his views.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, then that's your problem. Some people just aren't born with the same cognitive abilities as others.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3194279
Not sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, I feel that a doctor should have the right the refuse to perform a treatment that he doesnt agree with, but on the other, he is being paid, quite well actually, to perform a service that he is qualified to perform and it should not be up to him to impose his moral views on a person who chooses to undergo said procedure. I dont have a good answer either way on this issue.
Hmm, I got married to my wife 2 years ago. I was brought up Jewish and she is Protestant. We made a decision that we didnt want religion to have anything at all to do with our wedding ceremony, so this in fact proves that marriage is NOT just a religious institution. Now that we have children of our own we have decided that they can and will learn about each religion and make their own choice when they are older, whether it be to choose Judaism, Christianity or any other religion, or none at all. I refuse to cram religion down their throat like it was mine and just about everyone else out there.
I believe a doctor is obligated to perform any LEGAL procedure based on the Hypocratic Oath he/she signed up for when he/she received their medical license. If a pregnant woman went to a doctor whereby the pregnancy became life threatening for her, and the doctor didn't perform the ab0rtion, I believe he could be held criminally for her death, or at least lose his medical license to practice. I guess this would depend on how each state handles their medical licensing.
What is your opinion on the pharmacist that refuses to administer the Day After Pill to someone with a viable prescription because it violates his/her religious beliefs? Should this person be allowed to do this due to their religious convictions, or should they lose their license because they are essentially not doing their job?

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3194286
You are one of the most hard headed, never admit I'm wrong (even though I am), but not very smart people I've ever interacted with. Don't give me the overthrown government b.s. You know exactly what I meant by my post. AFTER Castro took power in Cuba, AFTER he took power, anyone who spoke against him, or was opposed to his beliefs at all was shot where they stood. That is in line with my argument and makes perfect sense. You say if Jefferson was alive today he'd be shooting the people/traitors you disagree with basically. You're saying your argument is right and everyone who says otherwise is wrong and a traitor. Who the hell are you to say someone with an opposing view is a traitor? You're no one. I'd be more inclined to believe our foudning fathers had more brains and self-respect than to do what you imply they would. Your imaginary scenario of Jefferson shooting traitors, in this case anyone who you disagree with, he'd be hindering freedom by shooting any American that opposed his views.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, then that's your problem. Some people just aren't born with the same cognitive abilities as others.
And you accuse me of being arrogant.
Haveing said that ,first off we arent talking about Cuba or frigging Cubans,Mexicans,Puerto Ricans,Hatians or Canadians and for the record i could give a crap about Cuba.
We are talking about America,Americans and American traitors.People who see my country as bad who would attempt to fundamentally change it and the US Constitution through unlawful ways are enemys of my nation and should be shot.
Progressive Liberals sit right on top of the enemy list......

 

[dragonzim]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3194293
What is your opinion on the pharmacist that refuses to administer the Day After Pill to someone with a viable prescription because it violates his/her religious beliefs? Should this person be allowed to do this due to their religious convictions, or should they lose their license because they are essentially not doing their job?
I definitely think that a pharmacist should be legally required to prescribe any prescription that a person comes in with.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3194293
I believe a doctor is obligated to perform any LEGAL procedure based on the Hypocratic Oath he/she signed up for when he/she received their medical license. If a pregnant woman went to a doctor whereby the pregnancy became life threatening for her, and the doctor didn't perform the ab0rtion, I believe he could be held criminally for her death, or at least lose his medical license to practice. I guess this would depend on how each state handles their medical licensing.
What is your opinion on the pharmacist that refuses to administer the Day After Pill to someone with a viable prescription because it violates his/her religious beliefs? Should this person be allowed to do this due to their religious convictions, or should they lose their license because they are essentially not doing their job?
You are correct in the obligation of the Doctor to perform an abortion should the life of the mother be threatened. This is another one of those things the right uses. "Doctors are forced to do abortions they don't want to do! They're making them do this even though it's against their religion!" Boo Hoo. I'm pretty sure if you are a doctor against abortion, you're probably not going to be working at an abortion clinic. The only time a doctor who is not working at an abortion clinic would be in a situation where they would have to perfrom an abortion is in an emergency situation to save the life of the mother. By the right's statements on the matter, they'd rather have both the mother and the fetus die.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3194314
I definitely think that a pharmacist should be legally required to prescribe any prescription that a person comes in with.
Why, it is someone's personal business. What right does the government have to tell people how to run their own business. How is that NOT imposing the governments morals on individuals.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3194330
Why, it is someone's personal business. What right does the government have to tell people how to run their own business. How is that NOT imposing the governments morals on individuals.
If it's an independent pharmacist, I would agree with you. However, is there also some 'Hypocratic Oath' for pharmacists that they are required by that Oath and their license to dispense ANY drug that was prescibed by a physician? What if it's a pharmacist that works for one of these chain drug stores (CVS, Walgreens, etc.)? It's not thier personal business because they are working for that company. If the company doesn't discriminate against prescribing the Day After Pill, why shouldn't the pharmacist abide by the company rules?