ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[thegreekdog]

At the moment this amounts to the proposed idea: everyone having the right to healthcare. The public system being the most basic, but everyone has it. Those who can afford it get better healthcare, but, yeah, at a cost.

I would argue that healthcare is not a right, as cruel as that may seem. I would argue that a right is something inalienable that a person, for lack of a better phrase, just has. The provision of healthcare requires that we take away someone else's property in order to give someone else healthcare. That, in my mind, is not a right.

That being said, the bill that was proposed does far more than provide health insurance to those that can't afford it. If a bill was proposed that simply provided health insurance to those that could not afford health insurance, I would support such a bill.

[Night Strike]

At the moment this amounts to the proposed idea: everyone having the right to healthcare. The public system being the most basic, but everyone has it. Those who can afford it get better healthcare, but, yeah, at a cost.

I would argue that healthcare is not a right, as cruel as that may seem. I would argue that a right is something inalienable that a person, for lack of a better phrase, just has. The provision of healthcare requires that we take away someone else's property in order to give someone else healthcare. That, in my mind, is not a right.

Inalienable rights are those that are "endowed by our Creator", meaning that they are present regardless of which government is in power. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are considered inalienable. In this case, health care would be granted by the government. Anything granted by the government can be taken away by the government, so it's not a right.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business.

yeah yeah yeah just like having public education and state-funded schools has driven private institutions out of busines.

The difference is that we are permitted to use private schools. This healthcare bill (which, by the way, is going to be done soon... we'll have something else to argue about in a few months) arguably does not permit the use of private health insurance. A better analogy would be government-run driver's licensing versus private driver's licensing (I know, not the best analogy... it's still early for me).

WHOA ... where on earth did you get this idea? You keep saying this, but it is just not true!

Private insurers are absolutely a part of the new system, but they will be required to follow the new rules. They will have to insure everyone, will have to allow you to take your insurance with you if you change jobs, etc.

It is possible that, over time, private insurers may opt out. HOWEVER, that is not in any way in the bill. It has not happened in other countries. What WILL happen is that in the more competetive market, insurers will be cutting some of their profits. In other countries, insurers make profits, just not the BILLIONS. The insurers, as you can well imagine, would like to keep their billions and that is one big reason they are so opposed to this bill.


I would argue that this is precisely why we need a public option, to really solidify the bottom "floor". But, that is a big reason why we need a public alternative, because else, the insurers will simply say "we cannot do this".

Anyway, Obama so far has not actually come out with HIS plan at all. He will be speaking on HIS plan today (or shortly). I would pay close attention to the details of that talk, because it is more likely to be what will finally become written into a bill that might pass.

[PLAYER57832]

At the moment this amounts to the proposed idea: everyone having the right to healthcare. The public system being the most basic, but everyone has it. Those who can afford it get better healthcare, but, yeah, at a cost.

I would argue that healthcare is not a right, as cruel as that may seem. I would argue that a right is something inalienable that a person, for lack of a better phrase, just has. The provision of healthcare requires that we take away someone else's property in order to give someone else healthcare. That, in my mind, is not a right.

Inalienable rights are those that are "endowed by our Creator", meaning that they are present regardless of which government is in power. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are considered inalienable. In this case, health care would be granted by the government. Anything granted by the government can be taken away by the government, so it's not a right.

BALONEY!

Just who enforces our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Granted, right now health care is not considered an inalienable right in THIS country. (that is part of what this debate is about). It is elsewhere. And that difference shows. Personally, I feel that I should have as much a right to take my child to the doctor when he gets sick as to teach him my religious values or voice my opinions about various matters.

[PopeBenXVI]

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business.

yeah yeah yeah just like having public education and state-funded schools has driven private institutions out of busines.

not at all, it just costs more and more for worse and worse results. Homeschooled children dominate ACT scores nationally, Private school kids ace it at 3,000/student/yr, and the public system is the worst at a whopping 9,000/student. Somehow the facts seem to lead to the point you are missing.....hmm

Huh, so you don't believe in a public option for education then? Home school and private school only?

I don't like public school because they push their homosexual religion on everyone. That's a main reason why we home school our children.

It is interesting how I pay for that crap with my sky high property taxes and I will also never use their system for my kids. That is probably how health care will turn out for me too.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't like public school because they push their homosexual religion on everyone. That's a main reason why we home school our children.

It is interesting how I pay for that crap with my sky high property taxes and I will also never use their system for my kids. That is probably how health care will turn out for me too.

Well, to bring it back to healthcare, you will be free to choose a healthcare policy that does not pay for drug transfusions, vaccinations or any other of those "nasty" nefarious things the "government bureacracY" (OH WAIT -- those things are reccommended by just about every doctor in the country, politicians are simply responding) insists upon NOW.

[thegreekdog]

WHOA ... where on earth did you get this idea? You keep saying this, but it is just not true!

I need a pimpdave patent-pending facepalm photo for this one. I'm not going to explain it again as I've explained it 10 times already in this thread and others, including putting the language of the bill out there as well as an explanation of my reasoning. It's sound reasoning.

Personally, I feel that I should have as much a right to take my child to the doctor when he gets sick as to teach him my religious values or voice my opinions about various matters.

The difference between those two, again as I have explained before, is that your right to teach your children your religious values do not require that someone else give up their rights or property. The "right" to take your child to the doctor when gets sick, while certainly noble, is not a right because it requires someone to give away their property, services, or rights. Let me put it this way, my tax dollars don't go to your ability to practice your religion, or speak at a town hall meeting, or have your privacy rights respected. If some sort of universal healthcare plan is passed (which, keep in mind, I want to happen), my tax dollars will go to people to pay for their health insurance. NOT A RIGHT!!! Just because you and others call it a right, doesn't make it a right.

[PopeBenXVI]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary. For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

First, what the hell are they doing passing that in a state budget aside from stuffing the budget with all kinds of unrelated crap....which they did a lot of.

Second, what the hell right do they have trumping religious freedom protected by our constitution and mandating an organization who is fundamentally opposed to the practice to provide coverage for that which is considered moral sin?

It is a classic example of Government butting in and I am only talking about state government here and it's not even Gov run healthcare!

Whether or not one agrees with the teaching is not the issue. Everyone should be concerned when government regulates and mandates private companies and organizations while disregarding freedoms guaranteed under the constitution. When do they ever give up control of anything? All they do is take more control. It never goes the other way.

[Symmetry]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary. For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

First, what the hell are they doing passing that in a state budget aside from stuffing the budget with all kinds of unrelated crap....which they did a lot of.

Second, what the hell right do they have trumping religious freedom protected by our constitution and mandating an organization who is fundamentally opposed to the practice to provide coverage for that which is considered moral sin?

It is a classic example of Government butting in and I am only talking about state government here and it's not even Gov run healthcare!

Whether or not one agrees with the teaching is not the issue. Everyone should be concerned when government regulates and mandates private companies and organizations while disregarding freedoms guaranteed under the constitution. When do they ever give up control of anything? All they do is take more control. It never goes the other way.

Ah, the problems of fair and necessary government. I was certainly unaware that Wisconsin was communist.

I hadn't understood that people of different religions deserve different medical treatments depending on their boss' beliefs. Of course, they should know that they have to sacrifice their religion and follow whoever is in charge when they sign the contract.

[PopeBenXVI]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary. For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

First, what the hell are they doing passing that in a state budget aside from stuffing the budget with all kinds of unrelated crap....which they did a lot of.

Second, what the hell right do they have trumping religious freedom protected by our constitution and mandating an organization who is fundamentally opposed to the practice to provide coverage for that which is considered moral sin?

It is a classic example of Government butting in and I am only talking about state government here and it's not even Gov run healthcare!

Whether or not one agrees with the teaching is not the issue. Everyone should be concerned when government regulates and mandates private companies and organizations while disregarding freedoms guaranteed under the constitution. When do they ever give up control of anything? All they do is take more control. It never goes the other way.

Ah, the problems of fair and necessary government. I was certainly unaware that Wisconsin was communist.

I hadn't understood that people of different religions deserve different medical treatments depending on their boss' beliefs. Of course, they should know that they have to sacrifice their religion and follow whoever is in charge when they sign the contract.

It's simple, if you agree to work somewhere you need to deal with their policies. If you don't like them don't work there. The difference with all these topic's is that I am fighting for everyones right to free speech, religion, and any constitutional rights....which includes liberals. Often liberals don't care if the rights of religious are trampled on which is sad because they think it does not apply to them. Well it does because if they can take those rights away yours will go soon enough.

[Symmetry]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary. For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

First, what the hell are they doing passing that in a state budget aside from stuffing the budget with all kinds of unrelated crap....which they did a lot of.

Second, what the hell right do they have trumping religious freedom protected by our constitution and mandating an organization who is fundamentally opposed to the practice to provide coverage for that which is considered moral sin?

It is a classic example of Government butting in and I am only talking about state government here and it's not even Gov run healthcare!

Whether or not one agrees with the teaching is not the issue. Everyone should be concerned when government regulates and mandates private companies and organizations while disregarding freedoms guaranteed under the constitution. When do they ever give up control of anything? All they do is take more control. It never goes the other way.

Ah, the problems of fair and necessary government. I was certainly unaware that Wisconsin was communist.

I hadn't understood that people of different religions deserve different medical treatments depending on their boss' beliefs. Of course, they should know that they have to sacrifice their religion and follow whoever is in charge when they sign the contract.

It's simple, if you agree to work somewhere you need to deal with their policies. If you don't like them don't work there. The difference with all these topic's is that I am fighting for everyones right to free speech, religion, and any constitutional rights....which includes liberals. Often liberals don't care if the rights of religious are trampled on which is sad because they think it does not apply to them. Well it does because if they can take those rights away yours will go soon enough.

So, an employer that has a "no blacks, no Irish" policy is ok with you? Does that apply to customers too? If you don't like the policy, shop somewhere else?

[PopeBenXVI]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary. For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

First, what the hell are they doing passing that in a state budget aside from stuffing the budget with all kinds of unrelated crap....which they did a lot of.

Second, what the hell right do they have trumping religious freedom protected by our constitution and mandating an organization who is fundamentally opposed to the practice to provide coverage for that which is considered moral sin?

It is a classic example of Government butting in and I am only talking about state government here and it's not even Gov run healthcare!

Whether or not one agrees with the teaching is not the issue. Everyone should be concerned when government regulates and mandates private companies and organizations while disregarding freedoms guaranteed under the constitution. When do they ever give up control of anything? All they do is take more control. It never goes the other way.

Ah, the problems of fair and necessary government. I was certainly unaware that Wisconsin was communist.

I hadn't understood that people of different religions deserve different medical treatments depending on their boss' beliefs. Of course, they should know that they have to sacrifice their religion and follow whoever is in charge when they sign the contract.

It's simple, if you agree to work somewhere you need to deal with their policies. If you don't like them don't work there. The difference with all these topic's is that I am fighting for everyones right to free speech, religion, and any constitutional rights....which includes liberals. Often liberals don't care if the rights of religious are trampled on which is sad because they think it does not apply to them. Well it does because if they can take those rights away yours will go soon enough.

So, an employer that has a "no blacks, no Irish" policy is ok with you? Does that apply to customers too? If you don't like the policy, shop somewhere else?

Interesting that you mention that considering non minorities already are passed up for jobs they are more qualified for in order to fill positions with minorities to be "fair" and have a more "diverse" company. Equal opportunity employer often means white males need not apply if your competing with a black woman for the job. Guess your ok with that though.

So, if the government decides some day that their government health program will mandate sterilization's for any women 35 and up to ensure health you would be ok with that? Whatever they decide to do and is ok in your book because the government has decided it's best? Got it

[PopeBenXVI]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary. For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

First, what the hell are they doing passing that in a state budget aside from stuffing the budget with all kinds of unrelated crap....which they did a lot of.

Second, what the hell right do they have trumping religious freedom protected by our constitution and mandating an organization who is fundamentally opposed to the practice to provide coverage for that which is considered moral sin?

It is a classic example of Government butting in and I am only talking about state government here and it's not even Gov run healthcare!

Whether or not one agrees with the teaching is not the issue. Everyone should be concerned when government regulates and mandates private companies and organizations while disregarding freedoms guaranteed under the constitution. When do they ever give up control of anything? All they do is take more control. It never goes the other way.

Ah, the problems of fair and necessary government. I was certainly unaware that Wisconsin was communist.

I hadn't understood that people of different religions deserve different medical treatments depending on their boss' beliefs. Of course, they should know that they have to sacrifice their religion and follow whoever is in charge when they sign the contract.

It's simple, if you agree to work somewhere you need to deal with their policies. If you don't like them don't work there. The difference with all these topic's is that I am fighting for everyones right to free speech, religion, and any constitutional rights....which includes liberals. Often liberals don't care if the rights of religious are trampled on which is sad because they think it does not apply to them. Well it does because if they can take those rights away yours will go soon enough.

So, an employer that has a "no blacks, no Irish" policy is ok with you? Does that apply to customers too? If you don't like the policy, shop somewhere else?

There is a MAJOR difference between racial discrimination and the contraception issue. No one is saying they can't get contraception (ie can't get hired if they are irish) they are just saying our insurance policy is not paying for your decision to get it but you can work here and pay for it yourself if you want it. It's the same as offering insurance with less coverage than a bigger company may provide. Gov is in effect saying the insurance you have decided to pay for your employees (which they have agreed to be covered under upon hire) is not enough and we require you to buy more for them. They have no business forcing private companies to do that.

[Symmetry]

the problems of fair and necessary government. I was certainly unaware that Wisconsin was communist.

I hadn't understood that people of different religions deserve different medical treatments depending on their boss' beliefs. Of course, they should know that they have to sacrifice their religion and follow whoever is in charge when they sign the contract.

It's simple, if you agree to work somewhere you need to deal with their policies. If you don't like them don't work there. The difference with all these topic's is that I am fighting for everyones right to free speech, religion, and any constitutional rights....which includes liberals. Often liberals don't care if the rights of religious are trampled on which is sad because they think it does not apply to them. Well it does because if they can take those rights away yours will go soon enough.

So, an employer that has a "no blacks, no Irish" policy is ok with you? Does that apply to customers too? If you don't like the policy, shop somewhere else?

Interesting that you mention that considering non minorities already are passed up for jobs they are more qualified for in order to fill positions with minorities to be "fair" and have a more "diverse" company. Equal opportunity employer often means white males need not apply if your competing with a black woman for the job. Guess your ok with that though.

So, if the government decides some day that their government health program will mandate sterilization's for any women 35 and up to ensure health you would be ok with that? Whatever they decide to do and is ok in your book because the government has decided it's best? Got it

You kind of avoided the question there. Do you think that businesses should be able to employ and fire people based on race/religion/sexuality/whatever? Personally I go for ability and potential as pointers.

Still, I'll argue your points. Not doing so would be kind of tit-for-tat avoidance.

I don't agree with your idea that white men are out of luck employment-wise. Equal opportunity policies typically argue for favouring a minority candidate when two candidates are equally qualified. When they argue for a lesser qualified minority candidate, they do so on the basis that they have had a much more difficult time reaching the interview.

Sorry if somewhere, somehow, a white guy doesn't get a job because the employers are a bit PC. I have sympathy for the guy. His job prospects are still way up compared to if his skin colour were different, or if he was a she. There's no avoiding that.

Your last point doesn't make sense. If you need me to admit it, then I'm happy to say that I'm against forced sterilisation.

[PopeBenXVI]

the problems of fair and necessary government. I was certainly unaware that Wisconsin was communist.

I hadn't understood that people of different religions deserve different medical treatments depending on their boss' beliefs. Of course, they should know that they have to sacrifice their religion and follow whoever is in charge when they sign the contract.

It's simple, if you agree to work somewhere you need to deal with their policies. If you don't like them don't work there. The difference with all these topic's is that I am fighting for everyones right to free speech, religion, and any constitutional rights....which includes liberals. Often liberals don't care if the rights of religious are trampled on which is sad because they think it does not apply to them. Well it does because if they can take those rights away yours will go soon enough.

So, an employer that has a "no blacks, no Irish" policy is ok with you? Does that apply to customers too? If you don't like the policy, shop somewhere else?

Interesting that you mention that considering non minorities already are passed up for jobs they are more qualified for in order to fill positions with minorities to be "fair" and have a more "diverse" company. Equal opportunity employer often means white males need not apply if your competing with a black woman for the job. Guess your ok with that though.

So, if the government decides some day that their government health program will mandate sterilization's for any women 35 and up to ensure health you would be ok with that? Whatever they decide to do and is ok in your book because the government has decided it's best? Got it

You kind of avoided the question there. Do you think that businesses should be able to employ and fire people based on race/religion/sexuality/whatever? Personally I go for ability and potential as pointers.

Still, I'll argue your points. Not doing so would be kind of tit-for-tat avoidance.

I don't agree with your idea that white men are out of luck employment-wise. Equal opportunity policies typically argue for favouring a minority candidate when two candidates are equally qualified. When they argue for a lesser qualified minority candidate, they do so on the basis that they have had a much more difficult time reaching the interview.

Sorry if somewhere, somehow, a white guy doesn't get a job because the employers are a bit PC. I have sympathy for the guy. His job prospects are still way up compared to if his skin colour were different, or if he was a she. There's no avoiding that.

Your last point doesn't make sense. If you need me to admit it, then I'm happy to say that I'm against forced sterilisation.

I did answer your question in my last post. The 2 issues of contraception VS not hiring someone for their ethnicity are completely different and incomparable.

In regards to the minority candidate, you prove my point. First you say it does argue for the minority more than the white guy but then you say the white guys chances are still way up LOL! Well if he is applying at other places with the same discriminatory policies then NO, he does not "still have better prospects"

Work hard and if you are the most qualified you get the job, thats America. Not covering contraception does not prevent one from getting it if they want and it is not at all like firing someone for being black which is discrimination.

[Symmetry]

Still kind of avoiding things. "No blacks, no Irish", or if you think that this is just ethnic without religion "No Jews, no Papists", you happy with a shop owner running that policy?

I'll add another question. What if there's no sign?

[Jolly Roger]

Anyway, my major problems with the bill are that (1) it could lead to government-run healthcare (we already have socialism in healthcare so whether the bill provides for that or not is a moot point), and (2) it does more than what the supporters of a health insurance bill want it to do. All the government needs to do to solve the problem of health insurance in the US is (1) place greater restrictions on what private health insurers have to cover and (2) provide health insurance for those that cannot afford private health insurance. It would be a short bill. So, when the bill does more than it needs to do, of course I question the wisdom of such a bill, the collective intelligence of supporters of the bill (especially those, like you, who have not read it), and the impetus behind such a bill.

Excellent. I understand that we have a real lawyer in our midst who has thoroughly studied the proposed legislation and has come to enlighten us. As a Canadian, I have only a passing interest in the bill since it may have some impact on the common practice of Canadian health professionals, whose training is subsidized by my tax dollars, being recruited south of the border, resulting in shortages here at home. I have scanned the bill but, like the sultan of surreal, find the legalese very difficult to translate. Given that you possess a more lofty legal mind, I was wondering if you could discuss your conclusion that the current plan will ultimately result in private health insurance becoming unavailable in greater depth. This point is of particular interest since, as you are aware, we have private health insurance available in Canada also and I do not want our government restricting that option via some underhanded and incomprehensible piece of legislation. I found your analysis of the grandfather clause very helpful but I'm afraid I need a little more assistance to connect the dots. How do you see the demise of the private QHBP offering entities and the Health Insurance Exchange occurring given that the proposed public plan must set rates which are sufficient to cover all of its costs in addition to paying back their $2B start-up fund over the next 10 years, all the while providing the same degree of coverage as the other QHBP offering entities and following the same rules? Where does the bill state that tax dollars can be used to supplement the public plan? Is the government's non-profit status the only advantage it needs to run competing private industry out of business (despite bureaucratic ineptitude) or is it simply inevitable that the government will break its own rules, mismanage the f*ck out of everything and stick it to the health insurance industry which maintains a powerful lobby and donates generously to the campaigns of many legislators?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. Are you a fan of William Lashner by any chance? I love the Victor Carl novels - your posts re the Scyhullkill Expressway (spelling???) brought those books immediately to mind...

[PLAYER57832]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary.

I say no such thing, but of course if you stuck to the truth, you would not have any argument.
I DO think that anyone who works at a job fulltime should earn enough to eat, have a house with heat and water, decent clothing (used is fine), and yes .. buy healthcare!

We already subsidize the healthcare of millions and little for that subsidy. This plan would mean LESS taxes, not more and give us all better coverage in exchange.

For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

Yeah, they also require any Jehovah's witness who becomes a doctor to offer patients blood transfusions. An Employer may dictate their OWN beliefs, but not those of employees. Denying healthcare is not a Christian value. Forcing others to do as you wish, whether they agree or not is totalitarian, not mandating that employers respect employee's rights to decide their own care.

[PLAYER57832]

There is a MAJOR difference between racial discrimination and the contraception issue. No one is saying they can't get contraception (ie can't get hired if they are irish) they are just saying our insurance policy is not paying for your decision to get it but you can work here and pay for it yourself if you want it. .

Exactly the argument Blue Cross Insurance uses over and over to explain denying claims or cancelling policies for insured people who thought they had coverage for serious medical diseases until they tried to get the tests and/or treatment covered.

Denying payment IS denying medication.

[thegreekdog]

Excellent. I understand that we have a real lawyer in our midst who has thoroughly studied the proposed legislation and has come to enlighten us. As a Canadian, I have only a passing interest in the bill since it may have some impact on the common practice of Canadian health professionals, whose training is subsidized by my tax dollars, being recruited south of the border, resulting in shortages here at home. I have scanned the bill but, like the sultan of surreal, find the legalese very difficult to translate. Given that you possess a more lofty legal mind, I was wondering if you could discuss your conclusion that the current plan will ultimately result in private health insurance becoming unavailable in greater depth. This point is of particular interest since, as you are aware, we have private health insurance available in Canada also and I do not want our government restricting that option via some underhanded and incomprehensible piece of legislation. I found your analysis of the grandfather clause very helpful but I'm afraid I need a little more assistance to connect the dots. How do you see the demise of the private QHBP offering entities and the Health Insurance Exchange occurring given that the proposed public plan must set rates which are sufficient to cover all of its costs in addition to paying back their $2B start-up fund over the next 10 years, all the while providing the same degree of coverage as the other QHBP offering entities and following the same rules? Where does the bill state that tax dollars can be used to supplement the public plan? Is the government's non-profit status the only advantage it needs to run competing private industry out of business (despite bureaucratic ineptitude) or is it simply inevitable that the government will break its own rules, mismanage the f*ck out of everything and stick it to the health insurance industry which maintains a powerful lobby and donates generously to the campaigns of many legislators?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. Are you a fan of William Lashner by any chance? I love the Victor Carl novels - your posts re the Scyhullkill Expressway (spelling???) brought those books immediately to mind...

First off, apologies for not answering all of your questions. I believe the answers you are looking for (from me anyway) are embedded in this thread and in other threads on the same subject. I think the biggest factor which you have maybe already figured out at this point, judging by the tone of your post, is that I am inherently distrustful of the US government. As I may have indicated previously, in order to solve the problem of the lack of health insurance for many here in the US, I believe the best policy is for the federal government to provide health insurance to individuals who lack health insurance. I believe this is the most simple way to effectuate the kind of change most of us seem to want. The bill, as I've indicated previously, provides a risk that the public option could become the only option. I understand your point on the health insurance industry holding sway over Congress and the president; I agree with that, in fact, which is why this bill confuses me so much. It could be so much simpler, but it's not. A rhetorical question for me is "why not?" My answer, because I distrust my government so much, is that the government wants to, eventually, take control of health insurance.

Anyway, to sum up - go read my other posts, which will help you. Also, please understand that I'm not a healthcare attorney or insurance attorney. I simply read the bill. My interpretation has less to do with me being an attorney and more to do with my distrust for the government here in the US.

[stahrgazer]

Second, what the hell right do they have trumping religious freedom protected by our constitution and mandating an organization who is fundamentally opposed to the practice to provide coverage for that which is considered moral sin?

Are you saying this organization is employing only those who believe as they do, practice as they do? That violates various existing anti-discrimination laws. If they hire anyone, then the chance is they will hire someone who does not practice as they do, who might want to make use of contraceptives.

Of course, that the insurance provides coverage does not require anyone in the religion to use that section of coverage.

Your argument is basically, "because they do not believe in that aspect of healthcare, the organization should not have to pay for treatment of it."

By that argument, vegetarian/vegan organizations should not have to pay for treatments for atherosclerosis (hardened/clogged arteries) or cholesterol, since vegetables do not promote those conditions and the eating of substances that do promote those problems are against the organization's principles. Using similar arguments, a holistic care facility shouldn't have to included any "modern medicine" or surgery, since holistic care uses alternative methods.

Our country is based on a separation of church and state. Requiring certain insurance coverages is not the same as forcing someone of a given religion to use those coverages.

[PopeBenXVI]

Still kind of avoiding things. "No blacks, no Irish", or if you think that this is just ethnic without religion "No Jews, no Papists", you happy with a shop owner running that policy?

I'll add another question. What if there's no sign?

If you can read you would see I answered it. "No blacks or Irish" is completely different than "I'll hire the Black and Irish but my companies insurance does not cover theirs or anyone else's contraception".....but you can get it on your own if you want it. It's not that complicated

[PopeBenXVI]

Player thinks Gov gives everyone a choice for everything. She overlooks obvious Gov intrusions on things by calling it fair or necessary.

I say no such thing, but of course if you stuck to the truth, you would not have any argument.
I DO think that anyone who works at a job fulltime should earn enough to eat, have a house with heat and water, decent clothing (used is fine), and yes .. buy healthcare!

People could afford these things for themselves if the Government would not tax people so high and then because you can't afford these things the Government then blames business for the lack of affordability. If they take all your money then yes you need the government to take care of you but they are doing it with your own money that they stole from you to start!

We already subsidize the healthcare of millions and little for that subsidy. This plan would mean LESS taxes, not more and give us all better coverage in exchange.

For example My wonderfully communist Government here is Wisconsin just passed the budget a few months back and for some reason they decided to slip in there a mandate that every employer must offer insurance that provides contraceptives and they did not even exempt Religious institutions as most other states have that passed similar laws.

Yeah, they also require any Jehovah's witness who becomes a doctor to offer patients blood transfusions. An Employer may dictate their OWN beliefs, but not those of employees. Denying healthcare is not a Christian value. Forcing others to do as you wish, whether they agree or not is totalitarian, not mandating that employers respect employee's rights to decide their own care.

As usual your comparisons don't make sense. First, A JW doctor performing or not performing a procedure has nothing to do with whether or not insurance one might carry covers that procedure. Second, contraception is not a necessary part of "Health Care". It is not like needing a bi pass or cancer treatment. Fertility is a natural healthy function of your body in case you did not know that.

You are however right that forcing others to do as you wish when they may not agree with it is Totalitarian just like forcing a private religious institution to cover unnecessary coverage for medication they deem sinful. You are avoiding that no one is preventing them from getting the pill. YOUR VIEW is Totalitarian because you are forcing.......mine is not because I am not forcing anything I am just not going to pay for it just like if you wanted a sex change operation. Pay for it yourself but stop being a Dictator and telling me I have to pay for your decisions on unnecessary procedures

[PopeBenXVI]

Second, what the hell right do they have trumping religious freedom protected by our constitution and mandating an organization who is fundamentally opposed to the practice to provide coverage for that which is considered moral sin?

Are you saying this organization is employing only those who believe as they do, practice as they do? That violates various existing anti-discrimination laws. If they hire anyone, then the chance is they will hire someone who does not practice as they do, who might want to make use of contraceptives.

Of course, that the insurance provides coverage does not require anyone in the religion to use that section of coverage.

Your argument is basically, "because they do not believe in that aspect of healthcare, the organization should not have to pay for treatment of it."

By that argument, vegetarian/vegan organizations should not have to pay for treatments for atherosclerosis (hardened/clogged arteries) or cholesterol, since vegetables do not promote those conditions and the eating of substances that do promote those problems are against the organization's principles. Using similar arguments, a holistic care facility shouldn't have to included any "modern medicine" or surgery, since holistic care uses alternative methods.

Our country is based on a separation of church and state. Requiring certain insurance coverages is not the same as forcing someone of a given religion to use those coverages.

Again, no one is preventing them from going to planned parenthood or spending $50 a month to get a circular container of pills for themselves. It would be like me forcing your company to provide coverage for religious meditation at a Catholic Monastery because meditation can releave stress and could promote overall health. You should really pay for that even though it costs extra. I want that in my plan and if you don't provide it for me you are discriminating against me.

[PLAYER57832]

As usual your comparisons don't make sense. First, A JW doctor performing or not performing a procedure has nothing to do with whether or not insurance one might carry covers that procedure. Second, contraception is not a necessary part of "Health Care". It is not like needing a bi pass or cancer treatment. Fertility is a natural healthy function of your body in case you did not know that.

Like it or not, contraception IS very much a part of healthcare. YOU may make that choice for yourself, you have no right to decide that my doctor is an idiot and knows less than you about the matter.

You are however right that forcing others to do as you wish when they may not agree with it is Totalitarian just like forcing a private religious institution to cover unnecessary coverage for medication they deem sinful. You are avoiding that no one is preventing them from getting the pill. YOUR VIEW is Totalitarian because you are forcing.......mine is not because I am not forcing anything I am just not going to pay for it just like if you wanted a sex change operation. Pay for it yourself but stop being a Dictator and telling me I have to pay for your decisions on unnecessary procedures

I am the dictator? No one is FORCING anyone to use any medical care, just to provide insurance. You, by contrast, want to dictate to every women on Earth and their doctors what medication they should put into their bodies. If your church considers contraception sinful, then deal with it in church, NOT by claiming that insurance coverage somehow violates your rights.