P
ProVobis
Guest
Yep, “Mission Accomplished.”
- Status
B
bellasbane
Guest
The Bishops oppose parts of it, but where do they reject it wholesale? I do not get that message from their statements. In fact, they seem to like the Medicaid expansion portion of the bill very much.
My understanding of the position taken by the Bishops is of a constructive process based on reform, not repeal. This is very different from what most people posting on this forum who want to abolish the law entirely.
If the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was “an important step toward ensuring access to health coverage for all Americans” then abolishing it would be taking a step back from this goal. I do not believe that is what the Bishops want.
I
ishii
Guest
Bush didn’t lie about Iraq, and you know it. Obama knew what was in his own bill - Obamacare - yet he still made the false claim that people could keep their own insurance. So the two issues are completely different. Bush made the claims of WMD’s based on the intelligence given to him - intelligence which Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. all believed to be true as well. So Bellasbane, why then do you call Bush a liar, but not the Democrats who voted to supporte the war? And why not Clinton? (recall that he said of Saddham Hussein that he had WMD’s and he would use them). So what Bush did was not lie at all. What Obama did was mislead, lie, misrepresent, etc. in order to push Obamacare.
It comes down to this: In Iraq - we had to rely on intelligence and make the judgement of whether there were WMD’s.
With Obamacare, it comes down to Obama’s own law!! Big difference, Bellasbane.
Ishii
E
estesbob
Guest
Such An important step Catholics all over the country are suing to get out from under Obamacare.
And,of course, all the comments you posted were made BEFORE we found out the ACA was based on a web of lies
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
Are you talking about me, because everything I posted was directly quoted from an authoritative Church document.
Exactly. Bush presented the same information and came to the same conclusions as other countries had. He didn’t lie. Was he in error regarding the WMDs and threat from Saddam? Sure. But, being in error is not lying.
The difference with Obama’s lie, is that Democrats say they knew people wouldn’t be able to keep their insurance, and Obama repeated the lie over and over and over again.
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
“Authoritative?” In what way? Was it a decree assented to by 2/3 of the US bishops? I don’t think it was, and you have failed to answer. Not everything that comes out of the USCCB is “authoritative.”Are you talking about me, because everything I posted was directly quoted from an authoritative Church document.
E
estesbob
Guest
I don’t know why she posted it.They clearly rejected Obamacare AND their comments were made before we found out the law was based on lies
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
And, such statements are “authoritative” in what way? They represent my Bishop’s view? Certainly, the USCCB has no separate authority. It isn’t the Magisterium. These documents are binding and require I agree?
Bishops even disagree about Obamacare, even separate the conscience, abortion and contraception issues.
M
markomalley
Guest
Well, in addition to that, if it wasn’t unanimously accepted in plenary session, the statement must have a recognito from the Holy See in order to be a magisterial teaching (ref: Apostolos Suos Complementary Norm Art 1)
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
That seems to have been an intelligence failure.
It is not the president’s job to gather intelligence.
Furthermore, other nations intel reported the same findings.
There’s little question in my mind the Iraq War was a total debacle.
The health care lies seem to indicate the American people were intentionally misled. In morality, intention weighs heavy.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Says who? The democrats who passed it? Opposition to the bill was bi-partisan.
They also don’t want to pay for free contraception or and I doubt they’d approve of a health care system that doesn’t give access to people due to rationing and allows the government to decide who lives and who dies.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Like we didn’t have cases like Terri Schiavo before?
I
ishii
Guest
So, since we had cases like Terri Schiavo before, that means we have to accept the government deciding who lives and who dies, more than ever? We have to accept the further slide down the slippery slope? Not sure of your point, Provobis
Ishii
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
In the case of the AHA, Schiavo may have been in a situation involving a do not resuscitate clause where she may have been left to die.
That’s the path we are headed on here.
J
jediliz
Guest
terri schindler may have been the victim of domestic abuse - there are things that don’t add up about her collapse (and supposed heart attack). such as her “husband” waiting an hour to call 9-1-1.
She was not dying, she was disabled and had a brain injury. She was not on TRUE life support (like a ventilator). She merely required a FEEDING TUBE.
She was not dying, she was disabled and had a brain injury. She was not on TRUE life support (like a ventilator). She merely required a FEEDING TUBE.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Link to article
… It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market…
…“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that **66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status **by the end of 2013 {Note: this was written before the delay on the employer mandate},” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.
I looked this up because I read in an editorial that the reason that the employer mandate was postponed for a year was that so many of those plans will also be canceled.
IOW, what seems to have happened is that despite being assured that we could keep our insurance, the law was then interpreted so very narrowly–[a co-pay change of $5.20 can destroy the policy–that many people will NOT be able to keep their insurance.
We are seeing this now in the individual market because those policies are affected this year. Most Americans, however, get their health insurance through their employers, who are NOT affected this year, but who will be next year! What we are seeing with individuals this year will happen all over again next year, but with many more people.
Another huge problem is that employer plans will lose their grandfather status if they “decrease the percent of premiums the employer pays by more than 5%.”](http://banyan-llc.com/bc/bc.nsf/hcr/Health-Care-Reform-Bulletin-Grandfather-Clause)
… It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market…
…“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that **66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status **by the end of 2013 {Note: this was written before the delay on the employer mandate},” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.
I looked this up because I read in an editorial that the reason that the employer mandate was postponed for a year was that so many of those plans will also be canceled.
IOW, what seems to have happened is that despite being assured that we could keep our insurance, the law was then interpreted so very narrowly–[a co-pay change of $5.20 can destroy the policy–that many people will NOT be able to keep their insurance.
We are seeing this now in the individual market because those policies are affected this year. Most Americans, however, get their health insurance through their employers, who are NOT affected this year, but who will be next year! What we are seeing with individuals this year will happen all over again next year, but with many more people.
Another huge problem is that employer plans will lose their grandfather status if they “decrease the percent of premiums the employer pays by more than 5%.”](http://banyan-llc.com/bc/bc.nsf/hcr/Health-Care-Reform-Bulletin-Grandfather-Clause)
M
Maxirad
Guest
Is it safe to say that President Obama is a communist? Alan Keyes has accused Obama of being one.
M
markomalley
Guest
Mr. Obama denies being a communist. Therefore, I would think some may consider it uncharitable to accuse of that…unless, of course, you can find him saying that about himself.
Mr. Obama normally calls himself a Christian (his statement “my muslim faith” notwithstanding). Therefore, it would be considered by some to be uncharitable to call him a Muslim.
And so forth.
At least in my opinion.
G
gamewell45
Guest
So its an opinion.
I think its reasonable to assume medical costs don’t disappear; they’ve always been shifted to the taxpayers, hence the passage of ACA to reduce costs and eventually reduce the costs to taxpayers. The ACA will reduce costs since those covered will shift the costs to the insurance companies as opposed to the taxpayers.
It’s my opinion that long term costs will be significantly reduced. I base that on common sense.
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
How is ACA “reducing costs?” Please be specific…unless it is just your opinion.
- Status