That’s because Congress, living up to its motto, “Never give a sucker an even break” will not allow shopping for health insurance across state lines, will not allow unaffiliated businesses to band together to bargain for employee health insurance, and will not implement MSAs.Could it be…perhaps…maybe because insurance costs so much that people cannot afford it? And what insurance they CAN afford doesn’t cover anything that people actually need?
Is that possible?
Ever hear the little disclaimer that’s given at the end of financial investment commercials? “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.” You can have a person who will appear to have a good anti-abortion (anti-abortion does not always equal pro-life) voting record because they vote on issues that snip around the abortion issue. I don’t think that, with the rare exception, Republicans will actually attack the issue head-on. If a head-on vote ever comes up (say a cynical ploy by the eeeeeevil Democrats), they’ll never vote to abolish abortion outright…unless they know that it will lose; thus maintaining their pro-life voting record.That is not entirely true this time around. Check voting records.
It’s because they can’t afford to pay. ABC is doing a monday 6pm special every week for 4 weeks on ER care in the US. The first installment focused on the people who work there. A intake nurse when asked do you get mostly those who are unemployed or homeless here, responded…No the vast majority of our intake (to the tune of 1 every 4 min every hour, every day, every week) are working people, but most of them can’t afford insurance or are so underinsured it amounts to the same thing. I have no idea why people think that the uninsured are just too lazy to work, and suddenly everything will be all right if we can just limit free health care to “those in real need.” I’d love to see a study that says that.Indeed the ER is not intended for primary medical care, but millions throughout our country go there for primary care and then don’t pay. Hospitals are closing because they cannot bear the burden. I think there should be a way to help those in real need without taking more and more money from the earners.
It appears that JPII has interpreted it for you. If you choose to disagree with his opinion, by all means, say so. The USCCB has spoken directly and completely. It calls for the end of the Death Penalty in the country and has so spoken for 25 years. If you choose to disagree with their opinion, by all means, say so.Has the catechism been changed? If the church changes their teachings on the death penalty doesn’t that mean all their teachings of the last 2000 years are suspect? How can something be totally acceptable even in the Vatican in 1960 but morally wrong in 2008?
Our President, before he was re-elected in 2004, claimed that he had the right to torture if necessary. He had the Justice Department prepare memos in 2002 to show that prisoners in the War on Terror were not prisoners in the classic sense, but rather, “enemy combatants” and that the provisions of the Geneva Convention (to which the United States is a signatory) did not apply to these prisoner. I did not say he likes to torture, or takes torture lightly, but that he supports the use of torture when it is “in the interests of national security.” (President Bush’s phrase). Given this, kindly explain how is he not a pro-torute candidate. He has openly sought legal justification to torture and has openly said he will use torture when he deems it necessary. How does not this make him a pro-torture candidate? My statement is not a rationalization. You are laying claim to godlike powers by saying that you can read my mind and know why I typed it. I and my Heavenly Father know why I typed it, and I will have to answer to the God of Abraham for my votes. I am trying to rationalize NOTHING. I simply am questioning the logic you use for abortion. Sorry, but if “anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is voting to support abortion,” then anyone who votes for a pro-torture candidate supports torture. Period. That does not mean the pro-torture candidate wasn’t the best available candidate, or that he wasn’t the most Catholic of the available choices, but it does mean by this logic that anyone who voted for President Bush in 2004 voted to support torture. You can not wish that fact away by simply denying the factual reality of our President’s stance on torture. It is a well-documented matter of public record. I suggest you do some research to verify my assertions about him.There aren’t any pro-torture candidates. I’ll have to admit that is one of the more novel rationalizations for supporting those aid and abette and abetthe slaughter of our children.
I have always oposed the death penalty HOWEVER it is wrong to say the Church has prohibited its use. We are all free t disagree with the the USCBB an/or the Popes opinion unless it is a matter of doctrine. It is also wrong to put the death penalty on the same moral level as abortion,.It appears that JPII has interpreted it for you. If you choose to disagree with his opinion, by all means, say so. The USCCB has spoken directly and completely. It calls for the end of the Death Penalty in the country and has so spoken for 25 years. If you choose to disagree with their opinion, by all means, say so.
I have-you’re wrong. Thanks for playing.Our President, before he was re-elected in 2004, claimed that he had the right to torture if necessary. He had the Justice Department prepare memos in 2002 to show that prisoners in the War on Terror were not prisoners in the classic sense, but rather, “enemy combatants” and that the provisions of the Geneva Convention (to which the United States is a signatory) did not apply to these prisoner. I did not say he likes to torture, or takes torture lightly, but that he supports the use of torture when it is “in the interests of national security.” (President Bush’s phrase). Given this, kindly explain how is he not a pro-torute candidate. He has openly sought legal justification to torture and has openly said he will use torture when he deems it necessary. How does not this make him a pro-torture candidate? My statement is not a rationalization. You are laying claim to godlike powers by saying that you can read my mind and know why I typed it. I and my Heavenly Father know why I typed it, and I will have to answer to the God of Abraham for my votes. I am trying to rationalize NOTHING. I simply am questioning the logic you use for abortion. Sorry, but if “anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is voting to support abortion,” then anyone who votes for a pro-torture candidate supports torture. Period. That does not mean the pro-torture candidate wasn’t the best available candidate, or that he wasn’t the most Catholic of the available choices, but it does mean by this logic that anyone who voted for President Bush in 2004 voted to support torture. You can not wish that fact away by simply denying the factual reality of our President’s stance on torture. It is a well-documented matter of public record. I suggest you do some research to verify my assertions about him.
It is fairly expense if your employer does not provide it.And how many people crying out for “free” healthcare fit this description?
How about showing how compassionate you are by paying one of my emplyees health insurance so i dont have to. or are you compassionate only with other peoples money?It is fairly expense if your employer does not provide it.
We seem to be filled with hatred and contempt for others… you should at least try to conceal it. I wonder if I will turn out this way when I grow older. Senescence, I guess, isn’t desirable.
Well, I suppose you are content with the “free” access to health care they get in the ER now.
I don’t have the resources to do that.How about showing how compassionate you are by paying one of my emplyees health insurance so i dont have to. or are you compassionate only with other peoples money?
From where I sit the only way you have to go is up as you grow older
Its always easy to be compassionate with other peoples money. How about you just send me what you spend on your internet connection or sell your computer and send me the proceeds? Surely you have some disposable income.I don’t have the resources to do that.
I made two factual assertions. The first is that President Bush had the Justice Department in 2002 demonstrate why the United States was not bound by Geneva Convention prohibitions against torture when it comes to “enemy combatants.” The second is that President Bush stated openly that he, as Commander-in Chief, reserves the right to employ torture when it is “in the interest of national security.” Kindly tell me which of the assertions is wrong.I have-you’re wrong. Thanks for playing.
I’ll sell mine when you do the same.Its always easy to be compassionate with other peoples money. How about you just send me what you spend on your internet connection or sell your computer and send me the proceeds? Surely you have some disposable income.
Yes it is, but ya know what? IF the govt left me alone, I could but some pretty good insurance with the money they take from me.It is fairly expense if your employer does not provide it.
We seem to be filled with hatred and contempt for others… you should at least try to conceal it. I wonder if I will turn out this way when I grow older. Senescence, I guess, isn’t desirable.
Well, I suppose you are content with the “free” access to health care they get in the ER now.
Bush never said it. Heres hat he did say:Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Our President, before he was re-elected in 2004, claimed that he had the right to torture if necessary. He had the Justice Department prepare memos in 2002 to show that prisoners in the War on Terror were not prisoners in the classic sense, but rather, “enemy combatants” and that the provisions of the Geneva Convention (to which the United States is a signatory) did not apply to these prisoner. I did not say he likes to torture, or takes torture lightly, but that he supports the use of torture when it is “in the interests of national security.” (President Bush’s phrase). Given this, kindly explain how is he not a pro-torute candidate. He has openly sought legal justification to torture and has openly said he will use torture when he deems it necessary. How does not this make him a pro-torture candidate? My statement is not a rationalization. You are laying claim to godlike powers by saying that you can read my mind and know why I typed it. I and my Heavenly Father know why I typed it, and I will have to answer to the God of Abraham for my votes. I am trying to rationalize NOTHING. I simply am questioning the logic you use for abortion. Sorry, but if “anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is voting to support abortion,” then anyone who votes for a pro-torture candidate supports torture. Period. That does not mean the pro-torture candidate wasn’t the best available candidate, or that he wasn’t the most Catholic of the available choices, but it does mean by this logic that anyone who voted for President Bush in 2004 voted to support torture. You can not wish that fact away by simply denying the factual reality of our President’s stance on torture. It is a well-documented matter of public record. I suggest you do some research to verify my assertions about him.
I made two factual assertions. The first is that President Bush had the Justice Department in 2002 demonstrate why the United States was not bound by Geneva Convention prohibitions against torture when it comes to “enemy combatants.” The second is that President Bush stated openly that he, as Commander-in Chief, reserves the right to employ torture when it is “in the interest of national security.” Kindly tell me which of the assertions is wrong.
And very often the only way to apply to better jobs is through the internet. Thank big business for that one, which is backed by the Republicans. And again, the Republicans buy votes just like the Democrats.Yes it is, but ya know what? IF the govt left me alone, I could but some pretty good insurance with the money they take from me.
“working poor” is what? A guy working 40 hours a week flippin burgers?. Why is it WRONG to him to get a education to better his situation, or get a job deliverying pizzas? Turn off his internet, cable tv, Applebee’s etc and buy some health insurance!
Hey, doesn’t Wal Mart have a pretty good health plan?
No, I’m not content with the ER situation. But some of the children, born in the years of the Great Society, feel they are entitled to healthcare, they have been around the govt dole so long, they feel like they should have it. And the dems, in a effort to buy votes want to give it to them, by jacking up the taxes of regular folks like me. Heaven knows what they wanna do to the rich guys. They are so villified in this country I dunno how they make it.
It seems to me that the evidence we have is that he has said both which leaves him talking out of both sides of his mouth. Had I known ahead of time that he would do that I would never have voted for the guy.Bush never said it. Heres hat he did say:
In remarks commemorating United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture June 26, President Bush says freedom from torture is "an inalienable human right."
usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=June&x=20050626155951521elootom0.6794702&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
Note that I provided a link-always helpful when making assertions
"I have never ordered torture," Bush said. "I will never order torture."
theoaklandpress.com/stories/062304/nat_062331.shtml
What about in the issue of Frank’s security? If a terroist has info on a dirty bomb goin off in your city, threatening your family, are you for or against any means necessary to pull it out of him, or do ya just wanna ask him kindly when he thinks it might go off or where?The second is that President Bush stated openly that he, as Commander-in Chief, reserves the right to employ torture when it is “in the interest of national security.” Kindly tell me which of the assertions is wrong./
Well doesn’t the government offer tax deductions to provide that to their employees?How about showing how compassionate you are by paying one of my emplyees health insurance so i dont have to. or are you compassionate only with other peoples money?
From where I sit the only way you have to go is up as you grow older