Presidential Election Poll 10-2-2012

[Ridgerunner]

Is it okay with you that we allow 50 million Americans to suffer without health care? Is that a better way of caring for the poor (one of the biblical roles of Government discussed by Paul)? This topic is way more complex then simply killing or preserving Obamacare.

50 million was Obama’s guess, but nobody actually knew. Some were not really without health coverage. Nobody knew. Some of the Democrats estimated 30 million. But they didn’t know either.

Obama says Obamacare will not cover 20 million. The CBO says it’s more like 30 million. Medicaid patients (the actual poor) are going to get squeezed by the addition of 17 million more people on the Medicaid rolls. Reimbursement for “chronic care” patients is being reduced. The chief actuary for Medicare says that in a few years under Obamacare, Medicare will pay even less than Medicaid, which providers are reluctant to accept even now.

It is a disaster on its own terms. And then to oppress the Church as it has done. There is really no defense for it, and even most liberals have given up trying.

No, it really is as simple as doing away with obamacare. With that terrible and unjust law out of the way (which the public doesn’t want anyway) it can be looked at again rationally.

 

[scipio337]

I don’t plan to change Obamacare. I trust that the Church will defend religious liberties (in court if necessary).

Answer: a better way of “caring for the poor” is keeping Obamacare, and shutting down every Catholic hospital, school and charity in the country.

The poor will be much better served without 12.6% of the hospitals in this country, who serve more of the poor than state or privately owned hospitals.

This administration’s sheer hubris knows no boundaries.

The government giveth, the government taketh away, blessed be the name of government!!

 

[iloveangels]

Answer: a better way of “caring for the poor” is keeping Obamacare, and shutting down every Catholic hospital, school and charity in the country.

The poor will be much better served without 12.6% of the hospitals in this country, who serve more of the poor than state or privately owned hospitals.

This administration’s sheer hubris knows no boundaries.

The government giveth, the government taketh away, blessed be the name of government!!

 

[iloveangels]

Answer: a better way of “caring for the poor” is keeping Obamacare, and shutting down every Catholic hospital, school and charity in the country.

The poor will be much better served without 12.6% of the hospitals in this country, who serve more of the poor than state or privately owned hospitals.

This administration’s sheer hubris knows no boundaries.

The government giveth, the government taketh away, blessed be the name of government!!

You bet. When there are no soup kitchens and food banks, that’ll help the poor.
And when schools and retreat centers have to ask for ID because they can only serve Catholics, that will help the poor.
And when medical clinics for the poor and Right to Life have to lay off all their employees, that will really help the poor.

And then the Democrats are going to turn around and blame us. Get ready for that.

 

[iloveangels]

Argument might be academic

GALLUP: R 52% O 45%

gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

I hope you’re right, Luigi Daniele. When it’s lopsided like that, it always brings the electoral college with it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

.

The fact that abortion is legal does not compel someone to choose or use it. Let your conscious be your guide still applies regardless of the laws of the land. One can live fully within the teachings of the Church in a society that permits behaviors that are outside the teachings of the church. Church and state must forever be separate for us to live free and exercise our beliefs without the imposition of laws or Government controls on our personal freedoms. When we demand that Government is in lockstep with any single belief system we invite conflict and strife among others in the society that do not share a “Catholic” perspective.

If Obama passed a law legalizing infanticide, would you still say the same thing about it? We don’t have to kill our own children, after all, so why worry that others are killing theirs? From the Church’s standpoint, there is no difference between an unborn child and a born child.

It is an absolute myth that “secular” laws are somehow derived independent from moral laws. Most of the laws in the English-speaking world were derived from the moral teachings of Christianity, and particularly those of the Catholic Church. Study it, and you will find that it’s true.

 

[iloveangels]

If Obama passed a law legalizing infanticide, would you still say the same thing about it? We don’t have to kill our own children, after all, so why worry that others are killing theirs? From the Church’s standpoint, there is no difference between an unborn child and a born child.

It is an absolute myth that “secular” laws are somehow derived independent from moral laws. Most of the laws in the English-speaking world were derived from the moral teachings of Christianity, and particularly those of the Catholic Church. Study it, and you will find that it’s true.

This is true, except in the past few decades, we’ve started to diverge from that Gold Standard and are making laws based on other criteria now, not so much strictly moral but on the basis of political utility or popularity. Like Obamacare, which is an excellent example of this.

 

[tskrobacz]

50 million was Obama’s guess, but nobody actually knew. Some were not really without health coverage. Nobody knew. Some of the Democrats estimated 30 million. But they didn’t know either.

Obama says Obamacare will not cover 20 million. The CBO says it’s more like 30 million. Medicaid patients (the actual poor) are going to get squeezed by the addition of 17 million more people on the Medicaid rolls. Reimbursement for “chronic care” patients is being reduced. The chief actuary for Medicare says that in a few years under Obamacare, Medicare will pay even less than Medicaid, which providers are reluctant to accept even now.

It is a disaster on its own terms. And then to oppress the Church as it has done. There is really no defense for it, and even most liberals have given up trying.

No, it really is as simple as doing away with obamacare. With that terrible and unjust law out of the way (which the public doesn’t want anyway) it can be looked at again rationally.

Cut Government out of the equation is not the answer. However imperfect Obamacare may turn out to be - national healthcare has been sought for decades by presidents. Now we have it and can shape it to serve the poor and undercared for (eg. pre-existing conditions). Forward.

 

[iloveangels]

Cut Government out of the equation is not the answer. However imperfect Obamacare may turn out to be - national healthcare has been sought for decades by presidents. Now we have it and can shape it to serve the poor and undercared for (eg. pre-existing conditions). Forward.

Well, I suppose it’s non-problemmatic if you really like the Democrat party enough. The consequences might not bother you.

However, the Church really isn’t in that situation. Cardinals Dolan, George and Chaput have all spoken out against it. The USCCB has spoken out against it.

 

[tskrobacz]

If Obama passed a law legalizing infanticide, would you still say the same thing about it? We don’t have to kill our own children, after all, so why worry that others are killing theirs? From the Church’s standpoint, there is no difference between an unborn child and a born child.

It is an absolute myth that “secular” laws are somehow derived independent from moral laws. Most of the laws in the English-speaking world were derived from the moral teachings of Christianity, and particularly those of the Catholic Church. Study it, and you will find that it’s true.

The fact is the legal definition of when life begins does NOT agree with our Christian understanding that life begins at conception. That is unfortunate, but it is the situation.

 

[iloveangels]

The fact is the legal definition of when life begins does NOT agree with our Christian understanding that life begins at conception. That is unfortunate, but it is the situation.

Oh, now we’re taking an argumentative stance about abortion? So this is much deeper than just not believing that Obamacare is a problem for the Church.

I see.

 

[tskrobacz]

Oh, now we’re taking an argumentative stance about abortion? So this is much deeper than just not believing that Obamacare is a problem for the Church.

I see.

Just stating a fact…why is that argumentative to you? We are still a society of laws.

 

[iloveangels]

Argument might be academic

GALLUP: R 52% O 45%

gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

Luigi, a candidate with 52% of the popular vote in late October at Gallup has never lost the election in all the years Gallup has tracked presidential races.

Not only that, but Gallup has tinkered with their polling groups of likely voters as a result of complaining by the Obama administration. My guess is that it may be higher in some parts of the country.

Watch Rasmussen too. They’re very ethical and very likely to hit the final result really closely. They pegged it last time.

Rasmussen currently has it 49 Romney, 47 Obama. When it hits 51 Romney or whatever it takes for him to edge out of the error band, it’s golden. And then it’s all about watching the electoral college.

 

[Cider]

Is it okay with you that we allow 50 million Americans to suffer without health care? Is that a better way of caring for the poor (one of the biblical roles of Government discussed by Paul)? This topic is way more complex then simply killing or preserving Obamacare.

What are you taking about? We have had medicaid for the poor for years. We didn’t need Obamatax for the poor.

 

[iloveangels]

Just stating a fact…why is that argumentative to you? We are still a society of laws.

Yeah, and we have one called the HHS Mandate to Obamacare that’s going into effect in 2014, unless Romney wins the election and dismantles it.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Luigi, a candidate with 52% of the popular vote in late October at Gallup has never lost the election in all the years Gallup has tracked presidential races.

Not only that, but Gallup has tinkered with their polling groups of likely voters as a result of complaining by the Obama administration. My guess is that it may be higher in some parts of the country.

Watch Rasmussen too. They’re very ethical and very likely to hit the final result really closely. They pegged it last time.

Rasmussen currently has it 49 Romney, 47 Obama. When it hits 51 Romney or whatever it takes for him to edge out of the error band, it’s golden. And then it’s all about watching the electoral college.

Actually, no one has ever lost when he hit 50 (ie less than 52 ) this late.

Please God.

 

[estesbob]

Thank God for diversity among us and the ability for Catholics (and all others) to hold opposing points of view.

We should be thankful that some catholics have chosen to reject the teachings of the Church???

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

We should be thankful that some catholics have chosen to reject the teachings of the Church???

Exactly. Catholicism is not a political position, much less a political party. You either subscribe to its definitive teaching or you don’t. If you don’t, then I would submit that it doesn’t speak very favorably of your “membership”.

 

[rlg94086]

Is it okay with you that we allow 50 million Americans to suffer without health care? Is that a better way of caring for the poor (one of the biblical roles of Government discussed by Paul)? This topic is way more complex then simply killing or preserving Obamacare.

Where does St Paul mention “caring for the poor” as a Biblical role of government?

 

[iloveangels]

Exactly. Catholicism is not a political position, much less a political party. You either subscribe to its definitive teaching or you don’t. If you don’t, then I would submit that it doesn’t speak very favorably of your “membership”.

And no matter what century you live in, or what country, for the whole 2000 years it’s always been the case that you have to look at the political views in the culture and compare them to what the Church teaches, which is non-negotiable. You do the least harm to the Church and to the things the Church teaches. That’s a Catholic’s duty in every case…it always has been.

Unless, of course, a person sees themselves more as a member of the ambient culture than as a member of the Church. Sometimes that happens. Very rarely can the two be completely reconciled. Many people believe that the views of the Democrat party and the Church are somehow reconciled over their “concern for the poor” --this is NOT true. Some people, however, are in denial about this for whatever reason known only to themselves. And if the HHS mandate goes into effect in 2014, they’re going to find out how untrue this really is.