S
stinkcat_14
Guest
So, would you be in favor of a two-payer system, is that better than a single payer system?Then I would be the second payer, which makes it a two-payer system. :sad_yes:
So, would you be in favor of a two-payer system, is that better than a single payer system?Then I would be the second payer, which makes it a two-payer system. :sad_yes:
I can’t read the Holy Father’s mind, I agree we need to work to provide healthcare access to all. How do WE arrange it, US–you and me-- the current generation---- not foisting the cost down the road to others who don’t have a voice in it? Can we volunteer time in clinics, lowering the costs? Can we slash benefits for those of us who can afford to pay more, vice insisting being given rates based on promises from a different era?So you are going to provide healthcare for the needy? Interesting.
I repeat: The Holy Father once said that universal healthcare is a human right:
Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people
*Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.
Access to adequate medical attention, the pope said in a written message Nov. 18, was one of the “inalienable rights” of man.*
Why is it we are satisfied with one auto insurance company but not one health insurance company?So, would you be in favor of a two-payer system, is that better than a single payer system?
If we got rid of medicare, then you could shop for an insurance company that meets all your needs.Why is it we are satisfied with one auto insurance company but not one health insurance company?
I think envy in general is a huge factor in taxation, and thus fair game for any discussion involving taxes. Otherwise, why do you think Clinton and obama keep beating “the rich should pay more of their fair share” drum?I would be very careful about bringing up the envy card, that like the race card really doesn’t add much to the discussion. Envy, like racism can be a very difficult thing to prove and we as Catholics ought to be very careful about making unprovable allegations.
How are you going to prove envy?I think envy in general is a huge factor in taxation, and thus fair game for any discussion involving taxes.
You obviously didn’t read the article, which has more proof in it than any liberal charge of greed.How are you going to prove envy?
Do you have to be liberal to charge greed?You obviously didn’t read the article, which has more proof in it than any liberal charge of greed.
Well, we shop for other services that meet our needs, don’t we?If we got rid of medicare, then you could shop for an insurance company that meets all your needs.
Then we agree, we should eliminate medicare and let seniors buy their own health insurance.Well, we shop for other services that meet our needs, don’t we?
OK.Then we agree, we should eliminate medicare and let seniors buy their own health insurance.
Incorrect tax information. Overly generous government subsidies that must be paid back. A special extension for certain taxpayers who are unaware of the rules. Surprise penalties. Sticker shock in premiums. Deductibles. Security breaches. An admission earlier this year that the federal government sent the wrong tax information to roughly 800,000 people who bought health insurance last year on HealthCare.gov.I’m very happy with what is called Obamacare. … Why people think its better for people to not have affordable health insurance has yet to be answered by the critics.
It seems that way.Do you have to be liberal to charge greed?
Point taken and I pretty much agree (although universal healthcare is also about legitimate and understandable personal gain not just about envy…but yes)One of the reasons these massive programs have public support is that the people are told they can have a free lunch, IOW, someone else, namely “the rich”, will be paying for it. The second reason is that they have the added benefit of assuaging their envy by “sticking” it to “the rich”.
Al - I think there is a difference between saying, “abortion will remain legal until Democrat catholics come to love the unborn more than they hate Republicans” and saying this which was posted on this thread (my bold italics):That is funny coming from you. See the abortion discussions on this forum.
Which you affirmed by posting:***Let the poor rot! *** Let them go without health care! They can go to the ER for stabilization…if they self-select against it…great as it saves our kids money!
So what if every other first world nation can provide universal healthcare coverage - we CAN"T or WON’T!! I have mine -*** die poor suckers!***
Oh, I just love getting to say those things - they are just soooooo “Christian”!
I’ll take a little Mammon this afternoon, please…
So I ask you again, do you think I worship mammon and want the poor to die and rot? Do you think that this is a charitable comment?Indeed.
Who thinks that? Sounds like you’ve been believing too much of obama’s rhetoric. What is “affordable” has yet to be answered by him or his supporters. He told us we’d save an average of $2,500 per family. He also said we’d save 300%. [Think about that one.] He also told us we could keep our current health care if we like it.…
Why people think its better for people to not have affordable health insurance has yet to be answered by the critics.
Jim
That’s right. I guess we all may lose our doctor, etc.Why didn’t the Court just rule that everybody can have as much free healthcare as they want? And ice cream with unlimited toppings?
Neither the comment by johnnykins nor my approval of it were directed at you specifically.So I ask you again, do you think I worship mammon and want the poor to die and rot? Do you think that this is a charitable comment?
Ishii