39 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Maybe they could have had in state counseling for out of state adoptions and bypass Illinois support of perverts victimizing children by adoption.
This one will be difficult to argue
Since the state requires a license and was paying most of the costs, it gets to make the rules. If the service was provided with funding from charitable donations, adoptions services should be permitted to do as it wished. My own disappointment is in wondering whose needs government thinks should come first. Is it the prospective parents who are wanting the child or the child in need good parents?
her assertions never had any real response...
... because she never gave much of an answer. She posted a couple links that suggested that Fluke was on a publicity campaign backed by the White House but never really answered the question.
Toni's original assertion was this... And just like the BO Administration 'strong armed' Catholic Charities into closing down because this Administration didn't agree or like the fact that the Church wouldn't allow adoptions by gays.
Thank you for your follow up, Steven.
I would say that it looks like it was a State government in this case, and not the Obama administration that was the "strong arm" and it wasn't so much being a "strong arm" as it was the church chose to stop taking State tax payers money.
I recall several times on other threads where people have said a state should be able to pick it's own regulations and that charity should come from the church and not the government.
This instance seems to be a case where a state did exercise its own judgement of how the matter should be handled and then the church chose to stop their charity when it wasn't being funded by the tax payer.
It was Democratic governors that made these decisions, and not Republicans and it's the Republicans that are upset about this service being shut down. I appreciate Steven finding the information before I could because for a couple of days I wasn't able to follow thru due to the reply link being broken here. I'm still convinced that the WH started this on a personal level, just as BO's lacky Carney claimed BO wasn't 'really' behind stopping the Keystone Pipeline a few months ago and BO blamed it on the Republicans, and yet BO turned around two days ago and strong armed his Senate Dems into turning down the vote to take BO out of the decision equation. I don't believe anything that comes out of this WH and if BO's lips are moving, he's lying.
Boy Toni, you really have it out for Obama
Even when all the evidence provided indicates that it was a state issue (and you even admit it was a governor on the state level who made the decisions) you still insist on somehow suggesting a conspiracy led by the current president.
As I said on a different post, the current crop of conservative presidential candidates can't campaign on economic issues this election turn... so they made it about religion, morality, birth control, abortion, etc.
It's a manufactured issue. It is an issue that also strikes at the heart of a fundamental question. Is health care a right or a privilege. It appears that the your view is that health care is not only NOT a right... but that religion should be able to depend on the government to fund its activities and to legislate in favor of supporting its doctrines.
Yes, I have it in for BO
I've never expressed anything differently.
The economic issue IS the campaign, unfortunately, the candidates keep getting sucked into the social issues by various media and debate moderators who are liberals effectively deflecting them...at least for now. They'll figure that out and get back on track. I'm not worried about that.
Health care is NOT a right...it IS a privilege.
Religion should not depend on the government to fund its activities, anymore than Planned Parenthood should. The only activities the government should fund regarding religion is medical for clinics and hospitals just as they do any other....and they should continue to be exempt from birth control/abortions just as they always have been based on religious freedom....which is not legislated per se by the government...it's written into our Constitution and has always been their right.
Are you of the mind set that health care is a right? If so, where is that written?
Health care is NOT a right...it IS a privilege.
That is one HUGE statement.
You're saying that American people do not have a right to good health, and only those rich enough, or those fortunate enough to have employment with health insurance thrown in can have good health.
The others, the ones who can't work or who want to work but can't find a job, or those who are caring for others, can be damned to poor health.
Nice society you have there.
Mark, did Toni say that...
Mark, did Toni say that? Or was it Grim offering his opinion by saying "It appears that the your view is that health care is not only NOT a right..."?
You may wish to attack Toni, but let's be a little more fair. Taking something somebody else said about Toni and then using it as a base for saying "you're saying" and adding on to what Toni thinks seems to me to be unfair.
I don't think that question has been answered
And I don't know that it can be. We'd need to determine who has the authority to affirm this and, if affirmed, whose requirement it is to provide it and who is responsible for outcomes are not acceptable. We'd need to define the term "health care" first so that we know what the components of heath care are and what might be categorized differently. Thus far, all we can really point to in the way of law is that which we cannot do. Law does not permit the causing of bodily harm nor the denial of treatment for such harm as has been done.
While our current president seems to want to take this on as a project, others have already tried but failed. I doubt we'll have the question fully answered anytime soon.
I didn't say that
people don't get good health care if they have no insurance, Mark. I said it wasn't a RIGHT to have health care like the liberals here insist. Health care is a privilege and is the responsibility of the person needing it to pay for it or have an employer willing to provide it for them. Poor people here get good health care BY LAW when they go to a hospital. No one ever is denied health care, which is why so many of our illegals go to emergency rooms even if it's just a cold.
That's how I read your statement, "Health care is NOT a right...it IS a privilege. "
And of course you are right, people do not get good health care of they have no insurance. They get state health care which must be a lot worse than privately funded health care. Otherwise, why have privately funded health care at all?
In the UK and in much of Europe, good health care is a right. It is not just for the privileged. I'm glad I am here and not over there.
Maybe our mistake here
was to turn the 13 colonies into states and keep adding more. Our executive branch had little to do then and only 13 governors to keep happy. Maybe we should ask to come back with hats in hand. Would you fill them for us?
O.k., Mark, now I see it. Now - people might require health to live, but they also require other things like food and shelter. With discussions such at this a person having a "right" comes up. In many cases, including this particular one, the "right" means "legal right". This brings up the written guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. Some people may mean written legal right, and others may reply arguing about a moral right, or "human right".
I think your saying "Nice society you have there" was a sarcastic statement attempting to imply negative things about the society in the U.S. But consider it in the light of legal rights given in the laws of the Constitution. O.K. , if is is a case of Toni talking about specific rights spelled out in out constitution, it does not specifically give the right to health, but neither does it give it for food or shelter.
Couldn't you say the same about other countries? It's not a matter or not wanting their people to have any of them, but just a matter of them not saying exactly that in the wording of their basic legal documents. With a discussion of health care, something that was done or is proposed to do be done the question of that action is discussed in the light of existing legal "rights" and its agreement with the Constitution of the U.S. A health care law is obviously a "legal" thing, so in that discussion the use of the word "legal" would seem to imply the written law legal rather than "moral". meaning
what about rich people in bad health?
what about poor people in good health?
Was there some "right" violated?
In every industrialized nation, health care is a right
My feeling about health care as a "right"...
... is that it is the responsibility of the government of every civilization to provide for the minimum welfare of its citizens. Minimum welfare means to me... that people are not suffering from physical need (food, shelter, illness, avoidable health issue), threat of physical danger, or mental duress (abuse and/or fear caused by others).
Minimum needs to me are food, health, shelter, and safety.
The government of an industrialized civilization simply has more resources upon which it can draw to meet this responsibility. If that civilization has more resources, then fewer and fewer people should be excluded from these minimum welfare needs.
In a capitalistic, industrial society such as ours, every person who is paying for their needs to be met (eg insurance) should be given the choice of what those services should be. Those who depend on the state to provide health care should still expect a minimum level of service designed to prevent death and/or pain.
Seems fair but I would wonder
what would be considered to be an "avoidable health issue". I would probably consider such as immunizations and other forms of preventive services to be in that category but there are certainly those risks which are avoidable by individual choice. One who deliberately puts himself in peril without good reason might have some susplainin' to do before coming in for free help.
you know, I thought about "avoidable" issue too...
... but I didn't want to cloud the water too much.
For instance, it has always been my assertion that if you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, it is fine. However, one should expect 0% help from public health care in the event of an accident that turns you into a celery stick. No seatbelt while driving? No free health care. Texting while driving and you cause an accident? No free health care (and also you should have your thumbs cut off... but that is just my opinion. LOL).
feel that same way about HIV?
And those engaged in activities which promote it's spread?
Do you mean
those HIV issues among gay and heterosexual communities and in rich and poor people?
Or are you limiting your comment somewhat?
A problem with that, Grim...
Grim, with such a system, you could find that many drug addictions could be classed as "avoidable". That could lead with problems for attempting to help crack, heroin, etc. addicts. Just before this post you said "Those who depend on the state to provide health care should still expect a minimum level of service designed to prevent death and/or pain.". This also could cause the old unintended consequences situation to come into play. Many people have trouble walking without pain due to a bad hip or knee. They may have dealt with this for years. They still walked, but many times it caused them pain. Should the state be required to offer artificial hips or knees to all such people depending on the state to provide health care? Then there are other conditions that may not be life threatening, but cause pain. Some of the medical procedures for them may not be covered by an insured person's particular insurance policy. So in such a case should the insured person be provided that procedure by the state? Sometimes, there are no set, easy answers.
and this is what I was talking about...
... when i said it would lead to muddying up the water.
I think we need to just deal with the general issue of how can people pay for health care... and how when they pay... they should get what they pay for. Then we can start kibitzing about how some people shouldn't qualify and some should for assistance.
The answer is actually easy. It's when some folks start to find more and more reasons to exclude other people that the situation becomes complicated.
Flaws with your "right" ....
>>>>is that it is the responsibility of the government of every civilization to provide for the minimum welfare of its citizens. >>>>
This is another method to 'share the wealth' when you stop to think about about who PAYS the government and if the government works for US, then every citizen should have a say so in where that money goes. Citizens already pay for others to have health care for free (clinics, hospitals, etc) everytime one of us has to go to a hospital because the bills are inflated by a minimum of $1000 per visit in order to cover those who come in without insurance. That's in addition to tax money going toward Medicaid that pays for prescriptions, glasses, dental, office visits, etc. We also, via taxes, pay for their shelter, food, utility bills, and other needs.
Although I don't believe that health care is a 'right' because too many take advantage of a good thing and become slugs in society with the 'entitlement' mentality, I don't have a problem with those truly in need being taken care of by 'government'....it's when it becomes MANDATED as a 'right' by a few individuals and consequently becomes a LAW that I have a problem with it.
The problem with not treating illness right away
is that it costs more in the end. If you don't get your diabetes meds and information on diet and exercise, you can wind up being blind or have amputations or all kinds of organ failure which costs a lot more to fix than just giving the person the meds. Same with a lot of other diseases.
This is another method to 'share the wealth' when you stop to think about about who PAYS the government and if the government works for US, then every citizen should have a say so in where that money goes.
There are a lot of things the government pays for that I don't agree with. Nobody asked me whether I wanted my tax dollars spent on.
Besides that, government isn't paying for the insurance, the company is. Does the company ask the employees what they want in insurance? I sincerely doubt that the Catholic church is asking it's employess whether they want bc or not,
The difference Diana is
that the employer doesn't HAVE to supply insurance to his employees...it's a benefit that is the boss's choice to make. Now the government is MANDATING that they do or pay a fine for each employee they don't cover. There were very few companies I worked for throughout my 'career' that offered insurance...I had to manage my paycheck enough to pay for that myself or go without knowing that hospitals had to treat me anyhow and pay out of pocket for a doctor's visit and prescriptions. I sincerely believe that the more companies gave, the more the employees came to 'expect' and in some cases actually demanded it and refused to take a job that didn't pony up or they banded together to form a union and force it.
As for the government 'not paying for the insurance, the company is', that's not necessarily true either. WE are the government via our taxes, so WE are paying via Medicaid handouts through the States and Medicare through the Federal Government. The governments (state and federal) take if from our hand and give it to others at their discretion.
I do believe that we were talking about
religious institutions, not Medicaid or Medicare. They are already providing insurance and I never heard about them taking a pole about what things their employess wanted in the insurance. I wonder if they pay for Viagra?
The only thing I was talking about with the government was that the government pays for a lot of things I don't agree with like giving big oil big tax breaks or the Iraq war. I haven't heard the government asking me if I want to pay for those either.
I would think it silly for religious institutions
to be expected to ask their employees if they'd like coverage for such services that the institution considered to be immoral.
RE: I had to manage my paycheck
I had to manage my paycheck enough to pay for that myself or go without
And you never once thought...Gee...I'd like to medical insurance?
Yes, I did
but I didn't expect my employer to provide it and I sure wasn't going to demand that I get it. I never did have the 'entitlement' mentality, JP. Have you considered the cost to the employer who does provide health insurance (whether an employee pays part of that or not)? They have to make a calculated decision regarding supplying that vs the wage per hour or salary they can afford to pay out for full time employees and didn't offer it to part-time employees. Many did offer insurance, only because they got a group rate that individuals couldn't get.....things got so bad here that many employers dropped the insurance completely when they found they could do away with full time employees and have two part timers instead. Employer offered insurance became popular only in the 1960's...before that, only unionized companies 'offered' it and that was because it got written into contracts that the EMPLOYER had to pay for it.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)