Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > HR3200


Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Aug-2009, 10:16 PM
Hey, I think a thread devoted to the bill the House thinks is Change We Need is a good idea. Let's get started, shall we? http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

There is much before this, but starting with page 58, Sec. 152, it reads:

QUOTE
SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities)  covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.


What does this mean? Well, I think you have to look at all the personal characteristics which could be "extraneous to the provisions of high quality health care or related service." And what characteristics would those be? How about income? It looks like we could be paying for those who cannot afford to pay for health insurance. Big whoop, we do that now. It's called Medicare. That can't be it. Oh yeah, citizenship. We already will treat a person who is not a citizen, as we should. Why would we allow sick or injured people to suffer until they could go back to their country of origin for treatment? We wouldn't. But this goes farther. Not only will they receive public health services, but they will be entitled to insurance coverage by the Federal Govt. And what insurance are they entitled to? Obamacare, of course, and the best part is we get to pay for it.

Posted by: Patch 13-Aug-2009, 10:38 PM
Medicare and medicaid are both inadequately funded and funding in part of the new program will come from further cuts in medicare. Unless those cuts are reinstated elsewhere (consequently no savings) the elderly and the disabled would experience a reduction in benefits and access to medical care. This could only result in passive euthanasia or considerable pain and discomfort for those who have no other means to access the medical system. I know a young mother who desperately needs surgery and has NO insurance. The procedure has been turned down by medicaid though the ailment will eventually cause her demise.

If the system is that broken now and we have just recently descended from the "good times" how can the govt. justify a 1.5 trillion dollar program to add another layer of coverage to it.

5 of us are reading over 1100 pages of the bill. It is not a "comfortable read" as you not only have to read it but look for how the words and tsentences "might" be interpreted.

I hope all will take the considerable time required to read this bill and make an intelligent decision re: it's support.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: englishmix 13-Aug-2009, 10:40 PM
Shamrock,

I do not think you will find much at all about health or about care in this legislation. It is all about POWER structure and a MONEY grab to take away our healthcare freedom and privacy. How they implement such health and such care for us is not really important to them.

By the way, The Obama said repeatedly in his campaign that only those with incomes of $200,000 per year or above would pay for his dream of single-payer government healthcare for all plan. Remember Joe-the-Plumber?

Now, the Obama says he is trying ever so hard to ensure that the middle-class won't have to bear the burden of 1/3 of the cost in taxes.

Posted by: Patch 13-Aug-2009, 10:53 PM
"Trying" is the key word! With enough income there are ways to shield it from taxes and still have the use of it so only the less astute of the so called rich will foot that burden.

I do not smoke but the federal tobacco tax increase (obamas latest increase) hits the poor and middle class harder than the wealthy as do the provisions of the "cap and trade" bill.

I have been told to expect a VAT or Flat tax, not bad ideas on their own, in addition to the existing income tax. Who do you suspect will get hurt the worst with that little jewel's implementation?

Slàinte,   

 Patch    
















Posted by: SCShamrock 14-Aug-2009, 06:17 PM
What might be wrong with this section? Anyone? Anyone?

QUOTE
SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,and premium plans.
(2) CHAIR.—The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.
(3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.
(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805© of the Social Security Act.
© Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.
Such initial appointments shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) TERMS.—Each member of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term on the Committee, except that the terms of the initial members shall be adjusted in order to provide for a staggered term of appointment for all such members.
(5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.
(b) DUTIES.—
(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as
the‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
(2) DEADLINE.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) PUBLIC INPUT.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall allow for public input as a part of developing recommendations under this subsection.

Posted by: Antwn 14-Aug-2009, 07:44 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 14-Aug-2009, 07:17 PM)
What might be wrong with this section? Anyone? Anyone?


What might be right with this section? Anyone? Anyone?

Posted by: SCShamrock 14-Aug-2009, 08:59 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 14-Aug-2009, 08:44 PM)
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 14-Aug-2009, 07:17 PM)
What might be wrong with this section? Anyone? Anyone?


What might be right with this section? Anyone? Anyone?

laugh.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 15-Aug-2009, 05:45 PM
Ok, I'll start the ball rolling on section 123. The Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Problem #1, yet another expanse of government. Problem #2, a small group of appointed positions will decide what our benefits will be and who will get them. Combine that with the compulsory participation, and you have dictatorial government...say hello to the new American Apparatchik.

Posted by: Antwn 15-Aug-2009, 06:18 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 15-Aug-2009, 06:45 PM)
Ok, I'll start the ball rolling on section 123. The Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Problem #1, yet another expanse of government. Problem #2, a small group of appointed positions will decide what our benefits will be and who will get them. Combine that with the compulsory participation, and you have dictatorial government...say hello to the new American Apparatchik.

How is it compulsory participation if you're able to choose/keep a current plan? How is this different that an HMO or other insurance provider deciding what coverage they'll provide? Every insurer makes these decisions. Probably the only thing that will be compulsory is that everyone has some kind of insurance, and the government plan will be one option - my guess is for those who cannot afford a plan with an insurance company. With a government plan, private insurers may become more exclusive, taking those with very low risk, unless of course the health care bill limits their ability to do that to prevent too many people in the government plan. Either way the government will be the default program and pick up the slack for the un/under insured.

Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Aug-2009, 07:57 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 15-Aug-2009, 06:45 PM)
A small group of appointed positions will decide what our benefits will be and who will get them. Combine that with the compulsory participation, and you have dictatorial government...say hello to the new American Apparatchik.

Well -- but at present a large and diffuse body that can scarcely be called a group at all very arbitrarily "decides" who gets and who doesn't by jacking the price of coverage and care to wherever the chaotic market will bear, and it will not bear it indefinitely, it will crack. This seems not to be any better. I do believe that with the retirement of a huge cohort in the next ten years, the system will not take the strain and the present strategies as they are now conducted are not sustainable.

You jump to these Soviet-style socialist analogies almost as a tic. How about keeping a little lower profile on the scathing tone while we read through and try to make sense of this? Also -- you seem to have singled out certain passages, and that may or may not fairly serve context.

It's a very good idea to stick this up and go at it. I will join you in this, and I thank you for providing the link, but I think a more methodical review would repay the effort it takes to master this tangle of ideas and murky langage.

Some person on NPR -- one of our blue dogs if I remember correctly -- mentioned that there needs to be strict accuracy in every statement that is made either in support or criticism. The example given was that the president has assured us that if we don't want government coverage, we can always keep the plan we have. That is not strictly true -- a person covered under his job, for example, can keep the plan he has as long as his employer continues to participate and the carrier remains in business. That is not something the president is in a position to guarantee. Maybe we can assume that limitation is implied, but better not to leave anything unspecified.

Posted by: Antwn 15-Aug-2009, 08:29 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 15-Aug-2009, 08:57 PM)
That is not something the president is in a position to guarantee. Maybe we can assume that limitation is implied, but better not to leave anything unspecified.

The president is also not in a position to guarantee the provisions of the bill itself. Although I'm sure his influence is great, he's not writing it. He positioned himself at the town hall meeting he attended today as if all the provisions of the bill were carved in stone. His language was "we're not going to do this/that" etc. I know he's trying to sell it, but signing it is one thing, writing it is another.

Posted by: SCShamrock 15-Aug-2009, 08:34 PM
Lynn, you're right. Pulling out passages may or may not fairly serve context. Admittedly, I am not educated in all the legalese that is contained in this or any other bill, and so in the absence of a legal education the best I can do is cite those passages I see as unambiguously worded and of which the meaning is clear. However, I feel it is incumbent upon anyone who is concerned about the direction in which our country is headed to at least try and discover what is being proposed. Particularly when the ramifications of such legislation can be severe. As for my references to socialism, what can I say? I have the belief that Obama has socialist aspirations and as such I seek out affirmation of that wherever I can find it.

Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Aug-2009, 09:24 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 15-Aug-2009, 09:34 PM)
As for my references to socialism, what can I say? I have the belief that Obama has socialist aspirations and as such I seek out affirmation of that wherever I can find it.

Well, and that can be a hazardous style of inquiry, which has been called the confirmation bias. It's actually a normal mode of human reasoning and it's "efficient" in that it eliminates the burden of considering an overwhelming amount of evidence when a decision has to be made quickly; but it can lead to some problems in decision making. It's just one of our species design flaws:

"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis."

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Aug-2009, 09:35 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 15-Aug-2009, 09:29 PM)
The president is also not in a position to guarantee the provisions of the bill itself. Although I'm sure his influence is great, he's not writing it. He positioned himself at the town hall meeting he attended today as if all the provisions of the bill were carved in stone. His language was "we're not going to do this/that" etc. I know he's trying to sell it, but signing it is one thing, writing it is another.

Right -- which is more of a campaign style rather than a presidential style of communication. I did say at one point that I thought he had brains and guts, but he needed to develop some gravity. This is an example. smile.gif On the other hand, it's hard to communicate in a measured, well-considered fashion in front of a testy group that is there purposely to get loud, if that's what they were, or even if that's what he expected to find.

Posted by: Antwn 16-Aug-2009, 02:02 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 15-Aug-2009, 10:35 PM)
Right -- which is more of a campaign style rather than a presidential style of communication. I did say at one point that I thought he had brains and guts, but he needed to develop some gravity. This is an example. smile.gif On the other hand, it's hard to communicate in a measured, well-considered fashion in front of a testy group that is there purposely to get loud, if that's what they were, or even if that's what he expected to find.

Delivery style is one thing, making guarantees concerning the provisions of legislation you're not engaged in writing is another. It tends to discredit the effort, if not the intent. He not only needs to develop some gravitas, I think he needs deliver assurances that the aspects of the bill he's selling have a reasonable chance of being implemented. Otherwise he's just blowing smoke up our collective orifices.

Posted by: Patch 17-Aug-2009, 10:11 PM
I got word today that obama backed down on the health care plan being discussed now. This much to the displeasure of his supporters It appears that both sides, including some conservative democrats, are polarized to the point that little is likely to happen in the near future.

Slàinte,    

Patch    


Posted by: Camac 18-Aug-2009, 07:31 AM
Patch;

Methinks Health Care Reform in the U.S. just went the way of the Dodo.



Camac.



Posted by: Patch 18-Aug-2009, 07:45 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 18-Aug-2009, 09:31 AM)
Patch;

Methinks Health Care Reform in the U.S. just went the way of the Dodo.



Camac.

Camac:

I think they will still bat it around for a while but without ALL of the democrats behind it in the house, it is dead for now. Even though the bill is dead, it will probably cost some congressmen/women, and possibly senators, their jobs next election.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 18-Aug-2009, 07:55 AM
Patch;

It's a shame really without the Government Insurance to compete with the private sector, the Health Insurance Companies have just been given the keys to Fort Knox. My friend you don't know how good it feels knowing that my medical expenses, if any, are covered and that I won't be a finacial burden on girls.




Camac.

Posted by: Patch 18-Aug-2009, 10:32 AM
Camac:

Unfortunately the plan put forth by the administration was seriously flawed and was being rushed through with no time allowed for debate. I suspect a plan could be drafted that fixed our medicare and medicaid, and would allow reasonable coverage for the uninsured. If all have coverage, cost's should come down but with the greed involved in all business in this country today, it may take quite a while. I doubt that it would cost 1.5 trillion dollars either. Government is not an efficient way to run anything though!

Doctors were opposed to the last plan though the AMA did support it. The AMA no longer represents the medical profession here. AARP (senior group) did not support the plan though obama erroneously said they did. The US Chamber of Commerce was also opposed. Once it was available to be accessed on the net, it was evident that the administration needed passage before the people had the opportunity to read it. That removed the opportunity for the administration to deny portions that were leaked.

I suspect that even if coverage is available, some will decline because of the economic situation. We are still experiencing over half a million new job claims a month with no credible predictions that the end is in sight.

We need common sense debate on a bill in both the house and senate to arrive at something affordable and fair that would fix the system we have!! I fear that is too much to ask of the group (all of them) in Washington DC today!

Slàinte,    

Patch    




Posted by: SCShamrock 18-Aug-2009, 10:54 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 15-Aug-2009, 10:24 PM)
"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis."

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

Lynn,

I appreciate the psychology lesson. That's an interesting concept. It could be pinned on me too, I suppose, that I am engaging in confirmation bias. By my prior statement "I seek out affirmation wherever I can find it", it would certainly appear to be the case. However, the overwhelming amount of easily verifiable evidence that reveals Obama's socialist tendencies makes my efforts something that doesn't warrant a label attached to them, but rather underscores an obvious fact. Do you agree? Or would you say that Obama has not demonstrated socialist tendencies?


Posted by: Camac 18-Aug-2009, 11:01 AM
Patch;

I sort of had the feeling that Obama was rushing things but up here I only have the U.S. news out of Buffalo to go by. Anyway I'm off to take advantage of our system to-morrow with a visit to my family Doctor. Like I wrote in Seniors and old Farts the pulled muscle is getting worse instead of better so I'd better go get it checked again. Got my new Health Card yesterday and the photo of me looks like I'm an inmate at Milhaven Pen. (Millhaven is a big Fed. Penitentiary in Kingston).



Camac.

Posted by: Patch 18-Aug-2009, 11:11 AM
I wish you the best with the pulled muscle. It seems things are much slower to heal as I get older!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: stoirmeil 18-Aug-2009, 11:57 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 18-Aug-2009, 11:54 AM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 15-Aug-2009, 10:24 PM)
"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis."

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

Lynn,

I appreciate the psychology lesson. That's an interesting concept. It could be pinned on me too, I suppose, that I am engaging in confirmation bias. By my prior statement "I seek out affirmation wherever I can find it", it would certainly appear to be the case. However, the overwhelming amount of easily verifiable evidence that reveals Obama's socialist tendencies makes my efforts something that doesn't warrant a label attached to them, but rather underscores an obvious fact. Do you agree? Or would you say that Obama has not demonstrated socialist tendencies?

First thing I would want to know with some specificity is what you call a socialist tendency and why, before I would answer that -- since you are talking about easily verifiable evidence and obvious fact that either aren't known or aren't obvious to me.

In general, though, when you make an claim like that and someone disagrees with it, you have the burden of proof. It's not up to me to say why your claim is false, but for you to demonstrate why it is true.

Posted by: Camac 18-Aug-2009, 01:35 PM
If I may. Socialism (Democratic Socialism) is not a dirty word nor is it blasphemous. I find it ironic that the majority of Americans claim to be Christian and the U.S is a Christian country yet you vehemently denouce Socialism or anything connected to a Social programe. The teachings of the early Christians, which modern Christianity is based on, were Socialist, if not Communistic in their leaning. So if one really wanted to stretch it a bit by denouncing any and all Socialism you are denouncing the very thing you claim to be . Christian.



Camac.

Posted by: SCShamrock 18-Aug-2009, 04:35 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 18-Aug-2009, 02:35 PM)
If I may. Socialism (Democratic Socialism) is not a dirty word nor is it blasphemous. I find it ironic that the majority of Americans claim to be Christian and the U.S is a Christian country yet you vehemently denouce Socialism or anything connected to a Social programe. The teachings of the early Christians, which modern Christianity is based on, were Socialist, if not Communistic in their leaning. So if one really wanted to stretch it a bit by denouncing any and all Socialism you are denouncing the very thing you claim to be . Christian.



Camac.

Don't go there! nono.gif

Just kidding. Actually, we are a representative republic. Not a socialist state. Socialism, as you seem to understand it as democratic in nature, may well have merits that I and others in the "vast right-wing conspiracy" might not find altogether unpleasant. However, the type of socialist ideas that are permeating our government are far from democratic. We have a small contingent of elected officials who agreed to represent the will of their electorate and who, by means of strength and power, plan and scheme to concoct policy which suits their own end, and the desires of special interest groups. They also advocate enacting policy and legislation which finds creative ways to separate the wealthy from their money and then to act as a benevolent parent figure by distributing to those deemed more worthy to have it. Three big efforts from the sitting administration are efforts to advance socialism...cap and trade, health care reform, and cash for clunkers. One form of socialism which has already come to fruition is demonstrated in the auto industry and the banking system. Futhermore, the ubiquitous bailouts were just another clench of the talons from the federal government.

Before anyone decides that I am unfairly targeting Obama, let me explain one more view I have. Up until now (in my adult life observing our political structure) I have only seen a smattering of socialist efforts. Surely McCain, who I held my nose and voted for, would have also dealt a socialist blow to our nation. But I firmly believe that it would have been far easier to rectify his blunders than it appears will be with Obama. The way I see it, he is on a fast track, and may do harm with his proposals that could take the rest of my natural life to reverse, if then.

Posted by: Camac 18-Aug-2009, 05:23 PM
SC Shamrock;

I for one am not an ardent socialist. I do however believe in the type of social democracy practiced here in Canada. It is very limited. Free market flourishes in Canada. We do have a limited social safety net and that's the way the vast majority of us like it. Even the Conservative, which are akin to Republicans, won't mess with Canada's social programs. I guess the reason it works here is that in our political system only the governing party proposes and passes legislation and the opposition parties do their thing and oppose it. NO individual M.P. can add to or change proposed legislation with out the unanimous consent of Parliament. We do not have a system where senators or congressmen can tack on other tidbits to legislation . It is hard to add pork to the barrel. Our problem is Patronage to party hacks.


Camac.

PS. We are a representative Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy. Technically subjects of Her Majesty Queen ElizabethII. In reality we run our own country and the Queen or England have no say whatsoever. king.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 19-Aug-2009, 11:04 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 18-Aug-2009, 06:23 PM)
PS. We are a representative Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy. Technically subjects of Her Majesty Queen ElizabethII. In reality we run our own country and the Queen or England have no say whatsoever. king.gif

I say we are a representative republic. Actually, we most closely resemble and oligarchy in denial.

Posted by: Camac 20-Aug-2009, 06:06 AM
SCShamrock;

With a leaning to Theocracy.

Camac.

Posted by: SCShamrock 20-Aug-2009, 09:49 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 20-Aug-2009, 07:06 AM)
SCShamrock;

With a leaning to Theocracy.

Camac.

You obviously aren't paying attention to the efforts going on in this country to squash Christianity:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/criminal-prayer-case-stirs-protests/?feat=home_headlines

QUOTE
Students, teachers and local pastors are protesting over a court case involving a northern Florida school principal and an athletic director who are facing criminal charges and up to six months in jail over their offer of a mealtime prayer.

There have been yard signs, T-shirts and a mass student protest during graduation ceremonies this spring on behalf of Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and school athletic director Robert Freeman, who will go on trial Sept. 17 at a federal district court in Pensacola for breaching the conditions of a lawsuit settlement reached last year with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I have been defending religious freedom issues for 22 years, and I've never had to defend somebody who has been charged criminally for praying," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, the Orlando-based legal group that is defending the two school officials.


If you want to check out what's been happening in this country for over 40 years to rid our society of Chrisitianity, check out David Limbaugh's book Persecution. Ahhh the truth...it sometimes grabs you by the boo boo.

Posted by: Camac 20-Aug-2009, 10:13 AM
SCShamrock;

OK this is getting away from the original topic but here we go. The two gentlemen you mentioned broke the Law. Plain and simple. Public School, is no place for prayer it is for education. Although I have little or no truck with organized religion ,Religious Freedom is the law of the land but the question is whose religion. Who's to say that Christianity is right, or Islam, or Judeaism, or Paganism. When I said a leaning towards Theocracy the point I'm trying to make is that America in General envokes the name of this being far to often. Your law says there shall be a seperation of church and state but that is not the case. How can it when even in elections you want to know what religion a candidate is. It's no-bodies damn business but that person's. A politician makes a speech and ends it "God Bless the United States of America" In your courts and on your money "In God We Trust" The Religious right tries to foist it's beliefs on everyone. Example Abortion. I personally am against it but not on religious grounds but simply by it is wrong with the exception of rape or incest. I am against same sex marriages on the same grounds it just isn't normal. The Law in Canada says that these are legal and until the Law is changed I will go along with it. What consenting adults do is between them and their conscience. No God.
As I said the two you mentioned broke the Law and should be prosecuted. Whether that Law is right or wrong that is up to the jury.


Camac

Posted by: MacEoghainn 20-Aug-2009, 03:43 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 20-Aug-2009, 12:13 PM)
SCShamrock;

OK this is getting away from the original topic but here we go. The two gentlemen you mentioned broke the Law. Plain and simple. Public School, is no place for prayer it is for education. Although I have little or no truck with organized religion ,Religious Freedom is the law of the land but the question is whose religion. Who's to say that Christianity is right, or Islam, or Judeaism, or Paganism.  When I said a leaning towards Theocracy the point I'm trying to make is that America in General envokes the name of this being far to often. Your law says there shall be a seperation of church and state but that is not the case. How can it when even in elections you want to know what religion a candidate is. It's no-bodies damn business but that person's. A politician makes a speech and ends it "God Bless the United States of America" In your courts and on your money "In God We Trust" The Religious right tries to foist it's beliefs on everyone. Example Abortion. I personally am against it but not on religious grounds but simply by it is wrong with the exception of rape or incest. I am against same sex marriages on the same grounds it just isn't normal. The Law in Canada says that these are legal and until the Law is changed I will go along with it. What consenting adults do is between them and their conscience. No God.
As I said the two you mentioned broke the Law and should be prosecuted. Whether that Law is right or wrong that is up to the jury.


Camac

I must disagree. The Constitution, and in this case the First Amendment, is the law of the land. Any court decision depriving any Citizen of their rights under the Constitution is un-constitutional and therefore is not the law in the United States. Any judge who upholds this travesty has violated his/her oath and should removed from the bench.

The way the ACLU is playing this game is they're trying to end around the Constitution by getting these guys charged with what is basically contempt of court, not "praying without permission". But once again if the original court order is un-constitutional anything that depends on that court order should be un-constitutional also.

Here's the First Amendment of the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

George Washington said this about military service: "When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen." The same idea applies to government employees. These me did not give up their 1st Amendments rights when they took those jobs!

Posted by: Patch 20-Aug-2009, 03:55 PM
OUR country was founded on Christian principles. We are guaranteed the right to speak and worship as we wish. There is no guarantee that we will NOT hear speech or prayers that we do not agree with. I do not support Islam but I do not expect that I will never hear Islamic prayers. Basically, grow up and act like adults. Prayer is guaranteed by the Constitution any place where someone wants to pray.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 21-Aug-2009, 02:31 PM
It seems obama has "guaranteed" that his health care bill will pass. This will bear watching as I suspect he will plumb new depths. It will also continue to drag him down in the polls.

Also, T. Kennedy has asked that the law be changed "AGAIN" to allow for his senate seat to be quickly should he "need" to step down. It was recently changed to prevent a R house member from gaining a seat. Now T. wants it changed back. That certainly holds the law in low esteem!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 21-Aug-2009, 02:39 PM
Patch;

When one is rich and powerful (albeit illgotten wealth) one tends to believe that the Law can always be circumvented. Perhaps especially if one is named Kennedy.



Camac.

Posted by: Patch 21-Aug-2009, 02:52 PM
Yes, you are right.

When the law is changed because it is the will of the people, so be it! However one has to wonder when that will changes so often.

I have never known "rich and powerfull" so I can not speak with authority on the subject.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 21-Aug-2009, 03:21 PM
Patch;

I have know two very rich and powerful men and suffice it to say that I will not speak ill of the dead.


Camac.

Posted by: Patch 21-Aug-2009, 03:39 PM
I understand!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Antwn 21-Aug-2009, 04:04 PM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 20-Aug-2009, 04:43 PM)
The way the ACLU is playing this game is they're trying to end around the Constitution by getting these guys charged with what is basically contempt of court, not "praying without permission". But once again if the original court order is un-constitutional anything that depends on that court order should be un-constitutional also.


I guess the last 40 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence on this subject is irrelevant. Its a question of whether the school sanctions and/or coerces participation in prayer by all, not whether individual students can pray - that's been upheld by the SC as long as its not disruptive to school activities. Anyone can pray whenever they want and no one is forbidden, however there's a distinction to be made when public schools sanction, coerce or lead prayers. For a brief look at precedent --

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/publicschools/topic.aspx?topic=school_prayer

In this particular case, the school handbook was quoted in the article as asking teachers to "'embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue. " Inculcate. Obviously that's much more than even the promotion of Christianity, or the impression of its merits by example, it's coercion plain and simple, and for a public school, far exceeds its educational purview.

Posted by: Antwn 21-Aug-2009, 04:05 PM
We're off topic here, if a monitor wants to move this to another thread it might be appropriate.

Posted by: SCShamrock 21-Aug-2009, 04:59 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 21-Aug-2009, 05:05 PM)
We're off topic here, if a monitor wants to move this to another thread it might be appropriate.

As the person who started the thread, all I can say is I don't mind. Consider it a bunch of us sitting in the back room of the Olive Garden. We've eaten their over-priced, mediocre food and are enjoying some libations and conversations. Cheers, glad you're here. beer_mug.gif cheers.gif beer_mug.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 26-Aug-2009, 07:49 PM
CONSIDERATIONS.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consider approaches such as—
A.) creating a new code (or codes) and payment amount (or amounts) under the fee schedule in section 1848 of the Social Security Act (in a budget neutral manner) for services furnished by an appropriate physician who sees an individual within the first week after discharge from a hospital or critical access hospital;
(B.) developing measures of rates of readmission for individuals treated by physicians;
(C.) applying a payment reduction for physicians who treat the patient during the initial admission that results in a readmission; and
(D.) methods for attributing payments or payment reductions to the appropriate physician or physicians.


Here's another excerpt from the House's healthcare reform bill. They actually are planning to decide what a physician can make, and how much he/she cannot make based on circumstances which may or may not be under that physician's control. Payment reduction....that results in a readmission.

Posted by: Patch 27-Aug-2009, 02:12 AM
I just heard that they now want physicians to support the bill. From discussions with my physicians it seems to be not too likely to happen.

Price regulation only serves to dry up the supply. Remember the long lines and fights at the gas pumps some years ago.

The bill is not about health care but people control!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: SCShamrock 29-Aug-2009, 09:23 AM
This guy gets it. He is saying much of what has been said at the town hall meetings by concerned Americans who get lambasted and labeled "Astroturfers"

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G44NCvNDLfc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G44NCvNDLfc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 30-Aug-2009, 03:42 AM
Back to the original post about illegal aliens getting so called Obamacare.

Illegal immigrants are specifically excluded from coverage. Of course, this means that they will continue to get their healthcare from expensive emergency rooms, so that may not actually be a good thing.

The section on page 50 of HR 3200 aligns Health Insurance Exchange policies with other laws currently in effect, such as the Public Health Service Act, State law, and ERISA. Health care cannot trump other laws already in effect.

" According to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Page 143, Line 3, Section 246: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." (see http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf )

Both the House and Senate versions of President Obama’s health care reform plans contain passages explicitly excluding illegal immigrants from receiving federal money to purchase health insurance from either a private or government-run health plan.(see http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=49930 )

Posted by: Patch 30-Aug-2009, 05:02 AM
We are now in all probability discussing a "dead" issue.

The general belief amongst Republicans and the majority of the Democrats is that the sweeping health care bill (HR 3200) can no longer garner enough support for passage. Hopefully any future bill will come back in a more "responsible" form. I suspect little will happen before next election. Those who must run next year now fear for their jobs, even those in what were considered safe districts.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: SCShamrock 30-Aug-2009, 09:09 AM
In all likelihood you are right; HR3200 is probably no longer a viable threat. However, the creation of such a bill, and the support of it by those in power is witness to the prevailing ideology of many in Washington. That ideology is one which sees the federal government as more capable of handling the private affairs of the citizens of this country, and a willingness to circumvent our beloved liberty and freedom when it comes to making health decisions. I think it goes without saying that passage of such an intrusive and destructive piece of legislation would be the impetus for even more government intrusion.

Posted by: Camac 30-Aug-2009, 01:07 PM
Patch;

I don't know why I didn't think of this before but if you are interested ( along with anyone else) go to Wikipedia and look up Canada Health Act. It will give you an idea of how our system works.

Camac

Posted by: Patch 30-Aug-2009, 05:41 PM
Will do, but ours is to be NOTHING like yours! There in lies the problem.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 30-Aug-2009, 05:50 PM
Patch;

I realize that there will be differences but the write up shows how both Gov. Insurance and Private Insurance work to-gether in our system.

Camac

Posted by: Patch 30-Aug-2009, 06:10 PM
I will not deny that there is room for some change here but what was proposed will not work and is now DOA. Most elected officials in DC feel that there is very little interest in attempting to revive even portions of it.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 08-Sep-2009, 06:12 AM
A senate plan now being considered would create non profit plans and fees would be charged to your present insurance to cover the cost. It could very possibly make private insurance cost prohibitive for all but the wealthy.

I am back to opposing this one too.

A fix of medicare and expansion of medicaid might be financially viable and again, it may not. Those paying taxes, including medicare and SS, have decreased in numbers thus too the revenue. I suspect there is little ability to project future revenue at this point.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 08-Sep-2009, 02:38 PM
According to AP the new plan would call for fines of $750 to $3800 for failure to obtain insurance and there would be hefty fees levied on health care providers, drug companies and insurers. How will this improve health care?!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: SCShamrock 11-Sep-2009, 08:34 PM
Here's the thread where we should be discussing what the current administration thinks is right for America.

Posted by: Patch 12-Sep-2009, 05:29 AM
The most recent news out of the senate is that a lot of ideas are being batted around but no agreement is close at this point. If not the D's say they will do their own plan. It sounds like there is little compromise taking place yet.

Slàinte,    

Patch   

Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Sep-2009, 09:50 AM
Patch. Do you think they are scheming right now, and will design a bill then shove it down our collective throats? I get that distinct impression. If that happens, will we astroturfers have any recourse? I fear the only answer at that point will be to grab our ankles.

Posted by: Patch 12-Sep-2009, 06:49 PM
From what I hear It can not pass the house in any form being leaked now. If those who are concerned contact their senators and representatives weekly to keep up the pressure it will have a profound effect. Phone calls work best but are costly though calls to their local offices work just as well. Call, E-mail and write letters. You do not have to stop with one of each That scares the bejesus out of all who are running next year. That is all representatives and a third of the senators. The rest will be concerned at least.

Things can change quickly in politics so one must never drop ones guard. The administration plan seems to be to slip something through as they tried at the start. They are busy putting out "fires" now though.

Slàinte,    

Patch   

Posted by: Patch 13-Sep-2009, 02:11 PM
The Tea Parties and the march will be of great help. I think obama was insightful when he said that a health care bill must pass this year if it ever would.

Slàinte,    

Patch   

Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Sep-2009, 03:34 PM
I think he also said that if it doesn't pass, more people will die. I'll look into that one.

Posted by: Patch 13-Sep-2009, 06:37 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 13-Sep-2009, 05:34 PM)
I think he also said that if it doesn't pass, more people will die. I'll look into that one.

There is certainly room for at least two "schools of thought" on that one.

In the 1800's and even the 1700's people could live into their 70's and 80's with little if any medical. People only die today if they fail to seek out help that is available.

All drug companies have programs to provide their medications to those who can not afford them. No one has to publicly humiliate themselves to get that assistance. The same is true for medical care. In the teaching hospitals, the uninsured can get care for the price of my co-pay or less if they can not afford that.

Dental and vision are probably more important than medical as dental is the cause of many fatal heart attacks and vision care exposed more bodily ailments than are normally caught in a routine doctors visit.

Slàinte,    

Patch   

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)