Jump to content

Recommended Posts



In response to your question, look at the problems MA is having, i.e long waits, not enough physicians etc. Or you can look to Canada, the UK, and other nations with socialized medicine. In fact there was a lawsuit that went to the Canadian Supreme Court in regards to Canadians having private insurance to supplement Canadacare. Long story short the Canadian Supreme Court in it's written verdict said that Canada's socialized medicine IS killing people, and Canadians have the right to have private insurance to get speedier service, i.e. the private insurance pays and the citizen pays a copay or deductable.



A French healthcare commission was actually looking ay the US model to help solve their problems.


As for what will happen, I'm going to make predictions.


1) healthcare cost will skyrocket, not drop. There are a variety of reasons that it will happen.


2)There will be a greater physician shortage in some fields. two reasons for that include A) as it stands now the government has a scale that they use for payments, with specialists making more than GPs, hence a shortage. B) Folks will get so frustrated with the BS, that they will retire, encourage others not to go into medicine, or find another adjunct field like medical consulting. This will increase costs.


3) Everytime medical payments get cut, hospitals, clinics, and physicians will start charging more to recuperate some of the money lost. Why do you think healthcare is already expensive? A lot of hospitals right off debt, and in CA there is a problem of hospitals losing so much money that they close.


4) More examinations, tests, etc. Ok some of the testing occuring is fear on the physicians' of being sued. I've heard that from physicians, and watching CSPAN one night, that was discussed as part of the healthcare a year or so back by the president of the AMA in testimony to Congress. BUT they also get paid for those exams, and using those exams and tests during an office visit will result in a different medical code being used for billing purposes.


5) Long waits for visits, and surgery. Don't believe me, look at other places with socialized medicine. heck it's bad enough now that when I try to contact my physician to get an appoint to take care of something in a hurry, he refers me to immediate care. It will only get worse.


6) Medical advancements will slow down when it comes to the rubber hitting the pavement. Don't believe me, ask Liam Niessan about it. His wife died in Canada b/c a machine that is in every US hospital is not available at every Canadian hospital. His wife had a head injury and didn't have an exam done because the hospital didn't have the equipment, but it is SOP in an ED in the US.


7) Rationing. We already have shortages of certain meds b/c of government regs on the drugs. BUT IT WILL GET WORSE. Best example is the one above, i.e 2 in-house specialists, a consulting specialist, and the specialists' national organization all recommend that if ABC is occuring, then do XYZ as the latest scientific evidence supports the XYZ procedure. BUT the government said the procedure was not necessary, and wouldn't pay for it. Luckily the patient had the procedure done and was OK, but the hospital and physicians were not paid for it.


BUT if this was to happen more and more, you can bet that the best practices will not be used, and patients will suffer.


I admit I'm a bit biased as I work in a hospital. I know healthcare is expensive, and I know some of the costs are worth it, i.e. continuing education, records keeping, equipment upgrades, etc. But a lot of the high costs are a result of government regulations and practices.




Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't know much about NAMBLA child/adult relationship.. So I will change it to something I totally object to that is in BSA, and I could see this happening. Maybe I could not train BSA soccer, but if I was required to put a training book in the back of my training room on BSA soccer with all my other manuals.. Ick.. But ok.. Or if they handed me a power point slide that listed BSA soccer on a list of types of units offered.. Ick.. but ok.. (be sure I will not spend much time on that line item..) And if I needed to offer a syllabus training for BSA Soccer, well I will not do the training, but if someone who is a BSA Soccer Adult Leader wants to run it, I will offer to promote their training date..


No one is forcing them to teach, or use, or change their position or veiws about contraception. The original plan where it was something on a long list of optional medical offerings in a health package.. I didn't even see the problem with that, nor did my Catholic husband or his Catholic brother.. It is similar to my vegetarian sister-in-law, hosting a party, and maybe she does not cook the meat items, but she welcomes others to bring them. She just wont eat them, and she knows we won't force her to either.. This is just an offering for their non-Catholic employees or the 95% of Catholics that currently do not follow this docterine.


Now with the recent change to the policy they do not even list it on their policy. The employee of a catholic affiliated buisness would need to take steps to add it themselves. True there is one more wrinkle to iron out, the self insured Catholic organizations. So iron out the wrinkle.. And that is what it is a wrinkle, a mole-hill. Maybe we, the taxpayers will end up paying for that.. For sure the other employers who are using the insurance of a carrier that needs to give Catholic affiliated employees a free supplemental insurance plan, will be picking up the tab for that..


Does that mean Catholics will end up paying for some of it with all other taxpayers.. Yes.. But there are probably 101 other things you can name on the government spending list that you object to and pay for with your taxes..


As for the gay rights marriage, BOTH sides are working the courts, the government, and voting at polls to get their way. Alot of states have enacted the same-sex marriages through voting at the polls. Our state of NH for example does not do voting at polls for State policy, only town/city policy.. But if they did, the state wide polls show that the majority want the gays to retain their marriage rights (over 60%), the minority of 30-something percent is then split between those wanting the policy recinded and those who are undecided.. So only 20=something percent in NH is wanting the marriage law recinded. It is only a few political leaders who are driving the efforts to recind the rights, all the while stating it is for religious reasons, and ignoring the polls on the issues.. They are stating people voted for them so they could change this rule, when this is not why they were voted for, and guareenteed they will be the first out of office in the next election as the majority is upset they cannot focus on the important issues..



Right now it is a weak majority, in favor of equal rights for homosexuals.. So the votes are narrow for or against with either a poll vote or a vote of the law makers.. Can you imagine these type of wins or close votes 25 years back? 50 years back?.. Wait for this next generation to get to voting age, with each generation the population becomes more tolerent. What ever lawmakers try to pass to stop this definate trend and hold it back, it seems pretty clear that it will not work.. All that needs to happen is for 5 or 10 years to pass and the law will be recinded the law or policy.. Or recinded, the law that recinded the law, that recinded the law, that recinded the law....... You can't make policy or laws out of fear of the trend in the changing social beliefs of this country, and have any hope of getting it to stick.


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the party, Moose, how would your S-I-L feel if her guests asked her to pay for the meat dishes they brought? How would she feel about a law which required her to pay? Maybe she doesn't care, but what if she had a strongly-held belief the consumption of animals is immoral. Of course if she objected, the government could change the law to require the supermarket to provide the meat for free.... Would that make her feel better about her friends violating her deep-held beliefs?


They way your S-I-L actually handles this is what the Catholic church and folks are asking for -- if her guests want meat, they can buy it, cook it and eat it. Or they don't have to go to her party at all. Of if she objects, she doesn't have to invite them. Everyone makes their own free choices and takes responsibility for them -- including paying for those choices.


Ultimately this isn't a First Amendment issue but the Tenth.


Same for gay marriage. Why is governmental approval required for anyone to get married? In the eyes of the government, marriages should be contractual agreements between two individuals. Given the evolution of domestic law in our society, it would be reasonable for government to establish standards for such contracts -- a uniform domestic code in the way most states have uniform commercial codes or statutes of fraud which establish base-line rules for how contracts are handled. While a pure libertarian point of view may object to even that, there is enough legal entanglement with marriage (taxes, property rights, child custody issues, protection of minors, etc.) that some reasonable standards are needed?


Where does that leave traditional marriages? Right where they've been for the past 2000 years. If a couple wants to scantify their marriage through the church, that should be between them and the church. If church A wants to limit marriage to a man and woman, that is their First Amendment right to do so. If church B embraces same-sex marriages (or any other screw-ball arrangement they want) it is between the couple, the church and their faith. As Thomas Jefferson said, such an arrangement neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.



Link to post
Share on other sites

The religion issue is exactly as I explained it to Beavah the last time we discussed it.. Remove state from marriage completely. All the Religious ceremony will then be is a pledge before God.. You get no state or government privileges from it at all. If you want a contractual agreement due to having children, or merging your personal money & belongings, or one giving up a career to raise kids, or in order to have visitation rights and choice of medical treatment if your other half is seriously injured or ill (whatever).. Well that is a separate legal contract, and has nothing to do with the church.


Religions then can follow their own beliefs some will perform same-sex marriages and some will not. And the government contract should raise no-ones eyebrows, unless someone has equal problems with same-sex business partners.


Of course right now, even in states that allow same-sex marriages, no religious institution is forced to perform the marriage ceremony. So the splitting of church & state with marriage, might complicate things for some people who want both the vows before God & the contractual privileges. But, maybe will be simpler for those just wanting one item or the other. But really you will get exactly what is now offered from states allowing same-sex marriages.. Because all religions will be free to decide the issues for themselves and there will be religions that will perform the marriages..


But the religions that are against gay marriages have to make up their minds. Do they want the government to bud out or bud in?.. I mean you cant have them bud out and insist the pass some bill or make an amendment to the constitution labeling marriage as only between a man and a women.. Make up your mind what you want..


As for the medical Insurance, with the newest change we are closer to this. The Catholics will not need to pay for that part of their insurance plan (if not self insured). It is just that their employees dont need to pay for it either. Now indirectly it may we may all pay for it through taxes or overall higher health premium. As for a vegetarian deeply committed to a view that killing animals is as much a sin as killing humans? They pay for meat related things through taxes, and their grocery bill at the store for non-meat items.. They pay for USDA food inspections.. Federally Funded programs to increase or improve food (including meat), school cafeteria supplemented meals that include meat, besides any other federally funded programs that use animals for scientific experimentations. At grocery stores the costs of maintaining the store equipment (freezers and back room storage and salary for the Butchers) and also food waste is averaged into the overall costs of all food you pay for at the grocery store.


Iron out the small wrinkle of the Catholic buisnesses that are self-insured.. Tack it into the taxes, or they may figure out another way.

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scoutfish, that has been a natural consequence of mixing religion with democracy, ever since the athenian assembly first called a vote.


About the only way this is prevented is through the adoption of a atheist dictatorship, in which religion is publicly ignored if not suppressed outright.


Otherwise, majorities can (and almost invariably will) use government to force at least some part of their religious moral code, if not their religion itself, on others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, contraception is not "healthcare" or the prevention of disease. It is to facilitate recreation. I don't think ANYONE should pay for it, except the participants who choose to use it. So, if we, the taxpayers are forced to pay for contraception, does that get us off the hook for paying welfare to those who neglect to use it??? If so, I think it's a bargain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well something seems unbalanced between the term, "Seperation of Church & State" when the Catholic higer ups, tell all the Catholic priest that for the next week, they must deliver this political retoric to all services.. And they do so not only at their Sunday Church services.. But at funnerals, where the people are there to morn and remember their dearly departed. Instead they get "Too Bad for Bob.. Now onto more pressing matters.. Boycott the Government.." Funnerals are attended by people who are not of your faith, outsiders who come for one thing, to pay their respects. I am so glad I did not attend the funneral.. My husband and his brother were pissed, and they are catholic.


I don't know if wedding ceremonies were trumped too.. "Both of you say I do.. Your now married..Now onto more pressing matters.. Boycott the Government.."


What is "Seperation of Church & State" only to apply to the Government? Why do churches feel they can use their pulpits for their political agenda?


I know my father, and the churches that I attended growning up, did use current news to bring home a message of sin in the modern world. I am sure it got tangled with their religious veiws. I would expect a catholic sermon might address either abortion, or same-sex marriage and why this is a sin of the modern world, and how steer clear of that sin.. But, I would not expect it to go so far as to decide that a sermon of those topics are appropriate for a funeral, nor would I expect a sermon to go so far as to demand that everyone Boycott the government on their behalf..

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is the increased intrusiveness of government. Why should the federal government have the power to tell an employer the exact requirements of the insurance they provide?


Also, the arbitrariness of contraception provided with no deductible. Insulin and high blood pressure medicine require a deductible. Why should contraception be different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not a law defining Marriage have to be acceptable by a majority of the population? Come to think of it, it has. A few states have had referendums on the Gay Marriage thing. And in a few of the states, the population clearly said they did not want Gay Marriage. So then, with the people speaking clearly, the Courts decided no, you can't do that. Then again, we have the Courts as part of the Checks and Balance system the US Government was based on. The COurts protect the rights of the minority, or the oppressed. The question is, who gets to define what consitutes a minority or opression? If a law against Gay Marriage is illegal, how could it ge ton the Ballot in the first place? Then again, should tbe Courts decide who/what gets on a Ballot?


So, what was it that Lincoln said, a Government of the People, for the People and by the People, shall not perish from this earth unless of course the Court system thinks it most prudent...


Personally, I don't care if a gay couple wants to be married, it really doesnt effect me much. But, I do want to know what I beleive is as protected as the polar opposite view that does not seem to be occuring.


Just as a note, as a Roman Catholic I am feeling might oppresed right about now, time to sue somebody, hey Beavah, can you make a referral?

Link to post
Share on other sites



The Constitution only makes the separation of church and state one way. The Constitution was designed to limit the government, not limit the people (which includes churches).


Read the First Amendment:


Amendment I


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.


There is no restriction there of religion, only of the government. The government cannot establish a religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been any other state that stated the poll vote unconstitutional besides California?.. I am not sure, Maybe there is. That is the only the only one I heard of. The moral of the story I got from that one is, don't giveth, then taketh away.. Because if you do, you are now taking away rights that they had..


From what I understand California tried to pass a law prohibiting the government from recognizing same-sex marriages.. This is barring a group of people, and it is not easy to change a law on the books that allow a group of people to do something to then be null and void without creating a law that revokes the rights of a group of people.


Now if you never had a law on the books defining marriage, and create something stating "Marriage is a union between a man and a women".. Would that be also judge unconstitutional.. You have not named the group of people you are discriminating against. Just defining marriage.


It is all in the wording.. NH if it tries to repeal it's policy that allows same-sex marriages will have the same costly and most likely loosing battle..


perdidochas - if you want to debate the over-all Obama-plan.. the whole right of government to define the Insurance plan employers must supply.. That is a different debate. It is one I haven't figured out if I am for or against. All I know is we need something. I am clueless as to what we need, or if Obama's idea is on the right track or wrong one.. But contraceptives being on or off the Obama plan would not change my attitude one way or the other..


Link to post
Share on other sites

And be advised that the US Constitution has that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... because several states at the time of ratification DID have state religions, with state revenues supporting the state church. Over time those laws went away because the PEOPLE, not the courts, VOTED to do away with the state religion. I believe 1825 was the last year such a law was on the books.


Also if churches are not suppose to get into societal issues, and yes, politics, shouldn't someone tell both the Democratic and Republican Parties? I know the Democrats have used various churches for fundraisers, voter registration, politcal rallies, etc. Ditto with some Republicans.


Link to post
Share on other sites

perdidochas - Doesn't matter.. Wrong place, wrong time, and totally insensitive to the friends and relatives of the deceased.. As for Sunday service all I can say is, I would not want my priest to be a politician. There is something very oximoron about the whole idea.. My political views should not be defined by my spiritual guide.. He may shape my veiwpoint on who has the same beliefs or values as I do.. But, my spiritual guide should not tell me how to vote, or who to vote for, or what I should or should not protest.


He can tell me that I should not go down that path of sin and why.. End of subject. I think I am becoming aware of why people did fear a Catholic president.. About 2 weeks ago I did not understand that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm agreeing with perdidochas here. The Government has no Constitutional basis for dictating what employee benefits they will provide...just that they may not discriminate as to which employees get them. What we see happening...employers will simply get around the dictates by, a)not hiring people, b)not offering benefits at all, or c) moving jobs offshore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...