Why am i a liberal l.d.s?

[Just_A_Guy]

It's relatively 'free' in that we do contribute 1.5% of our taxes once a year to the Medicare system. How does Medicare invest its funds? No idea really, but you are welcome to read their budget info if you want to look it up: Medicare Australia.

You have *no problem* throwing your income into a fund having no idea how it's managed? Frankly, this kind of mindset explains a lot about the fundamental difference between those who support government-run health care and those who do not. The right doesn't trust government; the left does. (Not intended as a condemnation; just an observation.)

The only people in this country who feel 'bullied' into paying their 1.5% are the exceptionally wealthy who would never use a public hospital and feel they should be exempt from the tax.

Oh; well, as long as it's not *me* being bullied . . .

Bankruptcy is not so bad. Ok. Got it.

I practice bankruptcy law. I don't want to downplay it; but the fact is--you won't lose your retirement savings; you can keep the property you need to make a new start (as defined by the census bureau or your own state's government); and if you file under Chapter 13 you will also be able to keep all of the equity in your home as well as your vehicle. And at the end of the process, your debts disappear.

Having not seen the program you are referring to, I can't comment too much. They could have walked in and gotten free treatment if they wanted it?

If you go into an ER, they have to treat you. They may make you sign a "promise to pay" or whatever, but they can't demand money up front and if you ultimately don't pay--America has abolished debtor's prison, as I'm sure you're aware.

Wow. Recovery from childbirth is not a "luxury", it is a RIGHT in a civilised society. If we don't take care of women and babies at their most vulnerable then what kind of people are we?

Even 'standard' childbirth is not easy to recover from. From your comments I'm assuming you are a man - I just wish you could try giving birth one day and see how you feel about how 'standard' it is then . And what if it isn't 'standard'? What about her baby who might need care? What if she develops complications as a result of being moved too soon after giving birth? What if the hospital just took care of her instead? What if it were your wife, mother or sister who had no insurance and needed the care that was denied her?

Again--where life or limb is in danger, the hospital isn't going to send her home in the first place; and if she is sent home healthy and complications develop later she can come back and get treatment. Not ideal; but not the end of the world either.

As for recovery from a standard childbirth: I don't want to downplay the ordeal; but the simple fact is that yes--a couple of days in a hospital, not having to worry about obtaining food or shelter or caring for other children--all at someone else's expense--is a luxury; particularly when you consider the number of women who still do home births via a midwife for a fraction of the cost charged by hospitals.

And most importantly, what would the Saviour have us do for a woman who is giving birth to a child?

I doubt the answer is "treat her with money confiscated from slaves to the government."

That sounds silly and paranoid. No-one in this country gets better care in the public system because their Uncle Bob works for a particular hospital. There are checks and balances in place to ensure such things don't happen.

You really want me to believe that a member of your Parliament doesn't get superior care to one of your aborigines? Really?

Of course you can afford 1.5% tax - imagine spending a few hundred dollars a year for your health care instead of a few hundred every month? How can that not seem like a good thing?

A "few hundred dollars a month"? OK. 1.5% on America's per-capita income of about $39,000 would be $585 per person per year. Sixty years of paying into that makes a total contribution of $35,100 per person.

My aunt was in the ICU for nine days with pneumonia last year, and blew through twice that amount. Such a system as you cite is simply not sustainable in the US, even if you raised efficiency sufficiently to trim medical costs by 50%.

I've lived in both the US and Australia and I can tell you now that US Medicaid/Medicare is not similar to Aus. Medicare in any way. With Aus. Medicare - EVERY Australian regardless of what they earn or what their age, has the right to free or heavily subsidised doctors visits, hospital care, emergency room treatment, surgery of most kinds, pharmaceutical benefits (although there is now a small charge for some tests), x-rays, diagnostic tests, childhood immunisation and organ transplants. In addition, Australians who want more choice of doctor or hospital or shorter waiting lists, can pay for private health insurance.

But is your system economically sustainable over the long term? I think the jury's still out on that one.

Medicaid, in my understanding is only available to some people and difficult to access as well. The problem with the US system is, I suspect, far more to do with the differences in state-run health care than anything. What is available as Medicaid in one state may be different to that of another.

If I'm in Utah, I am not hampered in my ability to get on Medicaid via Utah simply because California happens to have different application procedures. There are bureaucratic issues wherever you go, yes; but federalized institutions (such as the VA) don't seem to be much of an improvement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seemed to be the case for many church members I knew there who fell on hard times. Losing one's job and health insurance caused tremendous fear because people knew that it would be difficult to get adequate medical care.

Again--much of that is fear of the unknown, with people not knowing what their rights are or how to navigate the bureaucracies.

I have, however read the President's address on health care reform, and while the details seem foggy at this point, he seems to be on the right track and claims that it will actually help to decrease the deficit over time:

What the President proposed and what is actually before our Congress are, to some extent, two different things.

Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit.

The President has not given any hard evidence beyond his say-so that these alleged savings can actually be realized. Our Congressional Budget Office seems unconvinced. And at any rate, as was pointed out elsewhere--if his plan doesn't pass, will he keep those inefficiencies in place out of spite?

And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

Transcript: Obama's Health Care Speech - CBS News

Which deficit? From what I can gather, it's the long-term deficit (above and beyond the ten-year figure provided by the CBO) that his own plan will incur. In other words, "if we can pass my health care plan and simultaneously reduce costs, my health care plan won't cost as much as it would have if we had passed it without reducing costs."

Meaningless feel-good statements like that are why we on the right love this guy.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[MrsAri]

That's because you agree with him and don't want it. Do you think people should be able to opt out of paying for police or the military?

Of course not...but that's not the issue.

[FunkyTown]

I quote from the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

General welfare clause. A much stronger case could be made for medicine as a necessity for general welfare than you could advocate a case for an aggressive war under the common defence clause.

So yes: The Constitution does provide for health insurance and it can be argued much more succinctly than taxation that goes towards aggressive wars, such as Iraq.

Except, the Constitution specifically grants them that authority. So, we did reassign that authority to the Federal Government.

Well, the Federal Government should only be funding interstate commerce cooridors, not state or local highways. And, the Federal Government should only be taxing us based on those roads. Further, excise and usage taxes ARE Constitutional.

Except, we did create the government in the Constitution. Now, if we could just reign in their pay so it was not a cushy job people wanted. Make it a true sacrifice to serve, like it was supposed to be.

Again, please show me where in the Constitution we specifically laid out the authority for the Federal Government to provide health care or health insurance for all people in the land?

And, yes, if I believed we should be spending more on our military and that our government was doing efficiently with the money it already has, I would consider putting more in. However, I have already pointed out that military is Constitutional authorized and, in fact, mandated. So, that really isn't a fair argument. Through our Constitution, we agreed to have our government levy tarrifs, duties, and taxes to raise and maintain an army. We have the power to raise a common defense between neighbors, etc. So, we can assign that authority to the government. But, do we have a right to walk into our neighbors house and take money from him, whether he wants to give it or not, to pay for another neighbors health care? If I don't have that ability without committing a crime, I can not assign that authority to the Federal Government. The Federal Government's power is not some creation of nothing. It is nothing more than the people, by contract, agreeing to allow the government to act as their agent, to excercise authority and power the people already have. If the people don't have it, they can't reassign it.

[kpatrey]

I do listen to the "Liar Limbaugh" and proud of it......

There is also the wonderful Glen Beck and Neal Bortz!!! Everytime I watch Glen I have blood shooting from my eyes....LOL

[kpatrey]

Where are these "rules" of courtesy???? I post on multiple message boards and I have yet to hear anyone whine about bold or larger fonts.......and I'm not annoyed at all....kind of wrecks your assertion doesn't it? Really....you should lighten up. Life is way too short.

I find it hard to understand why BOLD and LARGER font would bother someone that much?!?! I mean really...to get so wigged out over something so minute is trivial!

[kpatrey]

He also claims that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah's Witness are the same organization.

Well, being a former Jehovah's Witness I can testify that they are NOT the same. Very similar in ways but NOT the same!

[Moksha]

I find it hard to understand why BOLD and LARGER font would bother someone that much?!?! I mean really...to get so wigged out over something so minute is trivial!

Besides, it makes what you say more noticeable.

[Gatorman]

You know, I wish our founding fathers were still alive today, so that we could ask them. Ask them how they could have been so genius to create the Constitution and, in doing so, create a government whose power was restricted and bound by specific duties they were allowed to do. A document whose words ensured that the government could no longer act to do anything it wanted, because, it was specifically laid out what it could do, then turn around and absolutely destroy that document by putting in a Get out of jail free card for the government.

I am sorry, but, the general welfare clause is not a power enumerated to the government. There powers are specifically enumerated. The general welfare clause, as I understandgit, refers to the fact that any laws or use of tax dollars are required to apply to all equally. In other words, it would be illegal to create a system or use of those funds that only helped certain people. If they were going to create a welfare system, then, it had to be available to help all people, regardless of status. You could not create systems to help blacks, women, etc, because that would not be using the funds for general welfare, it would be using them for targetted welfare.

[Moksha]

Obama isn't God. And I don't believe his lies. And I've already discussed this issue. Hint: Mexico City Policy.

Is this Mexico City Policy code for the Mothership?

[FunkyTown]

What are you basing that off of? The Federalist papers? Anything in particular that was written?

Ultimately, taxation for the military is supposed to be for defensive purposes only.

Long and short: The Constitution allows for this. You can claim you don't like it, but to call it unconstitutional is simply incorrect.

You know, I wish our founding fathers were still alive today, so that we could ask them. Ask them how they could have been so genius to create the Constitution and, in doing so, create a government whose power was restricted and bound by specific duties they were allowed to do. A document whose words ensured that the government could no longer act to do anything it wanted, because, it was specifically laid out what it could do, then turn around and absolutely destroy that document by putting in a Get out of jail free card for the government.

I am sorry, but, the general welfare clause is not a power enumerated to the government. There powers are specifically enumerated. The general welfare clause, as I understandgit, refers to the fact that any laws or use of tax dollars are required to apply to all equally. In other words, it would be illegal to create a system or use of those funds that only helped certain people. If they were going to create a welfare system, then, it had to be available to help all people, regardless of status. You could not create systems to help blacks, women, etc, because that would not be using the funds for general welfare, it would be using them for targetted welfare.

[Gatorman]

What are you basing that off of? The Federalist papers? Anything in particular that was written?

Ultimately, taxation for the military is supposed to be for defensive purposes only.

Long and short: The Constitution allows for this. You can claim you don't like it, but to call it unconstitutional is simply incorrect.

No, it is not incorrect. It is a different interpretation of the Constitution.

And, I agree, I believe all of our troops should be back in the US. But, that is a different argument.

[Elphaba]

I want you to know that as a Republican I will take issue with what you said...here is why....there are alot of members of the church who are Democrats. We have General Authorities that are as well as past Prophets. I have some very very close friends that are democrats and they are good people and attend the Temple more than I do. I have a friend who I grew up with that now lives in the state of Wasgington and she is a memebr of the church and a State Legislature in the state of Washington.

Our church is awesome because they do not endorse candidates or tell us who to vote for. They do encourage us to get out and vote. You are not the only member who has made this comment, however I have nothing against you for stating your opinion, I just wanted to inform you of a few things. I hope I have helped...:)

I just love this guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Elph

[FunkyTown]

No, it is not incorrect. It is a different interpretation of the Constitution.

And, I agree, I believe all of our troops should be back in the US. But, that is a different argument.

But the constitution has to be interpreted. That's why the Supreme Court exists. I suppose you could make a case that it's unconstitutional and run it by the courts? I would support that. Much better than murmuring and saying it's unconstitutional. Instead, just toss it up to the supreme court and find out if it is.

[Just_A_Guy]

But the constitution has to be interpreted. That's why the Supreme Court exists. I suppose you could make a case that it's unconstitutional and run it by the courts? I would support that. Much better than murmuring and saying it's unconstitutional. Instead, just toss it up to the supreme court and find out if it is.

Until a statute has been passed, SCOTUS wouldn't touch the issue. Lack of standing.

I remember, in a conlaw course, reading that there's a debate among legal scholars as to whether the legislative and executive branches ought to govern their actions, in part, on what they believe to be constitutional (as opposed to what they think SCOTUS will approve as constitutional). I think both branches have done so, and gotten away with it, to a greater or lesser degree.

[Gatorman]

But the constitution has to be interpreted. That's why the Supreme Court exists. I suppose you could make a case that it's unconstitutional and run it by the courts? I would support that. Much better than murmuring and saying it's unconstitutional. Instead, just toss it up to the supreme court and find out if it is.

I will refrain from discussing the court...LOL

And, to answer another question, my understanding of our Founding Fathers, Constitution, form of government, etc, is similar to how I understand the church. It comes from studying history, writings, etc, then applying my own common sense. <Note, I am not suggesting it is 'common sense' in this case, meaning the same sense everyone has. If that makes sense. :) >

So, can I quote chapter and verse of books? No. Can I tell you what specific books and things I have read? No. But, I could not have told you why I believed that the church and the Book of Mormon were real before I ever read them. Instead, I had studied and pondered the material I had at hand <Bible, teachings of the Episcopal, Catholic, Baptist, and Methodist churches> and applied my own prayer and sense to it. I knew what I believed, I just had not found the church that fit that mold. Same for the Constitution. Now, I can tell you specific teachings by our prophets...

1 - The Constitution is inspired by Heavenly Father, as it was written.

2 - Joseph Smith ran for President, knowing he would not win, so that the Saints would have someone good to vote for.

3 - The many writings and teachings of Ezra Taft Benson and that teh welfare system, as it existed in his time, was wrong.

4 - That for the Constitution to hang by a thread, it will have to become common place for it to be trampled on. That is what I believe we have today. And, I don't blame just one party or the other. They both do it.

So, yes, I believe that the Constitution is being trampled on by all three branches of government. I believe, as a whole, not individuals, that all three are corrupted from what they are supposed to be. Yet, I also believe that we are supposed to follow the leaders of our lands, even when they are wrong. Hence the article of faith that addresses it. I just don't have to support them or suggest that there usurpations of power are okay.

[Elphaba]

2 - Joseph Smith ran for President, knowing he would not win, so that the Saints would have someone good to vote for.

Reference please. I've never heard this before.

Thanks,

Elphaba

[annewandering]

I really wish that people would stop using the constitution hanging by a thread argument as if it were doctrine and not highly questionable.

[pam]

Here is an article about Joseph Smith running for President.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Joseph Smith: Campaign for President of the United States

[Gatorman]

I really wish that people would stop using the constitution hanging by a thread argument as if it were doctrine and not highly questionable.

Well, from my perspective, the Consitution is hanging by a thread today. We allow our government to trample it at will, just because we get a cookie out of the deal. We continue to elect the same people or type of people to office, because, of what they will get for us. Yes, this is a generalization and not pointed at anyone person. But, in general, I believe that both of the major party platforms are based on gross violations of the power and authority of our constitution. So, no free passes for either side from me.

[Elphaba]

Here is an article about Joseph Smith running for President.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Joseph Smith: Campaign for President of the United States

Thanks Pam. I had never clued in on that part of Smith's platform before.

Elphaba

[pam]

No problem...I am actually quite impressed that I was able to provide SOMETHING you didn't know about Church History.

[Elphaba]

The Constitution has been hanging by a thread for almost 170 years now.

Elphaba

[Maxel]

The Constitution has been hanging by a thread for almost 170 years now.

I don't know what makes you think that (I'm not inclined to disagree), but I think the pertinent question this question raises is:

How thin can that thread be before it snaps and the American people loses their Constitutional rights to the black pit of powerful government?

[Elphaba]

How thin can that thread be before it snaps and the American people loses their Constitutional rights to the black pit of powerful government?

First, I think it's important to note that the "White Horse Prophecy," from which comes the "hanging by a thread" prophecy, has been discredited.

Second, all of the references to it I have heard say the thread does not snap. In other words, the Elders come in just in time to keep it from breaking that thread.

Elphaba

[Maxel]

First, I think it's important to note that the "White Horse Prophecy," from which comes the "hanging by a thread" prophecy, has been discredited.

Second, all of the references to it I have heard say the thread does not snap. In other words, the Elders come in just in time to keep it from breaking that thread.

Elphaba

Oh, my comments weren't meant to be read in context of the prophecy of the Constitution hanging by a thread, but merely the idea of it doing so. I've heard the White Horse Prophecy has been discredited- but looking around, the Constitution does seem to be hanging in there by the skin of its teeth.

Seeing your remark merely prompted the question in my mind, and I thought it was cool. So I shared it. I'm like a little kid that way.