Why am i a liberal l.d.s?

[Gatorman]

Elphaba - In my own personal study, I have found evidence that I believe points to the constitution hanging by a thread. And, as an Elder, a follower of Christ, and a believer that the Constitution is inspired by Heavenly Father, I have a responsibility to defend it. That means, even when defending it seems to go against what I want. So, I do. I will defend the Constitution, with my life if needed. The greatest threat to our Constitution is us. We refuse to wake up and elect leaders who believe in what it stands for. Instead, we elect the popular, handsome, elequent speaker, who really doesn't care that our nation is inspired by Heavenly Father.

[MsQwerty]

I don't want to demonize them. Just see them act according to what the preach. And, good people can make bad leaders.

They don't practice what they preach (ie. you're calling them hypocrites), and the President is a bad leader. No demonizing there. Got it.

[MsQwerty]

Obama believes that the Government is better suited to use our money for...Not just healthcare, but many things...

Um. Yes. That's what governments do - they collect taxes and spend them for the benefit of the citizens.

[rameumptom]

While the White Horse Prophecy may be off the mark, the concept of the Constitution being saved by the Elders of Israel may not be. Pres Benson stated it, and as a prophet, he can be quoted.

As for issues of honesty in our government, Pres Obama was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos regarding the health care plan. Those who do not get their own will be fined. George Stephanopoulos asked him if that was not a tax. Pres Obama said it wasn't. George Stephanopoulos then read the definition of tax out of the dictionary, and it fit perfectly. Pres Obama tried to waive it off as a right wing conspiracy.

Then this morning on Morning Joe, they were speaking with one of the heads of Politico.com. He actually quoted a portion of the bill saying that those who do not buy insurance would be hit with an "excise tax."

So, is Pres Obama telling the truth, or is he just lying on this thing? Is he trying to redefine the term, and have us accept whatever his definition of "tax" is, or is he really that naive as to ignore Webster's? As he spins everything on television 5 times as often as his predecessors, he is getting to be more and more like the Big Head in 1984. Scary....

[MsQwerty]

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.).

No problem, your observation is correct. I vote for the government I trust to spend my taxes wisely, in particular the tax I pay for healthcare. In my country it's probably fair to say that both right and left leaning voters are pro-government run health system - we know we keep them accountable with our votes.

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

If you live in a country you pay taxes for public services like anyone else - we just happen to be a country that believes providing free health care is as vital a service as any other.

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..

Meanwhile, the waiting period (how long is it in the US?) for the bankrupt can be a time of extreme hardship. I wonder what the rate of suicide is for bankrupts?

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..

No but they can hound you for payment until as Pres. Obama said in his speech on health reform, you are forced to pay it back, or into bankruptcy. That is just ridiculous - people being bankrupted or placed in severe financial hardship because they cannot afford to pay for the health care they might have needed in an emergent situation.

So the people you mentioned on the CNN program couldn't walk into that emergency room without the knowledge they might be placing their families in financial jeopardy. No wonder they went home to suffer instead.

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..

No, it's not ideal. It's shameless and embarrassing in a developed country. The rest of the developed world has free health care available to women who give birth. When will the US catch up in this area?

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..

But with universal health care it wouldn't be 'at someone else's expense' since almost all people would have contributed to the system through their taxes. With enough left over, in fact, that even some poor woman who has a baby and no money will be cared for without having to expect a bill when she gets home. Not caring for women who give birth is also discriminatory, since men will never be in that exceptionally vulnerable position of being heavily pregnant and unable to work or support a family and pay for health insurance.

Home births are in my experience a choice women make because they feel more comfortable at home. It's an indictment on your health system if women are choosing home births to avoid paying hospital fees. Seriously, I hope that's not true.

Then there is that frivilous UN Declaration of Human Rights that states: 2. Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits." The human rights of women: a reference guide to official United Nations documents: English . All developed countries take this right for women seriously, so why doesn't the US?

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

Just like that slave money used to pay for police, military, education, roads..?

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

If both of them went into the same public or private hospital they would receive the same treatment. Really. We don't go all silly and adoring over public figures in this country - generally speaking.

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%..

That sounds terrible. I hope your aunt is recovered now. I have no idea as to how the US will implement reforms so that everyone can afford health insurance. I did read that the teams Obama had researching this issue have looked at models like the one they have in Canada but decided it wouldn't work in the US. I suspect that isn't because it can't be done, but because so many people are closed and fearful of any change (like those who have been protesting recently). People need to get over the idea that caring equally for all of the citizens in a country is that terrible thing called "socialism" - can't it just be the sensible, equitable, compassionate thing to do?

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

Yep. We shall see what the future holds.

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..

Thanks for that info.

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

Well, I'm assuming all those brilliant teams he had working for months to come up with good health care reform solution might have some idea of what they are doing.

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

Meaningless to you maybe - but inspiring and hopeful for many millions of Americans (like those who would much prefer not to go bankrupt or face financial hardship because they have t pay back a large hospital bill).

[rameumptom]

Um. Yes. That's what governments do - they collect taxes and spend them for the benefit of the citizens.

According to our Founding Fathers, government is there FOR the people. Too often in our day, people and their money are expected to be there FOR the government. Look at how the "stimulus" package went to paying off Congressional constituents. In this instance, as is often the case nowadays (want Murtha to buy you an airport?), it ISN'T for the benefit of the citizenry.

[FunkyTown]

According to our Founding Fathers, government is there FOR the people. Too often in our day, people and their money are expected to be there FOR the government. Look at how the "stimulus" package went to paying off Congressional constituents. In this instance, as is often the case nowadays (want Murtha to buy you an airport?), it ISN'T for the benefit of the citizenry.

I think this might not be an effective argument, Rame. Are you suggesting that the government wants universal health care for their own benefit? It's safe to say that most of them will still opt for private health care. This means they are essentially raising taxes on themselves.

[MrsAri]

It's all about government control...emerging into a one world government...loss of freedom.

[Gatorman]

Please tell me this...Why should the government be able to 'require' us to have health insurance?

[FunkyTown]

Please tell me this...Why should the government be able to 'require' us to have health insurance?

Gator? I hear what you're saying.

The people didn't vote in the libertarian party. Historically, the Federalists did very poorly. Your opinion on what the government is there for is a very small and very vocal minority.

The federalists didn't win the election. People who want a nationalized health care did.

[MrsAri]

Please tell me this...Why should the government be able to 'require' us to have health insurance?

Constitutional government wouldn't.

[talisyn]

Constitutional government wouldn't.

We've already established the USA is a dictatorship ruled by the anti-christ.

[MrsAri]

We've already established the USA is a dictatorship ruled by the anti-christ.

You have?

[talisyn]

You have?

I thought you did a while ago?

[Gatorman]

Gator? I hear what you're saying.

The people didn't vote in the libertarian party. Historically, the Federalists did very poorly. Your opinion on what the government is there for is a very small and very vocal minority.

The federalists didn't win the election. People who want a nationalized health care did.

Which is a good thing that the US Government is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. Because, our government is still bound by the Constitution and to gain new powers, the Constitution must first be changed. Until then, the majority can call for relocation the US to the Moon, if the Constitution does not give power to the government, it doesn't matter.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'll agree to disagree with you on several points, MsQwerty, but did want to respond to the following:

Meanwhile, the waiting period (how long is it in the US?) for the bankrupt can be a time of extreme hardship. I wonder what the rate of suicide is for bankrupts?

The automatic stay, which prevents creditors from attempting to collect a bill from you, goes into effect at the moment you file your case for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy court sends out notices to the creditors in about a week or so.

Chapter 7 cases are usually wrapped up in three to four months; Chapter 13s take three to five years, depending on your income and a variety of mathematical factors. But again--the debt relief goes into place immediately upon filing.

People who actually file for bankruptcy have pretty much resolved to carry on, and so I'd imagine their suicide rate (as opposed to those who are merely insolvent) is reasonably low. Again--it's just a case of getting out the information as to what people's options are.

No but they can hound you for payment until as Pres. Obama said in his speech on health reform, you are forced to pay it back, or into bankruptcy. That is just ridiculous - people being bankrupted or placed in severe financial hardship because they cannot afford to pay for the health care they might have needed in an emergent situation.

I've tried to initiate a discussion on several threads as to what "bankruptcy" really means. So far no one seems to have engaged on it. Do you wish to?

So the people you mentioned on the CNN program couldn't walk into that emergency room without the knowledge they might be placing their families in financial jeopardy. No wonder they went home to suffer instead.

They could have, if they'd known how the system works. They didn't. That is lamentable; but not an automatic justification for some kind of universal healthcare system above and beyondd what is already in place.

No, it's not ideal. It's shameless and embarrassing in a developed country. The rest of the developed world has free health care available to women who give birth. When will the US catch up in this area?

I'm only talking about the duties imposed by the hospital's commitment to save life in the event that there is *no* payment. And in practice, there *is* some degree of payment--either through the hospital's own private financial assistance program, or through already-existing Medicaid programs.

But with universal health care it wouldn't be 'at someone else's expense' since almost all people would have contributed to the system through their taxes.

I think I already provided numbers illustrating that there is no way a person can pull their own weight in a universal-health-care system in the US by contributing merely 1.5% of their annual income. By the numbers, under universal healthcare the average woman can choose having two or three kids, or an appendectomy, or a severe case of pneumonia, during her entire life. Anything more, and it is no longer "her" money that's paying for it.

Home births are in my experience a choice women make because they feel more comfortable at home. It's an indictment on your health system if women are choosing home births to avoid paying hospital fees. Seriously, I hope that's not true.

I prefer to think of it as the "free market" - people seeking the best bargain for comparable services.

Then there is that frivilous UN Declaration of Human Rights that states: 2. Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits." The human rights of women: a reference guide to official United Nations documents: English . All developed countries take this right for women seriously, so why doesn't the US?

I don't find the UN's moral authority convincing on . . . anything, really. I'm happy to discuss the policy implications of health care on their own merits.

Just like that slave money used to pay for police, military, education, roads..?

It's one thing to say that it makes pragmatic sense to force everyone, at the point of a gun, to turn over their money for certain socially necessary programs.

It's entirely another thing to say that that's what our Christian religion demands.

That sounds terrible. I hope your aunt is recovered now.

Thanks; she's doing better.

I have no idea as to how the US will implement reforms so that everyone can afford health insurance. I did read that the teams Obama had researching this issue have looked at models like the one they have in Canada but decided it wouldn't work in the US. I suspect that isn't because it can't be done, but because so many people are closed and fearful of any change (like those who have been protesting recently). People need to get over the idea that caring equally for all of the citizens in a country is that terrible thing called "socialism" - can't it just be the sensible, equitable, compassionate thing to do?

I don't think many people oppose the concept of reform; it's that we don't want a single-payer system and--despite all the smoke he blows--our President is on-record supporting such a system and the economists are telling us that the proposals on the table will tend towards that goal.

Nor is anyone seriously talking about eliminating CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. It would be fair to say that our tolerance of these programs suggests a concession that government has a responsibility to guarantee lifesaving care, but not (beyond a certain point) comfort or elective care. In other words, many of us on the right are willing to be compelled to underwrite a guarantee of life--but not happiness.

Personally, I think we need to do a multi-pronged effort whereby we a) impose a truly free market by forcing medical care providers to give up-front, comprehensible fee schedules that can be compared with those of other providers (possibly incorporating some version of the President's proposed insurance exchange); b) smart tort reform; and c) keeping, but economizing, the existing Medicare and Medicaid systems.

Well, I'm assuming all those brilliant teams he had working for months to come up with good health care reform solution might have some idea of what they are doing.

Some idea, yes. But they're going from the fundamental assumptions that a) we can keep on printing money indefinitely; b) there will always be a sufficient taxpayer/financier base to support the scheme; and c) the taxpayers/financiers will play along no matter how expensive the scheme becomes.

What happens if we get one-tenth, or one-third, or one-half of Americans with no resources for their own health care except the government--and then the government goes broke?

Meaningless to you maybe - but inspiring and hopeful for many millions of Americans (like those who would much prefer not to go bankrupt or face financial hardship because they have t pay back a large hospital bill).

Saying "it will cost less if we reduce costs" is meaningless, yes.

[MrsAri]

I thought you did a while ago?

I didn't say "we've", you did.

We've already established the USA is a dictatorship ruled by the anti-christ.

[Just_A_Guy]

By the way, for those who care to slough through it, Volokh has a series of posts about the constitutionality of health care reform. See here and look at the list of related posts.

[MrsAri]

On my profile page, I've posted two YouTube videos of Pres. Benson...check them out!

[MrsAri]

I don't recall in which thread someone was inquiring about the status of Romney care, but I found this timely article.

--------------

Romney: Mass. Healthcare Plan a Winner

Source: Breaking News, Politics, Commentary

Contrary to media reports, Massachusetts’ new health insurance plan has managed to cover nearly all residents at minimal additional cost to the state and could be a model for national healthcare reform, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tells Newsmax.

Edited September 21, 2009 by GrandmaAri

[Elphaba]

I don't recall in which thread someone was inquiring about the status of Romney care, but I found this timely article.

--------------

Romney: Mass. Healthcare Plan a Winner

Source: Breaking News, Politics, Commentary

Contrary to media reports, Massachusetts’ new health insurance plan has managed to cover nearly all residents at minimal additional cost to the state and could be a model for national healthcare reform, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tells Newsmax.

Romney's plan:

1) Requires everyone to get health insurance

2) Those who failed to purchase an insurance plan that was deemed affordable lost their tax exemption.

3) In 2008, penalties increase by monthly increments, and are based on half of the cost of a health insurance plan.

As I understand it, one of the reasons everyone is so upset about Obama's plan is that it forces everyone to have health insurance.

Sounds like Romney's plan does the same.

Elphaba

Edited September 21, 2009 by Elphaba

[MrsAri]

Romney care isn't Kennedy care. Obama care is Kennedy care.

Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC - VIDEO: CNN - What about Romney care? (8/20)

Edited September 21, 2009 by GrandmaAri

[Guest Godless]

Having talked to some MA residents about Romney care, I'd say it's a very good thing that Obama's plan is different.

[annewandering]

My son and his wife lived in Mass for awhile and they were very pleased with the Mass. plan.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba - In my own personal study, I have found evidence that I believe points to the constitution hanging by a thread. And, as an Elder, a follower of Christ, and a believer that the Constitution is inspired by Heavenly Father, I have a responsibility to defend it. That means, even when defending it seems to go against what I want. So, I do. I will defend the Constitution, with my life if needed. The greatest threat to our Constitution is us. We refuse to wake up and elect leaders who believe in what it stands for. Instead, we elect the popular, handsome, elequent speaker, who really doesn't care that our nation is inspired by Heavenly Father.

That's cool. But you're not the first person during the last 170 years to essentially say the same thing.

Elphaba