annewandering Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Bytor, HBO and cell phones dont equal what it costs for private schools. Not even close. No health care is free. You think its fine to not be careful where the health care money goes, ie: 80 year old people getting heart transplants) but dont care if people die because they have no health care at all? Interesting ethic workaround. You separate different taxes but for me they are all taxes and should all be treated carefully and with respect to the taxpayers. I suppose that sounds wrong coming from me a liberal who believes in social programs. When I say carefully I mean that they should show results and be carefully and economically run. If they do not work then they should be examined carefully and quickly to see if they are mistakes or if they need revamping. Too many programs get in government, at city, county state and federal levels that stay without ever proving themselves, costing taxpayers money. What I believe in is the United Order. If we cant have it now, we can have as close to it as possible. We wouldn't waste tithing and we shouldn't waste tax money either. If you remember though the members needs would be met under the United Order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I always wonder where people come off with....everyone should have healthcare....what are we going to do with 3.5 million people with no place to live....here is a scenario....guy has bypass surgery....after his stay in the hospital...out the door he goes to rest in his cardboard box....Since we should all have healthcare, are we not entitled to shelter over our heads????Why can't the Gov't gives us a place to stay since we are all entitled to or should have healthcare??? Homeless in America | Washington ProFile - International News & Information Agency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Grassley Urges Scaling Back on Health-Care Reform Plan, Citing Town Hall Anger - washingtonpost.comDiscusses the bipartisan efforts to get a compromise with the two parties on the health care bill. I realize this is a nasty paper but it is the only media I could find that wasn't just ranting on either side. Has to be a first for the Post in a long time but hey! Gotta smile when it happens. Oh and palerider. So if we have homeless what do we do about their medical care? Should we follow scrooges idea of riding us of them or what? There is no easy answer but I would be interested in seeing you spell out what you would do about the homeless and their medical care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Grassley Urges Scaling Back on Health-Care Reform Plan, Citing Town Hall Anger - washingtonpost.comDiscusses the bipartisan efforts to get a compromise with the two parties on the health care bill. I realize this is a nasty paper but it is the only media I could find that wasn't just ranting on either side. Has to be a first for the Post in a long time but hey! Gotta smile when it happens. Oh and palerider. So if we have homeless what do we do about their medical care? Should we follow scrooges idea of riding us of them or what? There is no easy answer but I would be interested in seeing you spell out what you would do about the homeless and their medical care. was not talking about their care....I was asking if we are all suppose to have healthcare what about the guy who lives in the street??? should we not give them a place to live??? The gov't can solve all of our problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I realize now the depth of my own naivety. My eyes have been opened. Until now I believed that people like you were an exaggeration. Surely you reign supreme among your kind. No, he is not. Trying to shape the Church into a right-wing political organization makes it hard on the rest of us that either don't believe that stuff or wish that politics was not constantly injected into Church discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 No, he is not. Trying to shape the Church into a right-wing political organization makes it hard on the rest of us that either don't believe that stuff or wish that politics was not constantly injected into Church discussions. I do not like it when people insert politics into talks or lessons....should be left at the door....just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Unbelievable. Palerider we agree. Looks cautiously out the window to see if Christ is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy740 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 You separate different taxes but for me they are all taxes and should all be treated carefully and with respect to the taxpayers. I suppose that sounds wrong coming from me a liberal who believes in social programs. When I say carefully I mean that they should show results and be carefully and economically run. If they do not work then they should be examined carefully and quickly to see if they are mistakes or if they need revamping. Too many programs get in government, at city, county state and federal levels that stay without ever proving themselves, costing taxpayers money.You're a fiscal conservative! :)You mean you want accountability for the results of money spent on taxpayer behalf!You're really not that far off from the rest of us! :)What I believe in is the United Order. If we cant have it now, we can have as close to it as possible. We wouldn't waste tithing and we shouldn't waste tax money either. If you remember though the members needs would be met under the United Order.When Christ comes to reign as King of Kings, we will have a perfect form of Government. Until that happens, we need to be wary of the motivations behind movements towards a socialistic society. Christ's motives are clear and perfect. Human beings? They are far from perfect and Congress is far from clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Unbelievable. Palerider we agree. Looks cautiously out the window to see if Christ is there. good friend of mine who serves on High Council with me and he is a Democrat:eek:...he and I has this discussion a few weeks ago about political things creeping into talks and lessons... Look out...translated is next....:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 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.The poster has a point. Bolds and Caps and Red are a form of shouting and contrary to nuanced internet etiquette.Better to have a point that is persuasive all by itself than to rely on shouting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 lol palerider. Now see both can discuss things and not kill each other. At least I hope he came out alive? We need to be careful of anyone in public office till we get Jesus back to be over the government. I like to believe people have good intentions but politicians keep disappointing me. Still the United Order is the goal and I see no reason to not work toward it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) I always wonder where people come off with....everyone should have healthcare....what are we going to do with 3.5 million people with no place to live....here is a scenario....guy has bypass surgery....after his stay in the hospital...out the door he goes to rest in his cardboard box....Since we should all have healthcare, are we not entitled to shelter over our heads????Why can't the Gov't gives us a place to stay since we are all entitled to or should have healthcare??? Homeless in America | Washington ProFile - International News & Information AgencyCheck out this scenario: Man waiting 6 mos. for needed surgery dies in his cardboard box. Edited September 12, 2009 by GrandmaAri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 The poster has a point. Bolds and Caps and Red are a form of shouting and contrary to nuanced internet etiquette.Better to have a point that is persuasive all by itself than to rely on shouting... My throat is sore from shouting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Look out...translated is next....:D Good point. No reason for Serbo-Croations to miss the shouting for lack of translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Consider this. I had no insurance. We had only SS for income. My husbands not mine. Because I had a chronic problem that could have been treated easily and not all that expensive. About 10k total. But way out of my budget. Now I have medical problems that are expensive and will last till I die as a result of not being treated till way late. Because the problems are disabling I am now eligible for insurance and the government, ie; you will pay for my medical bills till I die and my family lives a long time. With a health care plan I would not be in this situation. And no one would be paying on going medical bills.This is the kind of thing that has to change. It is stupid and self defeating.This really happened, Bytor. We were in Cali at the time and while my dad got medicaid (disabled) and us kids got medi-cal my mom wasn't able to qualify for anything, and we looked too. A simple surgery that we couldn't afford ended up costing a lot more through lack of medical coverage. The only reason my mom got the surgery finally was because the county (in Idaho) agreed to put a $6000 lien against their house in exchange for the operation. They are now paying the county back at $50/month. I'm not saying people shouldn't pay something for medical care. People tend to appreciate things more when they pay for them. What I am saying is this: the damage to my mom from the chronic illness over the years was great and now she has a lot of health problems that would have never happened if she had medical coverage. Why should we care? Because she now qualifies for disability and that in the long run gonna be a lot more expensive to the taxpayers than the surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Thanks talisyn. I want to clarify the costs. The surgery cost 10k but the county worked with the hospital and got it down to an agreement of 6k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) The poster has a point. Bolds and Caps and Red are a form of shouting and contrary to nuanced internet etiquette.Better to have a point that is persuasive all by itself than to rely on shouting...Obviously you are correct and so was the poster.....I didn't care for the attitude he displayed in trying to correct Pale....so I obnoxiously posted in return.....I shouldn't be so grumpy. Edited September 12, 2009 by bytor2112 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Obviously you are correct and so was the poster.....I didn't care for the attitude he displayed in trying to correct Pale....so I obnoxiously posted in return. Thanks Bytor....I have always posted in bold most of the time I have been here. I don't consider it yelling....I do believe when its in CAPS ...thats yelling....everyone has a different opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy740 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I'm not saying people shouldn't pay something for medical care. People tend to appreciate things more when they pay for them. What I am saying is this: the damage to my mom from the chronic illness over the years was great and now she has a lot of health problems that would have never happened if she had medical coverage. Why should we care? Because she now qualifies for disability and that in the long run gonna be a lot more expensive to the taxpayers than the surgery.I'm curious if there's a study out there (somewhere) that studies those who are on state disability because of a preventative illness/infection/whatever that grew because of lack of treatment?I can guess that number to be pretty high.Would the cost of the care (early on) be higher or lower than those who now need to go on SSI? My guess would be that the cost of care would be lower - unless we can't get enough doctors to treat. Then we'd have a supply/demand issue.Would future state disability claims go lower with universal care? When would there be a breakpoint?This is the first time that I'm actually considering opening my mind to this idea. One of the things that people need to always think of is "compared to what?"Universal health care would cost the country BILLIONS... compared to what? Compared to ongoing Disability claims? That might be higher if we take the Present Value of such payments throughout the person's life expectancy.Now, I haven't changed my mind on this, but if we can pay some money out of one pocket to save a LOT for another, we should NET out much better off.I wonder if there's such a study out there and what the findings might've been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Hmmm...Someone's post makes me wonder. Should those who get government provided assistance of any type be required to prove that: 1 - They are not spending money on non 'requirements'. Some examples would be Cable TV, smoking, alcohol, etc. 2 - That the individual is in fact a legal 'resident' of this country. 3 - That any cash type aid require proof of what it was used on. If I am going to be 'forced' to provide charity for someone, then the government should force them to do everything in their power first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) What I believe in is the United Order. If we cant have it now, we can have as close to it as possible. We wouldn't waste tithing and we shouldn't waste tax money either. If you remember though the members needs would be met under the United Order.There are many Church members who believe that plural marriage, as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, was divinely ordained. If we can't have it now, we can have as close to it as possible. Which means government should encourage adultery--right?In all seriousness: There are some things that, if God (or His properly designated servants) ain't gonna do it, ain't no one oughtta do it.The United Order, you'll recall, has a meaningful opt-out provision. Will ObamaCare? Edited September 13, 2009 by Just_A_Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 GrandmaAri: I think Godless was wanting substantiating evidence for the claim that Obama favors population control. I doubt you'll find such evidence anywhere- unless you count the public opinions of his appointed science czar as 'evidence'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I'm curious if there's a study out there (somewhere) that studies those who are on state disability because of a preventative illness/infection/whatever that grew because of lack of treatment?I can guess that number to be pretty high.Would the cost of the care (early on) be higher or lower than those who now need to go on SSI? My guess would be that the cost of care would be lower - unless we can't get enough doctors to treat. Then we'd have a supply/demand issue.Would future state disability claims go lower with universal care? When would there be a breakpoint?This is the first time that I'm actually considering opening my mind to this idea. One of the things that people need to always think of is "compared to what?"Universal health care would cost the country BILLIONS... compared to what? Compared to ongoing Disability claims? That might be higher if we take the Present Value of such payments throughout the person's life expectancy.Now, I haven't changed my mind on this, but if we can pay some money out of one pocket to save a LOT for another, we should NET out much better off.I wonder if there's such a study out there and what the findings might've been.I believe most insurance companies (including mine) have wellness bonuses. For instance, non-smokers at McCain Foods get $45/month...just for not smoking! The state of Idaho has a bonus program for Medicaid (or Medicare, forgot which) where people get points for achieving goals. I still don't know what the points are for, but more and more companies and states are realizing preventive care is cheaper in the long run than fixing problems. I think this is a huge step forward for them, and should be encouraged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) GrandmaAri:I think Godless was wanting substantiating evidence for the claim that Obama favors population control. I doubt you'll find such evidence anywhere- unless you count the public opinions of his appointed science czar as 'evidence'.Actually, the report I read by the National Right To Life Organization substantiated this information.In addition to abortion, he's big on euthanasia for seniors and veterans. Edited September 13, 2009 by GrandmaAri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Actually, the report I read by the National Right To Life Organization substantiated this information.In addition to abortion, he's big on euthanasia for seniors and veterans.A purely objective source if ever there was one. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts