special privileges

In a historic decision, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America’s (ELCA) 4.7 million member denomination has lifted its ban on noncelibate gay and lesbian pastors and has thus opened the door for lesbian and gay pastors who are in committed same-sex relationships to serve as ministers. Passing 559-451 at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis, Minn., this vote followed on the heels of a 2/3 majority vote on Wednesday August 19, to approve a social statement on human sexuality to acknowledge without judgment the wide variety of views within the ELCA regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender inclusion. This document, which was 8 years in the making, recognizes and supports congregations which conduct blessings of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages where such marriages are legal.

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/08...lesbian-ministers-in-committed-relationships/

Very gradually Christianity is coming into the new century.

(Sorry I haven't been able to post on this thread, Who, my job has taken me away for a time.)

One would think. I am not aware of it being in the house bill.

The system we have now is a combination of public and private. I believe there are far more and more serious problems with the public part of it. It is medicare that is in the red, not the private sector. It is medicare that infringes on the rights of people to buy or not to buy. It is medicare that is giving doctors an incentive not to practice medicine. Yes there are problems with the private sector. Let the gov regulate those problems that are examples of injustice. Then there will be few to no problems left.

Is it your goal in life to take no financial risks? Yes socialism will promise you no financial risks. But so far where it has prospered it has brought down the standard of living for all often in drastic ways and it always reduces freedom.

Do you want our health care system to provide health care or financial insurance?

Or you could to what every financial planner on the planet says to do and save 10% of your income. We are talking about people who are employed here. Then if you lose your job you can still purchase insurance. Ten percent is not too much for anyone. For the working poor their salaries are low so it is a pittance and for earners who make more they have no excuse.

The pitifully small number of people who get dropped and still have recourse to the courts is not an excellent example of why private insurance is inadequate. Are you aware that medicare can also choose to deny service? Which do you think denies more people service? To qualify for private insurance you have to not lie on your application and pay the premiums for 90 days. to qualify for medicare you have to pay into the system (by force) for a minimum number of years, be 65, and it only covers hospitalization. medicaid also has great limitations, one must be poor. Which is a perfectly reasonable criteria before a person can accept taxpayer funded welfare. the public systems will deny on the one hand anyone who has not paid in for a number of years, is not 65, or makes the wrong claim. Medicaid will deny anyone who is not poor. Each of them denies more people than private insurance does.

I agree.

Seriously! Virtually no one is advocating letting people die. They are advocating that if a person loses his insurance that a new policy should be easier to get than it is now. That would require a new legislation but not socialism. They are advocating that in the worst scenario a person uses his own assets before asking the taxpayer to give him free health care.

They are not out of luck. They have numerous resources for health care. If they want more than health care and they want insurance then they appeal to the public system that is already in place. I would want to see something better replace the current public system but I would not want to see no system in place at all.

We can solve all those concerns with one stroke of the pen.

Allow all dollars spent on health care to be tax deductible or taxed equally.

the lack of debate is not due to a lack of good ideas. How do you explain your not knowing the ideas that come from the conservative side?

I was clear that there are problems in both parts. The thing about trends compared to inflation is that no one knows if trends will continue or not.

If your employer offers insurance with funds that would have been your salary or you strike out on your own and buy insurance with funds that are your own what is the difference? the amount of money used to buy you insurance is the same either way and the funds are yours either way.

It might make it easier to start a business and it would make it easier to change jobs. But that could be accomplished much more capitalistically and with much more respect to freedom by just not giving tax breaks to insurance offered by employers. It is much simpler.

Cost are going up everywhere in the world. That is mainly because health care can do more than it used to.

I am not suggesting that they be permitted to die. We should as a society take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. The worst way to do it would change the fundamental nature of our economy. We can do it much easier.

This is true. This is why I am in favor of a safety net. just not a socialist one.

Of course it does. You cannot get coverage unless you have worked and contributed for a number of years. It also denies coverate for treatments in the same way that insurance companies do by determining that certain treatments don't do any good. For example medicare won't pay for virtual colonoscopies.

The article I read in the paper said 400 people in the state of illinois had their coverage rescinded. That is a pitifully small number. It does deny certain treatments just like medicare does. I think one denies more than the other and you reverse it. I doubt we will get far debating that. Lets agree that when denials are unjust they need to stop.

The biggest obstacle to getting a policy is that most people must get it through an employer to make it cost effective. Simply don't give tax breaks to policies that come from employers. Then standardize the application process so that there are not endless debates about wheter or not a person lied on his application or whether or not a person had a preexisting condidtion.

yes, first people should use their own assets before they are given taxpayer money. Then people should be allowed to borrow from their future ss benefits if they get sick. It would be paid back through future payroll deductions. Then the gov could establish a health care charity that would collect donations directly on tax forms. No tax payer money should be collected as long as the charity is collecting enough.

I could back a public option under certain conditions. It would be states operated, it would truly be an option and no one would be forced to join and anyone would be permitted to quit. It would not have unfair competitive advantages over private options. Probably some more that I can't think of just now.

There most certainly is a lot of background noise. No excuse for not knowing the issues - and that is an indictment of all of us.

Some of those costs are going up because we are getting more care. Nothing to be done about that.

Some of it is be due to supply and demand. Those will level off precisely when they get too high.

Same with tuition costs and a host of other things that keep going up and are used by fear mongers to scare people.

So what is stopping you from banding together with a bunch of other people and getting a group policy?

What is stopping you from shopping around as an individual with money to spend and forcing down the costs of individual policies?

Congress is the answer to the second question.

I suppose it would not help a person who is already sick. The purpose of insurance is not to pay for future expected expenses. One gets insured against the unexpected.

If you want a plan that pays for future expected expenses then you need a different kind of plan - like a buyers club

I agree. I heard the stat today that the uncompensated health care costs are only 2% of the total. If that is true then we as a nation could easily cover that in ways that do not turn us into a socialism.

Right now the gov controls a large part of our economy in terms of GDP. close to the amount that is controlled by the French socialist government.

If health care becomes controlled by the gov then we will have surpassed France in terms of a measure of how socialist a country is. This would be the largest single step toward socialism of any step we have taken to date.

As a nation we motivate people to work hard and try their best. We establish a system in which the gov does all it can to ensure that justice is done by all. We provide the land of opportunity.

Then we recognize that even in a land of opportunity some will fail. We do not leave them to die in the street. Every person who makes that claim should be ashamed of themselves. It is not being advocated by anyone worth listening to.

Then as a nation we offer a network of methods of paying for, borrowing, and giving to those who are in need. A true lessaiz fair approach in which no action at all taken by anyone to shape the form that it takes would not be best. But nameless bureaucrats can't do it either. And just balancing the two is not right either. We don't need half of one and half of another. We need bureaucrats to do what they should do and we need the people of the nation to do what they should do - these are different roles not just a degree of how much of a role.

Our leaders cannot spend our money on objects of charity but there is no reason that they cannot inspire and lead. Citizens and leaders alike can shape a system in which charity (which is already exercised in the US more than in any other country on earth) becomes such an ingrained aspect of our national character that these issues become non-issues. State government can set in place the mechanism by which giving becomes so easy and painless and beneficial that just about everyone would participate and all with a need would be helped. The amount of people in need is not as great as some would have us believe. There is plenty of money to go around. Fifty dollars per person per month would pay for all medical public aid. that is a pittance. If Americans stopped giving on average 2% of what they earn and started giving 10% and if those who give nothing gave something then we would be awash in money. In fact, in some ways we already are. There are a zillion charities out there that collect millions of dollars for cats and the promotion of the arts. There are people who want to give but they don't know to whom to give. Can you name one charity that exists to pay for the medical needs of those without health care? It is hard*. Partly because the need is actually small and partly because that has not been a part of our national debate.


* I am thinking of the Ronald Mcdonald house but it does not pay for medical needs it pays for families to stay with sick children. Then there is Muscular Dystrophy foundation but they don't offer treatments they provide research and camps. Etc.

If a person lies to social security about their age and gets medicare should they not later be denied coverage when it is determined that they are too young?

So it is not denials that are wrong but denials for no good reason.

For these there is a system where the gov is supposed to correct the wrong situation. If they are not doing their job blame them.

Hello! Insurance is not suppose to pay for pre-existing conditions that is not insurance that is something else. If you want that something else then advocate for it but don't call it insurance or confuse it with the issue.

Your home owners insurance will not pay for a fire you had before they insured your house.

Your auto insurance will not pay for an accident you had before you had the policy.

You health insurance should also not pay for medical problems you had before you had the insurance.

I actually meant to say that unequal tax breaks should not be given to employers that offer insurance. That could be done either by eliminating the tax break that employers get but that single policy buyers don't OR by offering the break to the single policy buyers.

If it took the form of eliminating the break for employers then you are right they would stop offering insurance. they would start offering higher wages and people could use the money to buy policies - jut like they did before the break existed in the first place, back when everyone bought their own policy.

If there is enough money out there to collect in taxes then there is enough to collect in donations.

If you don;t think that people want to give it then the alternative is to force people to fork it over. And that is wrong.

But any amount given voluntarily would be a step in the right direction. There is no excuse to not have this be a part of the forms already. At the very least it would reduce the amount that is taken from people by force right now today.

These two are pretty close:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Marx would have said that the means of production was limited to actual factories but I don't see I that way.

France exercises a lot of control over various kinds of production and distribution of various things.