Obamacare Stands

[Red Bull Breeder]

Just wait it will get worse. Not a one of them folks in DC gonna do any thing for anybody but theirselves and their kronies. They use the two party system to do the piss and moan act and then slap each other on the back at our expense.

 

[VanC]

they were running from the priests

Probably...but Protestant Anglican Priests.

About 12 percent of 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner;
38 percent acknowledges other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church;
41.8 percent of clergy women reported unwanted sexual behavior;
17 percent of laywomen have been sexually harassed.
At the same time, 1.7 percent of the Catholic clergy have been found guilty of pedophilia while
10 percent of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.

Back when I posted a link to the "Be Proud to Be Catholic" speech by Jewish businessman Sam Miller, I was impressed with the positive examples it cited of the good things the Catholic Church does every day. But I should have dug a little deeper and looked more closely at some of the other parts of the speech.

The rest of the speech, in which Mr. Miller relies heavily upon statistics found in an article from Sojourners magazine, cites an erroneous statistic of "10 percent of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia." This statistic was later corrected by Sojourners, but it had already been picked up by Miller and others.

The facts are clarified in an email I received from Rev. Rob Pollock of Vancouver, BC:

"The article you reference in your recent post "Jewish Advice…" contains false and defamatory information about Protestant ministers.

In the original speech Mr. Miller cites, and reads extensively from, a July/August 2002 Sojourners article by Rose Marie Berger in which she misinterprets statements from Penn. State Prof. Philip Jenkins regarding sexual abuse by Protestant ministers.

In the original article Berger writes ...

'Philip Jenkins concludes in his book "Pedophiles and Priests" that while 1.7 percent of Catholic clergy have been found guilty of pedophilia (specifically of boys), 10 percent of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.' (This quote is used in Miller's speech)

To which Philip Jenkins responds (Sept/Oct 2002) ...

'I regret to say that the statement is baloney. I never said it, and it's not true!... Every time this ten percent statement appears attributed to me, I try to debunk it, but these things have a life of their own. I have no idea what the actual proportion of pedophile protestant clergy is, but I would be amazed if it was more than a fraction of one percent.'

Berger's revised article and Jenkins's letter can be found here ... Berger Article

Sojourners apologized to its readers for passing on erroneous information and revised the article, removing the incorrect and defamatory information. But not before Sam Miller got a hold of it!

Regrettably, a much condensed version of Miller's speech, as referenced on your blog, has recently gone viral within the Catholic community by way of the internet and e-mail. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of blogs, forums, facebook pages, and news services that have posted this condensed version of Mr. Miller's speech.

It truly saddens me that such 'false witness' can be so uncritically accepted and further disseminated by so many within the Catholic community. it seems that we still find it easier to believe the worst about our neighbour rather than dig a little deeper for the truth.

If there is any Catholic pride to be found in the belief that 'Protestants are far worse than us', it is ultimately a false pride. With respect to clergy sexual abuse, the harder work of repentance, reconciliation, and reform remains, for all of us.

Yours in Christ,

Rev. Rob Pollock
Vancouver, BC
CANADA"

 

[TexasBred]

I stand corrected on that misrepresented statistic......what about the others?? Priests and pastors could oth do much better at keeping their vows and peaching the gospel.

 

[HDRider]

I don't like anything President Obama has done. I can't begin to imagine the consequences of this Supreme Court ruleing. I believe that the Insurance companies will raise premiums so high that no working family can afford Insurance.

OK, this thread has got big. I just started reading it and could not wait till I got all the way thru to say something.

Maybe someone already said what I am about to say. Sorry if that bugs you, but if it was said, I echo the thought.

You raised the central point kerley (Stooges fan heh?,,cool),,,,,,. If insurance companies raise rates two things will happen, maybe three..

1. People will look to the government FOR insurance (single payer [what they wanted but could not get via Clinton]), especially when companies end employee insurance,,,or
2. People will pay the fine and be uninsured (cheaper to pay fine),,, or maybe
3. Government will put a lid on insurance premiums


Why don't the government make the VA bigger, much bigger, and give free medical treatment to bums and folks that can't or won't pay?????? --Probably save money.

 

[TexasBred]

HD how about "all of the above".Gov't wants to run healthcare....they also want the fines...that's more money to spend.And it doesn't bother them one little bit to pay $4.00 on a $4,000 dollar claim filed by a hospital or doctor.

 

[Jogeephus]

I discussed this vote with four people I know who live in the UK and asked them what they thought of their health care system. It was unanimous that they thought it was great. I was somewhat surprised at the consencus they shared. One of my friends said his tax was around 11% just for the healthcare and he said he thought it was the best tax he paid. 11% seemed pretty steep to me but after running some numbers this amount would actually be cheaper than what I'm doing now. Especially if my wife quits work since she is only working so we can have a group plan rather than individual. In my situation I'd be willing to shell out 11% of my income each year for health coverage that pays for EVERYTHING including checkups, meds or whatever. What does concern me is whether or not our government is capable of implementing a fair and efficient system to handle something as important as this. I don't think they are and I don't think we need to go this route. I think if they would pull down the political boundaries that impede fair competition within the insurance industry and allow the formation of large group plans made up of individuals - say even by state - all this could be avoided and health care could be affordable to the working middle class because - I think - they are the ones getting slammed by our present system.

 

[Anonymous]

Well said joe. In my case, the tease of affordable healthcare is a big bait for me to try to bite.
But as I said before, the mandate, lack of choice, and big brother telling me what I have to do or pay the tax is where I have a problem.
We need healthcare reform in a big way. My visit to the er for mt
Finger, including 1 X-ray and 3 stitches cost me 2000.00. Self pay. The quickest way to start with healthcare reform is to start with medical malpractice and with lawyers. Those 2 things coupled with people that don't pay their bills at all drive health care cost. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
26 bucks for a box of Kleenex, 8$ aspirin, there's a huge problem with the pricing structure.
A friend of mines wife just had neck surgery for a disk issue. 4 days in the hospital, etc. cost 450k!
They have tri-care because they both served and retired military
That's what the gvt got billed for her surgery. Nothing risky outbof the norm, nothing abnormal.
We have a huge healthcare problem. And it starts with the insurance companies, lawyers, and big pharmaceutical companies themselves

 

[HDRider]

HD how about "all of the above".Gov't wants to run healthcare....they also want the fines...that's more money to spend.And it doesn't bother them one little bit to pay $4.00 on a $4,000 dollar claim filed by a hospital or doctor.

You are probably right Tex.

My point is. I don't care if anyone has health insurance, if you don't want it don't get it.

Counter to that point is the fact those uninsured go to the emergency room for treatment of everything, from a belly ache to heart attack. The ER is an expensive way of dealing with routine treatments and things that are not an "emergency". People cannot be refused treatment from an emergency room. That is why the uninsured go there, clog the system and we pay for it.

These two facts exist and nothing will change that under our current system. With or without Obama-Care.

If tax funded, merit based scholarships funded healthcare worker's education for everything from LPNs to brain surgeons those graduates could repay their education funding by providing free or near-free care (GI-Care). Have these free clinics (GI-Care) right next to the ER and send folks from ER to GI-Care. No insurance? Go to GI-Care. Those of us that pay for our care (with insurance or out of pocket) pay for treatment at the ER, in reality that is a tax, and a hidden tax. You pay for ER treatment - Like it or not.

If you have insurance you can go anywhere that your insurance allows.

Then it truly becomes free choice, and more efficient than the current system.

Insurance is a Red Herring. Attention should be focused on health care, not insurance.

I know saying tax funded will send some folks off, but they need to face the reality of our situation.

 

[slick4591]

I hate anything that's crammed down my throat, but this could be something beneficial to me and my wife. She's looking to retire in a couple of years and is really only working now because of the insurance. Also, there's a decent amount added to her retirement if she waits until she has 30 years, so that's another reason. She now pays a little over $300.00 a month for medical insurance for us both. When she retires it would jump up to almost $1300.00 a month to keep the same coverage. Right now I'm riding the fence on this and trying to learn more.

One thing for sure is I won't go without medical insurance if I can absolutely help it. Previous illnesses for both of us tell me it's not a good way for me to be.

 

[JSCATTLE]

One of the problems I have is it's a % of your income . Not everyone will be paying their share . Just like all taxes I'll end up paying for someone that doesn't work .

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Boys, I'm afraid if you think this whole mess is going to save you money and or increase the amount of care you receive, I think you better really look it over. Most every time when something seems to good to be true, it is.

When has the government been more efficient at anything? Look at all the waste with every other program- welfare? Look at all the fraud in medicare and medicaid. All we are doing is putting them all on steroids.

You want efficiency, look at veterinary medicine. Yes people will have added costs for several reasons but a dog can have back surgery for a bulging disc for ~$3500. That is myelogram, surgery, after care, equipment, supplies and such with a healthy profit. Mark it up 1000x and there is no way it shouldn't cover the cost of human health care.

The biggest difference is that dog 1 isn't paying for dog 2, dog 3, dog4, and dog 5 and the lack of attorneys. And the attorneys is probably a bigger problem than the other dogs.

The sad thing is that the broken system we have had, is better than where we are headed.

Anyone in favor of this system is a socialist. We are now an official socialistic country.


There is never an endless supply of anything. So now we are bound to pay for everyone's health care. Let me ask all of you that are in favor, when the amount of care exceeds the amount of available dollars, do you wish to:

A. Tack it on the national debt.
B. Deny individuals needed care with there being no difference between the ones paying for coverage vs those that have not contributed a dime.
C. Raise our taxes further
D. Cut the pay scale of our doctors (and nurses) significantly so that the brightest minds no longer see the benefit of accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and spending 12 or more years of their life studying without compensation.

I will also ask you, if you think there was abuse of the ER situation because it was free, what do you think is going to occur with the entire system now that it is free. How is spreading the infection systemically going to help us?

We all want health, but when it comes down to it, we don't have a right to someone else's property. And that is what has occurred.

We need to get the government out of health care, we need lawyers out of health care. The decisions need to be left up to the doctors and the patient.

With power comes corruption and with absolute power comes absolute corruption. Our health care in its entirety has been handed over to a very few with absolute power.


Jogee,

I'm truly curious. Your friends from Britain, how long do they have to wait to get in to the doctor? And then how long do they have to wait for specialized testing or procedures? Most things I've heard from Canada and such is that the wait on a lot of procedures is much longer than they had before. Heard some horror stories about people not being diagnosed in time.

Sorry for the long post, but this scares the crap out of me.

 

[TexasBred]

One of the problems I have is it's a % of your income . Not everyone will be paying their share . Just like all taxes I'll end up paying for someone that doesn't work .

JS but to those sorry sob's tht is your fair share.

 

[backhoeboogie]

I hate anything that's crammed down my throat, but this could be something beneficial to me and my wife. She's looking to retire in a couple of years and is really only working now because of the insurance. Also, there's a decent amount added to her retirement if she waits until she has 30 years, so that's another reason. She now pays a little over $300.00 a month for medical insurance for us both. When she retires it would jump up to almost $1300.00 a month to keep the same coverage. Right now I'm riding the fence on this and trying to learn more.

One thing for sure is I won't go without medical insurance if I can absolutely help it. Previous illnesses for both of us tell me it's not a good way for me to be.

There's a whole bunch of us who turned down better paying jobs to stay with a company who had retirement and retirement insurance. You cannot go back and change that.

We're hosed.

 

[Jogeephus]

I'm truly curious. Your friends from Britain, how long do they have to wait to get in to the doctor? And then how long do they have to wait for specialized testing or procedures? Most things I've heard from Canada and such is that the wait on a lot of procedures is much longer than they had before. Heard some horror stories about people not being diagnosed in time.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from because I do not like the idea of any mandates whatsoever nor do I think our government has enough politicians on either side of the isle that truly cares about anything other than their own self-serving interests. I also see this as a way of gaining more control over us. Another erosion of State's rights and a lot more stuff that I needn't get into such as the limit to their control of our everyday lives.

But if we are going to have it I thought I'd ask those who do have it and get their sentiments straight from the horses mouth per se. Keep in mind, I have very few liberal friends for some reason so these views aren't coming from what I'd call liberals. Here is a reply that Roy sent me concerning his own personal experience.

My son was born with a diaphramatic hernia (basically his stomach was in his chest). At 24hrs old, the NHS reconstructed his diaphram and put everything back where it should be. He then had renal failure and was on dialysis for 3 weeks. Then his bowel burst, then they found he had Spherosytosis(sp?) so he had to have a spleenectomy (sp?). Since, he has had to have several operations to repair damaged bits and bobs stemming from the original problem and he is constantly monitored. He is now 23!

At 40, I was diagnosed with bowel cancer. Despite having the op cancelled 3 times (due to other emergency cases) I was operated on within 2 weeks of diagnosis. I was hopitalised for 9 weeks. I am still having follow up's.
This year my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. She has had surgery, and radiotherapy. She continues to be treated

All this, and no-one has ever mentioned money, funding or reward. I wonder how much this lot would have cost in the US?

Yes, our NHS has problems. But its the best health service in the world. On non-urgent suff you will be put to the back of the queue, but if its urgent, or involves kids, the job is done immediately

If the proposed service comes even close to ours Joe, you are gonna benefit by much more than you could ever hope to pay in to it mate

The NHS is probably one of the only things in the UK we can feel justly proud of

I'd also got some clarification on the 11%. Included in this amount is also the tax for welfare where ours is hidden in the Department of Agriculture's budget their's is in this tax so - since we are already paying for the deadbeat society it would stand to reason that our insurance cost would be lower than their's .. but our politicians never cease to amaze me.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

Jo its time to think like Popcorn.

 

[Jogeephus]

I've already picked out an island. :nod:

 

[Isomade]

I'm truly curious. Your friends from Britain, how long do they have to wait to get in to the doctor? And then how long do they have to wait for specialized testing or procedures? Most things I've heard from Canada and such is that the wait on a lot of procedures is much longer than they had before. Heard some horror stories about people not being diagnosed in time.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from because I do not like the idea of any mandates whatsoever nor do I think our government has enough politicians on either side of the isle that truly cares about anything other than their own self-serving interests. I also see this as a way of gaining more control over us. Another erosion of State's rights and a lot more stuff that I needn't get into such as the limit to their control of our everyday lives.

But if we are going to have it I thought I'd ask those who do have it and get their sentiments straight from the horses mouth per se. Keep in mind, I have very few liberal friends for some reason so these views aren't coming from what I'd call liberals. Here is a reply that Roy sent me concerning his own personal experience.

My son was born with a diaphramatic hernia (basically his stomach was in his chest). At 24hrs old, the NHS reconstructed his diaphram and put everything back where it should be. He then had renal failure and was on dialysis for 3 weeks. Then his bowel burst, then they found he had Spherosytosis(sp?) so he had to have a spleenectomy (sp?). Since, he has had to have several operations to repair damaged bits and bobs stemming from the original problem and he is constantly monitored. He is now 23!

At 40, I was diagnosed with bowel cancer. Despite having the op cancelled 3 times (due to other emergency cases) I was operated on within 2 weeks of diagnosis. I was hopitalised for 9 weeks. I am still having follow up's.
This year my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. She has had surgery, and radiotherapy. She continues to be treated

All this, and no-one has ever mentioned money, funding or reward. I wonder how much this lot would have cost in the US?

Yes, our NHS has problems. But its the best health service in the world. On non-urgent suff you will be put to the back of the queue, but if its urgent, or involves kids, the job is done immediately

If the proposed service comes even close to ours Joe, you are gonna benefit by much more than you could ever hope to pay in to it mate

The NHS is probably one of the only things in the UK we can feel justly proud of

I'd also got some clarification on the 11%. Included in this amount is also the tax for welfare where ours is hidden in the Department of Agriculture's budget their's is in this tax so - since we are already paying for the deadbeat society it would stand to reason that our insurance cost would be lower than their's .. but our politicians never cease to amaze me.

Yea, that part where no one mentioned "money". It ain't gonna work like that here. Don't worry about looking for a silver lining, there ain't one.

 

[Ouachita]

Boys, I'm afraid if you think this whole mess is going to save you money and or increase the amount of care you receive, I think you better really look it over. Most every time when something seems to good to be true, it is.

When has the government been more efficient at anything? Look at all the waste with every other program- welfare? Look at all the fraud in medicare and medicaid. All we are doing is putting them all on steroids.

You want efficiency, look at veterinary medicine. Yes people will have added costs for several reasons but a dog can have back surgery for a bulging disc for ~$3500. That is myelogram, surgery, after care, equipment, supplies and such with a healthy profit. Mark it up 1000x and there is no way it shouldn't cover the cost of human health care.

The biggest difference is that dog 1 isn't paying for dog 2, dog 3, dog4, and dog 5 and the lack of attorneys. And the attorneys is probably a bigger problem than the other dogs.

The sad thing is that the broken system we have had, is better than where we are headed.

Anyone in favor of this system is a socialist. We are now an official socialistic country.


There is never an endless supply of anything. So now we are bound to pay for everyone's health care. Let me ask all of you that are in favor, when the amount of care exceeds the amount of available dollars, do you wish to:

A. Tack it on the national debt.
B. Deny individuals needed care with there being no difference between the ones paying for coverage vs those that have not contributed a dime.
C. Raise our taxes further
D. Cut the pay scale of our doctors (and nurses) significantly so that the brightest minds no longer see the benefit of accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and spending 12 or more years of their life studying without compensation.

I will also ask you, if you think there was abuse of the ER situation because it was free, what do you think is going to occur with the entire system now that it is free. How is spreading the infection systemically going to help us?

We all want health, but when it comes down to it, we don't have a right to someone else's property. And that is what has occurred.

We need to get the government out of health care, we need lawyers out of health care. The decisions need to be left up to the doctors and the patient.

With power comes corruption and with absolute power comes absolute corruption. Our health care in its entirety has been handed over to a very few with absolute power.


Jogee,

I'm truly curious. Your friends from Britain, how long do they have to wait to get in to the doctor? And then how long do they have to wait for specialized testing or procedures? Most things I've heard from Canada and such is that the wait on a lot of procedures is much longer than they had before. Heard some horror stories about people not being diagnosed in time.

Sorry for the long post, but this scares the crap out of me.

Very well said. Thank you

 

[Jogeephus]

Yea, that part where no one mentioned "money". It ain't gonna work like that here. Don't worry about looking for a silver lining, there ain't one.

I don't believe it will here either. We have two powerful groups pitting each against the middle. I do dream nice dreams of my actually getting something in return for the huge amount of money I pay in each year.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

If you really want to know what it is all about think about this, where does it say in the entire 2500 pages that it will add 1 doctor to our system? However, you can find where it will add 16,000 IRS agents. There is a good quote by Trump about this I need to find.