Pages: 1 … 199 200 201 202 203 … 696

 

2012-02-03 12:24:13
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I thought his argument was valid. If a hospital wants public money they should have to play by the same rules as public hospitals. Simple solution - call yourself an 'x religion' hospital and dont accept private money.
Except every hospital is forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as any non-insured jackass off the street.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 12:29:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6863|North Carolina

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Actually you did get it you just don't give a f*ck because you hate religion More than you care about people 's rights
I don't care about the supposed right to restrict people based on a tradition or belief system.

If you want to restrict your own behavior, that's fine.  When your traditions start affecting other people, that's where I draw the line.

We have a rather monopolistic medical system to begin with, so when a city with an already limited medical market is limited in its services due to some inane tradition, yes, I do prefer to intervene.
No, it's not monopolistic. People work at the hospital voluntarily. If the hospital wanted to ban its employees from smoking on the premises because it cast the hospital in a bad light, would you bitch? No, you'd probably commend them. Same shit. They want to project an image of Catholic purity or whatever. Don't like it? Don't work there.
I was referring to the customers, not the employees, but I'm sure you'll just assume anyone can drive for any distance to get services not provided by the Catholic hospitals.
2012-02-03 12:29:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6863|North Carolina

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I thought his argument was valid. If a hospital wants public money they should have to play by the same rules as public hospitals. Simple solution - call yourself an 'x religion' hospital and dont accept private money.
Except every hospital is forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as any non-insured jackass off the street.
Indeed, but that's probably why they shouldn't be in the medical business to begin with.  Its purpose is to serve, not indoctrinate.

Last edited by Turquoise (2012-02-03 12:30:27)

2012-02-03 12:31:09
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I don't care about the supposed right to restrict people based on a tradition or belief system.

If you want to restrict your own behavior, that's fine.  When your traditions start affecting other people, that's where I draw the line.

We have a rather monopolistic medical system to begin with, so when a city with an already limited medical market is limited in its services due to some inane tradition, yes, I do prefer to intervene.
No, it's not monopolistic. People work at the hospital voluntarily. If the hospital wanted to ban its employees from smoking on the premises because it cast the hospital in a bad light, would you bitch? No, you'd probably commend them. Same shit. They want to project an image of Catholic purity or whatever. Don't like it? Don't work there.
I was referring to the customers, not the employees, but I'm sure you'll just assume anyone can drive for any distance to get services not provided by the Catholic hospitals.
What does that have to do with anything? The blowup is about the government forcing Catholic hospitals to provide health insurance for their employees that goes against what the Catholic faith proscribes. i.e. the hospital will be forced to offer insurance that provides coverage for contraceptives and abortion, which goes against Catholic beliefs.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 12:32:06
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I thought his argument was valid. If a hospital wants public money they should have to play by the same rules as public hospitals. Simple solution - call yourself an 'x religion' hospital and dont accept private money.
Except every hospital is forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as any non-insured jackass off the street.
Indeed, but that's probably why they shouldn't be in the medical business to begin with.  Its purpose is to serve, not indoctrinate.
You clearly didn't read the article and have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for contributing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 12:32:38
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6863|North Carolina

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:


No, it's not monopolistic. People work at the hospital voluntarily. If the hospital wanted to ban its employees from smoking on the premises because it cast the hospital in a bad light, would you bitch? No, you'd probably commend them. Same shit. They want to project an image of Catholic purity or whatever. Don't like it? Don't work there.
I was referring to the customers, not the employees, but I'm sure you'll just assume anyone can drive for any distance to get services not provided by the Catholic hospitals.
What does that have to do with anything? The blowup is about the government forcing Catholic hospitals to provide health insurance for their employees that goes against what the Catholic faith proscribes. i.e. the hospital will be forced to offer insurance that provides coverage for contraceptives and abortion, which goes against Catholic beliefs.
So if I had a religion that believed vaccines were evil, my hospital shouldn't be required to cover them via insurance?
2012-02-03 12:34:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I was referring to the customers, not the employees, but I'm sure you'll just assume anyone can drive for any distance to get services not provided by the Catholic hospitals.
What does that have to do with anything? The blowup is about the government forcing Catholic hospitals to provide health insurance for their employees that goes against what the Catholic faith proscribes. i.e. the hospital will be forced to offer insurance that provides coverage for contraceptives and abortion, which goes against Catholic beliefs.
So if I had a religion that believed vaccines were evil, my hospital shouldn't be required to cover them via insurance?
Nice straw man.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 12:38:38
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|6044

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Indeed, but that's probably why they shouldn't be in the medical business to begin with.  Its purpose is to serve, not indoctrinate.
You clearly didn't read the article and have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for contributing.
Go fuck yourself.
Be careful. He might start reporting you to the mods every time you say something mean to him.
2012-02-03 12:42:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6863|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:


You clearly didn't read the article and have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for contributing.
Go fuck yourself.
Be careful. He might start reporting you to the mods every time you say something mean to him.
It's ok.  I won't bother with him anymore.
2012-02-03 12:45:04
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Go fuck yourself.
Be careful. He might start reporting you to the mods every time you say something mean to him.
It's ok.  I won't bother with him anymore.
You didn't even understand what you were arguing. You somehow thought it was about Catholic hospitals refusing to give contraceptives to their customers or something and that it was somehow related to Bradley Manning and his treason. You just saw Catholic church, got enraged, and didn't stop to actually read anything. Your problem, not mine.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 12:49:26
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7090|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I thought his argument was valid. If a hospital wants public money they should have to play by the same rules as public hospitals. Simple solution - call yourself an 'x religion' hospital and dont accept private money.
Except every hospital is forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as any non-insured jackass off the street.
That's only true if it's a life-threatening injury.
2012-02-03 12:52:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I thought his argument was valid. If a hospital wants public money they should have to play by the same rules as public hospitals. Simple solution - call yourself an 'x religion' hospital and dont accept private money.
Except every hospital is forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as any non-insured jackass off the street.
That's only true if it's a life-threatening injury.
It doesn't matter anyway. The regulation covers all institutions, public and private, whether they take public money or not. Kathleen Sebelius is dictating what your employer has to cover for you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 13:07:47
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7090|949

Right, I was responding to turqs argument. I don't think the regulation should cover every hospital, but I do think if a hospital wants to accept public money they should have to follow the regulation. And employers still have a choice. There's no mandate as far as I know that forces employers to provide health insurance
2012-02-03 14:06:28
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6869|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I thought his argument was valid. If a hospital wants public money they should have to play by the same rules as public hospitals. Simple solution - call yourself an 'x religion' hospital and dont accept private money.
Except every hospital is forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as any non-insured jackass off the street.
Indeed, but that's probably why they shouldn't be in the medical business to begin with.  Its purpose is to serve, not indoctrinate.
My son is seen regularly at a Catholic hospital. Nobody has tried to indoctrinate any of us a single time.

It's not about indoctrination.

And the Catholic issue isn't a hospital. It's the Catholic Church being forced to offer its employees insurance for things that are forbidden under Church doctrine. So the public/private hospital issue is a complete red herring on this issue.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-02-03 14:07:39
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6869|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Right, I was responding to turqs argument. I don't think the regulation should cover every hospital, but I do think if a hospital wants to accept public money they should have to follow the regulation. And employers still have a choice. There's no mandate as far as I know that forces employers to provide health insurance
It's called "Obamacare." That's the root of the discussion. Employers must offer insurance (apparently of a particular flavor), or they will pay fines.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-02-03 15:59:59
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7090|949

I haven't read too much into obamacare, but from what I understand, there's no current requirement for employers to provide their employees with medical insurance. You're saying there is?
2012-02-03 16:33:14
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6869|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I haven't read too much into obamacare, but from what I understand, there's no current requirement for employers to provide their employees with medical insurance. You're saying there is?
Yes. That's the part HHS is using to direct this.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-02-03 16:37:58
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7090|949

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I haven't read too much into obamacare, but from what I understand, there's no current requirement for employers to provide their employees with medical insurance. You're saying there is?
Yes. That's the part HHS is using to direct this.
Do you know the specific part so I can read it?
2012-02-03 16:58:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I haven't read too much into obamacare, but from what I understand, there's no current requirement for employers to provide their employees with medical insurance. You're saying there is?
Beginning in 2014, organizations with more than 50 employees that don't offer affordable coverage will pay a penalty starting at $750 a year per full-time worker under the bill approved by the Senate and House of Representatives.

A proposal approved separately by the House, which still requires Senate approval, would raise that penalty to $2,000.

Employers with 50 or fewer employees would be exempt from these penalties, while organizations with more than 200 workers would be required to enroll workers automatically into health-insurance plans offered by the employer. Employees can opt out of these plans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 03608.html

$2,000 per employee, per year, penalty for not providing (approved) health insurance starting in 2014.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 17:08:28
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7090|949

According to that, there's no current requirement. I guess I'll have to look it up myself
2012-02-03 17:09:52
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

According to that, there's no current requirement. I guess I'll have to look it up myself
The requirement kicks in on January 1st, 2014.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 17:10:06
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6869|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

According to that, there's no current requirement. I guess I'll have to look it up myself
HHS is giving them a year to get in compliance.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-02-03 17:11:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5816|London, England
I hope Sebelius catches cancer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-02-03 17:48:19
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,825|6564|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

I hope Sebelius catches cancer.
Because cancer is contagious
Fuck Israel
2012-02-03 17:48:45
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|7117|BC, Canada
it is now.

 

Pages: 1 … 199 200 201 202 203 … 696

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard