Senate Health Care Bill Includes Deep Cuts to Medicaid

[Dashinka 25,887]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

Taxing churches does not curtail free exercise of religion. People are still free to worship and practice their chosen religion. You could also argue that taxing business or individuals curtail their pursuit of happiness.

 

I see the argument you're making, and I understand it, but seriously, when you think of it, a church is not a requirement for the free practice of religion. 

You are absolutely correct, a church is not required for practicing religion, but what is being suggested is just another tax of the people that use a facility (defined as a church or any other house of worship).  So in effect wouldn't taxing a church simply be taxing the people using it and their practice of religion?  In other words, the government would be forcing me to choose in practicing my religion in private tax free, or paying a tax to gather with those practicing the same religion.  If I were a regular church goer, I would probably choose the tax free option and stop going to church for my religious practice thereby drying up that revenue stream.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

You are absolutely correct, a church is not required for practicing religion, but what is being suggested is just another tax of the people that use a facility (defined as a church or any other house of worship).  So in effect wouldn't taxing a church simply be taxing the people using it and their practice of religion?  In other words, the government would be forcing me to choose in practicing my religion in private tax free, or paying a tax to gather with those practicing the same religion.  If I were a regular church goer, I would probably choose the tax free option and stop going to church for my religious practice thereby drying up that revenue stream.

So are we going to have a individual mandate to tax people that go to churches now? I am not saying tax people that go to church but to tax the church itself. 

[Dashinka 25,887]

1 minute ago, cyberfx1024 said:

So are we going to have a individual mandate to tax people that go to churches now? I am not saying tax people that go to church but to tax the church itself. 

Where does a churches money come from?  

[CaliCat 3,957]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

You are absolutely correct, a church is not required for practicing religion, but what is being suggested is just another tax of the people that use a facility (defined as a church or any other house of worship).  So in effect wouldn't taxing a church simply be taxing the people using it and their practice of religion?  In other words, the government would be forcing me to choose in practicing my religion in private tax free, or paying a tax to gather with those practicing the same religion.  If I were a regular church goer, I would probably choose the tax free option and stop going to church for my religious practice thereby drying up that revenue stream.

 

And that is what is at the center of the argument. Not everyone agrees 100% on how their tax money is disposed of, and that's the price/advantage of living in a democracy. We can argue the churches provide a service to churchgoers as PP provides a service to many women, who have no other resort.

 

In the healthcare context, we live in a country where we should be able to have health care - every last one of us, and I believe we would all be better off if every American were covered. That's where I think the ACA stopped short, and where this new bill will get us even farther away from. 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Where does a churches money come from?  

I know where it comes from, but you are saying to tax the people going to that church. All I am saying is pay a flat tax for each church, not one that is based on money coming in or how many people that are members of that church. 

[IAMX 3,055]

I have no idea how this discussion switched to taxing churches (non profit) but this is a massive red herring to distract from the fact that many taxpayers don't want to pay for people's abortions neither should they have to. I wouldn't take the bait @Bill & Katyaand @cyberfx1024. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

In the healthcare context, we live in a country where we should be able to have health care - every last one of us, and I believe we would all be better off if every American were covered. That's where I think the ACA stopped short, and where this new bill will get us even farther away from. 

 

Because there are two main arguments with healthcare:

 

The first argument involves with people on the Left who want a European style health care systems such as in Canada/Britian/Nordic Countries. The problem with that is a number of times people don't wait to X amount of months for a operation or the specific kind of doctor is not available so then they have to travel to somewhere like the USA for treatement. 

 

The second argument involves people on the Right who want literally only want either Preventive, Catastrophic, or no care at all. The problem with that is that there are many issues with either one of those there are set backs such as people that have preventive care suddenly get cancer then can't afford the treatment. The person with catastrophic care never got preventive care like a physical blood work and missed out on catching the Stage 4 cancer when he/she could have done something about it when it was Stage 1 or 2. No care you have to pay out of pocket for everything, the good thing with that is alot of times you can negotiate the price down for something paying in cash.

 

The problem is trying to meld both of these sides together in a compromise situation. 

[Teddy B 17,252]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I have no idea how this discussion switched to taxing churches (non profit) but this is a massive red herring to distract from the fact that many taxpayers don't want to pay for people's abortions neither should they have to. I wouldn't take the bait @Bill & Katyaand @cyberfx1024. 

[Dashinka 25,887]

6 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

I know where it comes from, but you are saying to tax the people going to that church. All I am saying is pay a flat tax for each church, not one that is based on money coming in or how many people that are members of that church. 

I wasn't suggesting taxing the people going to church, I was suggesting that taxing a church is a hidden tax on those going to church or using it for religious purposes.  

 

Even with a flat tax on a church would be passed on to the members of that church as they have to get the tax money from somewhere which would probably drive many churches to close and members to join huge mega churches to reduce their own tax burden.

[Dashinka 25,887]

3 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Those MOR folks!

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Because there are two main arguments with healthcare:

 

The first argument involves with people on the Left who want a European style health care systems such as in Canada/Britian/Nordic Countries. The problem with that is a number of times people don't wait to X amount of months for a operation or the specific kind of doctor is not available so then they have to travel to somewhere like the USA for treatement. 

 

The second argument involves people on the Right who want literally only want either Preventive, Catastrophic, or no care at all. The problem with that is that there are many issues with either one of those there are set backs such as people that have preventive care suddenly get cancer then can't afford the treatment. The person with catastrophic care never got preventive care like a physical blood work and missed out on catching the Stage 4 cancer when he/she could have done something about it when it was Stage 1 or 2. No care you have to pay out of pocket for everything, the good thing with that is alot of times you can negotiate the price down for something paying in cash.

 

The problem is trying to meld both of these sides together in a compromise situation. 

Therein lies the problem that both parties wish to give mandates to the insurance industry. I'll take Rand Paul's statement one step further and suggest this will always result in higher prices, the more government gets involved via the insurance industry.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Because there are two main arguments with healthcare:

 

The first argument involves with people on the Left who want a European style health care systems such as in Canada/Britian/Nordic Countries. The problem with that is a number of times people don't wait to X amount of months for a operation or the specific kind of doctor is not available so then they have to travel to somewhere like the USA for treatement. 

 

The second argument involves people on the Right who want literally only want either Preventive, Catastrophic, or no care at all. The problem with that is that there are many issues with either one of those there are set backs such as people that have preventive care suddenly get cancer then can't afford the treatment. The person with catastrophic care never got preventive care like a physical blood work and missed out on catching the Stage 4 cancer when he/she could have done something about it when it was Stage 1 or 2. No care you have to pay out of pocket for everything, the good thing with that is alot of times you can negotiate the price down for something paying in cash.

 

The problem is trying to meld both of these sides together in a compromise situation. 

 

You get no argument from me there, and I think we need to find an American system, that addresses both issues. 

 

I think it's awful to have to wait for treatment, but that is already the case for many Americans who don't have health insurance, or who can't afford to pay, and have to rely on visits to the ER when things get bad. I posit that with a pan-American healthcare system, people would have access to preventative care, and a lot of ailments would not develop into later stages, where they are more expensive to be treated. And I would also posit that many people in America do have to wait for treatment, because they depend on their insurance company's bureaucracy to approve certain type of treatments. 

To the second group, I'd say that catastrophic coverage alone will not resolve it, because there are diseases that develop so insidiously that unless they're identified in their early stages, they will most likely be too expensive to treat.

 

We have to start somewhere. 

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Those MOR folks!

 

 

I guess that when you're clueless, everywhere looks like the middle of the road. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

12 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

for real! did you know the op was about abortion and planned parenthood?!

[CaliCat 3,957]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

for real! did you know the op was about abortion and planned parenthood?!

 

 

LOL.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by CaliCat

[Teddy B 17,252]

15 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

for real! did you know the op was about abortion and planned parenthood?!

I wouldn't take the bait @smilesammich @CaliCat.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Teddy B