Nuns Urge Passage Of Health Care Bill

[BG45]

*coughs* My apologies folks, I gave you some bad info because the Associated Press didn't feel like following the guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists' ethics guidelines.

http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com/2010/03/white-house-tweets-bad-info-on-catholic.html

Far less of an endorsement than reported.

[StMichael]

Thank you Lord!

[quote name='BG45' date='18 March 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1268957472' post='2075416']
*coughs* My apologies folks, I gave you some bad info because the Associated Press didn't feel like following the guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists' ethics guidelines.

http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com/2010/03/white-house-tweets-bad-info-on-catholic.html

Far less of an endorsement than reported.
[/quote]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='18 March 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1268956472' post='2075408']
Wow. Where to begin with this Alice in Wonderland rant?

1. "Democrats haven't kept any of the things they promised in it." Not true. They promised universal health care coverage. They are doing it by mandate. You WILL buy insurance or else! And you WILL subsidize (That is the government stealing money from one group of people to give to another.) insurance that pays for abortions.

2. "Republicans are playing kindergarten non-coop games and throwing eggs at the whole process..." Why should they go along? They do not agree with it. Should they go along to get along or stand up for what's right, and that's to stand against this tripe piece of legislation? If anyone is jacking with the process, it's the democrats for figuring out a way to avoid a vote and push this beast through procedurally. It's the democrats who have been speaking of "nuclear option" and pass by "reconciliation." Those options shout non-coop.

3. "... without adding anything remotely helpful." The republicans have offered tons of reform, but they can't bring them to the table because a) Obama wants HIS bill to pass, b) they don't have the numbers to get their amendments passed. The people have given Mama Obama (Please take care of us!) his Politburo. [url="http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/RSC_Health_Care_Bills_Compilation--Late_February.pdf"]Here are 70+ ideas[/url].

4. "filibustering stuff any self respecting government" The democrats have the votes to break a filibuster. Of course, a prominent figure talking about filibustering is Lieberman, a non-republican. I don't see anything wrong with a filibuster if it is to stop a bill that detrimentally alter 1/6 of our economy.
[/quote]

first off, did you actually get the impression i was happy with the democrats? alice in wonderland? wth are you smoking?

universal health care is now not the same as they promised, a public option or single payer system is NOT in it. so yeah, thats not there anymore, the new making everyone deal with the still corrupt health insurance companies, would be like getting kicked in the crotch while you are down.

they should try and go along with some of it, because at this point, they scream the same volume at no matter what the Democrats say, even if its reccomendng chocolate ice cream at the lunch break, so since it doesnt make ANY difference what the liberal government proposes(because no matter what it will have Zero support from republicans) they might as wellnot pay any attention to them at all and do whatever they want to.

which they would do if they had the stones to do so. but they dont, so we are stuck with no movement whatsoever instead of any kind of cooperative motion.
there has been a few small examples of repubs and democrats working together to get stuff done, but unfortunately they are in the minority.

Lieberman is a media hungry idiot. yes the democrats have the votes, did ou not notice me saying they are idiots for not getting their act together and using them?

and this filibuster is not even close to what it originally was, with people staying despite lack of food, talking constantly and staying in the room for hours and hours. this is lazy politicians saying "well, i got nothing, but i dont like that either, so im gonna call a filibuster and go get lunch"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='18 March 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1268956472' post='2075408']
. . . They are doing it by mandate. [b]You WILL buy insurance or else![/b] And you WILL subsidize (That is the government stealing money from one group of people to give to another.) insurance that pays for abortions.

. . .
[/quote]
This is truly sad, I am opposed to any health care "reform" that requires a person to buy health insurance against his will.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Apotheoun

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='nunsense' date='18 March 2010 - 05:02 AM' timestamp='1268899347' post='2075043']
What's really sad is that not all of the religious sisters in those communities want to defy their Bishops but their superiors (or Leadership Teams) are the ones who are pushing this. One of them asked (on another forum) what she should do and I suggested she write to her Bishop giving her support, but I realize this is probably a very difficult thing to do when one doesn't want to offend the superior or other sisters who might support the superior. This Apostolic Visitation is definitely needed!
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that obedience to our bishops is absolute in matters of theology, morality, ethics, and faith, and obedience in these matters shapes our decisions elsewhere. When it comes to politics, if the sisters are supporting this bill because they understand it would not provide taxpayer funding for abortion, then they are obeying our bishops on the ethical issue even if they disagree with the official USCCB stance.

Their rationalization is stated clearly here: "We agree that there shouldn't be any federal funding of abortion," said Sister Simone Campbell, of Sisters of Social Service, and also executive director of Network, the national Catholic group behind the effort. "From our reading of the bill, there isn't any federal funding of abortion."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/what-pro-life-emreallyem_b_504259.html

Personally, I'm leaning towards siding with the sisters on this one, especially since I believe our healthcare system requires the kind of overhaul that only true desperation will bring about.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='18 March 2010 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1268964506' post='2075466']
Personally, I'm leaning towards siding with the sisters on this one, especially since I believe our healthcare system requires the kind of overhaul that only true desperation will bring about.
[/quote]
Incremental reform would be far better than the proposed total destruction of the existing system. I do not trust the federal government enough to allow it to control 1/6 of the economy. It is important to remember that the Obama administration has increased the deficit in two years by almost as much as the Bush administration in eight years. Government control of health care will insure one thing, i.e., that everyone receives the same low quality care as federal bureaucrats ration care to various constituencies.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Apotheoun

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 March 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1268963839' post='2075463']
first off, did you actually get the impression i was happy with the democrats? alice in wonderland? wth are you smoking?[/quote]
Sorry. I was caught up in the emotion of your post. That's what I was smoking.

[quote]universal health care is now not the same as they promised, a public option or single payer system is NOT in it. so yeah, thats not there anymore, the new making everyone deal with the still corrupt health insurance companies, would be like getting kicked in the crotch while you are down.

they should try and go along with some of it, because at this point, they scream the same volume at no matter what the Democrats say, even if its reccomendng chocolate ice cream at the lunch break, so since it doesnt make ANY difference what the liberal government proposes(because no matter what it will have Zero support from republicans) they might as wellnot pay any attention to them at all and do whatever they want to.

which they would do if they had the stones to do so. but they dont, so we are stuck with no movement whatsoever instead of any kind of cooperative motion.
there has been a few small examples of repubs and democrats working together to get stuff done, but unfortunately they are in the minority.

Lieberman is a media hungry idiot. yes the democrats have the votes, did ou not notice me saying they are idiots for not getting their act together and using them?

and this filibuster is not even close to what it originally was, with people staying despite lack of food, talking constantly and staying in the room for hours and hours. this is lazy politicians saying "well, i got nothing, but i dont like that either, so im gonna call a filibuster and go get lunch"
[/quote]
Obama has been captured on video saying a single payer system is the eventual goal, but didn't make promises it would be immediate. He'll wants his socialism and believes he'll get in the way democrats have done it for decades, incrementally.

Health insurance companies are corrupt? How so? Are they more or less corrupt than the government? Or is government incorruptible?

Despite the way things appear now, repubs and dems have voted mostly together on some legislation, sometimes for the better and sometimes not.

The reason nothing is moving is because democrats can't get their party to march in lock step. (Goose-step?) The republicans do not have the numbers on their own to stop Obama's demands (Not wishes.). Some democrats still have principles and believe in the American spirit. Others are waiting for their back room deals like the Louisiana purchase and the Corn husker kickback. But hey, we can overlook those nasties. It's all the republicans' fault.

I didn't believe you were a democrat supporter, but did see you were blaming republicans for legislation constipation when if they are defending America from Obama, I'm all for it.

I too wish the filibusters were like the ones on Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Edited March 19, 2010 by kamiller42

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='18 March 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1268969323' post='2075511']
Sorry. I was caught up in the emotion of your post. That's what I smoking.


Obama has been captured on video saying a single payer system is the eventual goal, but didn't make promises it would be immediate. He'll wants his socialism and believes he'll get in the way democrats have done it for decades, incrementally.

Health insurance companies are corrupt? How so? Are the more or less corrupt than government? Or is government incorruptible?

Despite the way things appear now, repubs and dems have voted mostly together on some legislation, sometimes for the better and sometimes not.

The reason nothing is moving is because democrats can't get their party to march in lock step. (Goose-step?) The republicans do not have the numbers are their own to stop Obama's demands (Not wishes.). Some democrats still have principles and believe in the American spirit. Others are waiting for their back room deals like the Louisiana purchase and the Corn husker kickback. But hey, we can overlook those nasties. It's all the republicans' fault.

I didn't believe you were a democrat supporter, but did see you were blaming republicans for legislation constipation when if they are defending America from Obama, I'm all for it.

I too wish the filibusters were like the ones on Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
[/quote]

health insurance companies are corrupt because of their insane rate hikes and that they spend most of that income on people whos only job is to exclude people from receiving the medical care that they have been paying for, by whatever technicality they can find. their goal is to make money, and by that regard they are doing well.
but they should be replaced with a system that has keeping the citizens healthy as its main goal, not bottom line profits.

so far the system in canada works pretty well. no one goes bankrupt from medical fees, and noone dies because of "preexisting conditions" or other small print denying them treatment. and it keeps the prices at a pretty good level. im sure someone somewhere makes a bit of money off it, but not nearly as bad as the private companies down south, and with a lot less sick and dying people.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='19 March 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1268970106' post='2075516']
health insurance companies are corrupt because of their insane rate hikes and that they spend most of that income on people whos only job is to exclude people from receiving the medical care that they have been paying for, by whatever technicality they can find. their goal is to make money, and by that regard they are doing well.
but they should be replaced with a system that has keeping the citizens healthy as its main goal, not bottom line profits.

so far the system in canada works pretty well. no one goes bankrupt from medical fees, and noone dies because of "preexisting conditions" or other small print denying them treatment. and it keeps the prices at a pretty good level. im sure someone somewhere makes a bit of money off it, but not nearly as bad as the private companies down south, and with a lot less sick and dying people.
[/quote]
Believe it or not health insurances companies actually have a very low profit margin compared to other industries.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='18 March 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1268970236' post='2075519']
Believe it or not health insurances companies actually have a very low profit margin compared to other industries.
[/quote]

i find that very difficult to believe. considering how much they spend on lobbyists and congress, the inflated rates, the low return rates(cause of rejecting people).

what about the pharmaceutical companies? that sell stuff in the USA for astronomically high prices compared to other countries?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='19 March 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1268970747' post='2075525']
i find that very difficult to believe. considering how much they spend on lobbyists and congress, the inflated rates, the low return rates(cause of rejecting people).

what about the pharmaceutical companies? that sell stuff in the USA for astronomically high prices compared to other countries?
[/quote]
I did too until I saw it published in Business Week.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Now, I'm a Republican, but in name only. Just haven't found a "Catholic" party yet.

Anyway, I've got to say for our Canadian brethren whose obviously superior news is reporting about how the Republicans have done nothing constructive, well, it's hard to do that when you don't have a majority and until recently, thanks to Massachusetts, didn't really have any voice. Well I know that tons of Republicans have advocated tort reform, which would fix a whole mess of things. Of course, they'd contribute a lot more if they'd listen to what their constituents want and secede from the darn union already!!! We could be like Canada, but with a less knowledgeable and less honest media.

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='18 March 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1268970236' post='2075519']
Believe it or not health insurances companies actually have a very low profit margin compared to other industries.
[/quote]


[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 March 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1268970747' post='2075525']
i find that very difficult to believe. considering how much they spend on lobbyists and congress, the inflated rates, the low return rates(cause of rejecting people).

what about the pharmaceutical companies? that sell stuff in the USA for astronomically high prices compared to other countries?
[/quote]

Anyone remember back in '07 when there was all that hype about the oil companies making way to much because they were breaking "record highs"? Their margins were extremely small compared to other companies. Exxon Mobil and Chevron both had margins of only 9% or less, yet the media smeared them and completely ignored companies like: Microsoft (28%), eBay(20%), Johnson & Johnson (19%), Google (19%), and McDonald's (18%). This means that the oil companies [i]made less per dollar[/i] than most every other public company! My point is whenever someone says something to the effect that a certain industry/company is making to much; they need to do the math, most companies have fairly small margins.

P.S. by the figures I just stated Exxon only made nine cents on every dollar they received, while Microsoft made twenty eight cents on every dollar. Quite a contrast, yet the media ignored the latter.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Raphael' date='18 March 2010 - 09:00 PM' timestamp='1268971244' post='2075532']
Now, I'm a Republican, but in name only. Just haven't found a "Catholic" party yet.

Anyway, I've got to say for our Canadian brethren whose obviously superior news is reporting about how the Republicans have done nothing constructive, well, it's hard to do that when you don't have a majority and until recently, thanks to Massachusetts, didn't really have any voice. Well I know that tons of Republicans have advocated tort reform, which would fix a whole mess of things. Of course, they'd contribute a lot more if they'd listen to what their constituents want and secede from the darn union already!!! We could be like Canada, but with a less knowledgeable and less honest media.
[/quote]

you take real offense that i dont particularily like the republican party, eh?

well, its true. our news up here is much less sensationalist or obviously biased(not like it doesnt have its problems but we dont really have the equivalents of msnbc or fox news)

everyone seems too read what they want to. if you were to actually read the very short little rant of mine, you would find i hardly hold the republicans solely at fault. actually think the Dems have it the worst right now.

[StMichael]

Most companies in the USA see a profit of some 10-12% annually. Yes, there are plenty who do much better, but that would be around the average.

Health insurance companies average 2.2% per year. Far below the norm. Bring a child to life, costs upwards over $100K, yet our premium for that year would be $5K. And with an aging population, they require many more visits to the doctor, hospital, etc.

As for the drug companies in the US, who develop 99% of all new medicines for the rest of the world, the FDA is a killer. Drug companies spend millions, billions to get one drug through (others may fail, etc.). They are not a charity, but being we have the world's best development for drugs, it costs money for research, testing, FDA, etc. Something Canada has nothing to worry about as they develop nothing nor does the UK or anywhere else socialized medicine exists.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 March 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1268970747' post='2075525']
i find that very difficult to believe. considering how much they spend on lobbyists and congress, the inflated rates, the low return rates(cause of rejecting people).

what about the pharmaceutical companies? that sell stuff in the USA for astronomically high prices compared to other countries?
[/quote]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='BG45' date='17 March 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1268840295' post='2074565']
[url="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_Ug4ob_BnBCfuvKzjuWhiHTk8ZQD9EGE7JO0"]Catholic Nuns urge passage of health care bill[/url]



Just a wee bit disobedient to the Bishops there...
[/quote]


[quote name='BG45' date='18 March 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1268957472' post='2075416']
*coughs* My apologies folks, I gave you some bad info because the Associated Press didn't feel like following the guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists' ethics guidelines.

http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com/2010/03/white-house-tweets-bad-info-on-catholic.html

Far less of an endorsement than reported.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
thanks for posting that...i was going to because i hadn't seen it yet.